Referral of Aggrieved Person & Procedural Appeal Ordinance Amendments

[Paul Roberts]

Colleagues,

I’ve requested that Council consider referring two proposed ordinance amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission (and, for courtesy input, the Building Standards Commission) for their review and recommendation. These changes are aimed at strengthening the City’s ability to uphold its own procedural requirements prior to the approval or vesting of development-related decisions.

Why This Matters
Currently, our definition of “aggrieved person” in Chapter 14 limits the ability to appeal or flag procedural violations to those who live or own property within 200 feet of a proposed development. In cases where required steps—such as a concept plan, detail plan, or public notice—are missed, and no one within that radius is eligible or aware enough to object, those omissions may go uncorrected. I’m proposing to revise the ordinance to allow broader procedural standing before approvals become final.

What’s Proposed

1. Amend Chapter 14, Section 2.10 (Definitions):
   • Preserve the 200-foot rule for Board of Adjustment appeals (as required by state law),
   • Create a second, narrower definition of “aggrieved person” for procedural complaints—open to any resident or civic group able to allege a credible ordinance violation, but only prior to final approval or vesting.

1. Add a New Article 3.5.200 (Site Development Regulations):
   • Establish a clear, internal process where these pre-approval procedural concerns can be reviewed by the City Manager or referred to the appropriate body—without triggering litigation, post-approval delay, or conflicts with state vesting laws.

Next Steps
The draft language is included in the packet. The request before Council is simply to refer the item to P&Z for formal consideration and invite BSC to provide input on the procedural review mechanism proposed for Chapter 3.5.

This initiative is about ensuring that our own ordinances are meaningfully enforced and that we have a way to address process issues before they become finalized and irreversible. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or feedback before the meeting.

— Paul

 

[Paul Roberts]

Colleagues,

As a follow-up to my prior message regarding a proposed referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission, I wanted to share an updated version of the referral packet that will appear on our June 27 Council agenda.

This update reflects important feedback from our City Secretary, Susie, who correctly noted that several procedural appeal pathways exist in Chapter 14 beyond those initially identified—particularly within the zoning application and PDD sections. Her insight helped uncover a few oversights that prompted a more focused and accurate rewrite.

What’s changed?

• The proposal now targets only Chapter 14 (Zoning), removing references to other Chapters that don't presently include the term “aggrieved person.”
• The revised language includes:
  
  • A proposed amendment to Section 2.10 (Definitions) to broaden standing for pre-approval procedural appeals;
  • A proposed new Section 11.80, creating a mechanism for residents to raise procedural violations (e.g., missing notices or incomplete filings) before a zoning change, plat, or development application is finalized.

This is not about empowering post-approval challenges or injecting delay into development timelines. It’s about ensuring procedural integrity—before any rights vest or approvals are granted.

The Planning & Zoning Commission (and potentially the Building & Standards Commission, depending on future scope) will review the draft language and advise on proper structure, placement, and safeguards. The attached “Proposed Ordinance Concept Language” and excerpts from relevant sections of Chapter 14 will help guide that review.

As always, I welcome your questions or thoughts ahead of the meeting.