Joint Board Training Session for Architectural and Historic Board of Review, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, and Planning Commission – May 8, 2026

This was a joint training workshop for members of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review (AHBR), the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA), and the Planning Commission (PC). City Solicitor Marshall Pitchburg facilitated the session, which aimed to improve inter-board understanding, discuss onboarding practices, review the quasi-judicial responsibilities of each board, consider a new code of conduct, and refine the handling of findings of fact. Council President Mike Byrd opened the meeting, emphasizing the value of continuing education for board members.

Discussion Items

• Onboarding Process Improvements:

  • Members suggested several enhancements to the current onboarding for new board members, including: providing a flowchart of the application and appeal process; offering case studies (real or hypothetical) that walk through the decision-making steps; allowing new members to shadow outgoing or experienced members; incorporating an exit interview to capture institutional knowledge; and creating a “chair packet” with guidance on Robert’s Rules of Order and meeting management.
  • Sarah Norman (PC) recommended that new members be briefed on active applications before their first meeting to avoid being unprepared. Bob Dyer (BZBA) proposed asking candidates during interviews whether they have watched a meeting of the board they are applying for, to gauge their familiarity.

• Powers and Duties of Quasi-Judicial Boards:

  • Pitchburg explained that all three boards act in a quasi-judicial capacity, meaning they must protect the record, base decisions only on evidence presented in hearings, and avoid ex parte communications or social media discussions about pending cases.
  • He stressed that board members should not post about pending cases on social media and should avoid discussing cases outside of public meetings. A caution was raised about accidentally establishing a quorum through social media interactions.
  • The unique roles were outlined: AHBR reviews architectural characteristics (new structures, alterations, fences, signs, demolitions); PC advises council on land development code changes and holds hearings on conditional use and site plan applications; BZBA hears variance requests and administrative appeals (now under a more deferential standard that presumes the validity of the original decision).
  • A question arose about whether board members with professional expertise (e.g., architects) can serve as expert witnesses; it was clarified that they cannot, but they can ask staff or applicants for information.

• Code of Conduct Discussion:

  • Council President Byrd and Pitchburg led a discussion on drafting a formal code of conduct for all boards, commissions, and committees, modeled after city council’s existing code and Roberts Rules of Order.
  • Key points included: maintaining civility toward each other, staff, and the public; avoiding personal attacks and staying on the merits; and addressing disruptive behavior (Ohio law makes it a fourth-degree misdemeanor to disrupt a meeting).
  • Sarah Norman (PC) raised concerns about how “civility” is defined, noting that accountability (e.g., questioning a witness’s credibility) should not be conflated with incivility. Bob Dyer suggested focusing on the merits and avoiding character attacks. Others stressed the importance of tone and professional conduct.
  • It was noted that the code should also address interactions between boards (e.g., avoiding derogatory comments about another board’s decision).

• Findings of Fact Discussion:

  • Pitchburg explained that the Land Development Code (LDC) requires written findings of fact for every decision, but this has not always been followed. He proposed a change: only require written findings when a decision is appealed. Under this model, staff would draft proposed findings for the board to review and adopt at its next meeting.
  • The BZBA demonstrated with a video example of a variance motion that included explicit findings on the seven Duncan factors. This verbal approach, if recorded, could serve as a basis for later written findings if needed.
  • PC members noted the complexity of their standards (e.g., conditional use applications with multiple factors) and expressed concern that requiring detailed verbal findings on every decision would be burdensome. Some supported the “only on appeal” approach.
  • AHBR members indicated they currently only prepare written findings for denials, which is consistent with the proposed change.
  • A key concern raised by Chelsea McCoy (PC) was the potential for due process issues if an appellant does not have the benefit of written findings before filing an appeal. The discussion included the possibility of allowing appellants to supplement their objections after findings are issued.
  • The group discussed creating “cheat sheets” or standardized templates for the required findings for each type of application, similar to laminated sheets used by judges.
  • It was noted that if findings are insufficient, the BZBA can remand the case to the original board for clarification, which can delay the process.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken, but the following next steps were identified:
  • The administration will continue to develop a formal code of conduct for boards, commissions, and committees, incorporating feedback from the session.
  • Pitchburg will draft a rule change to limit written findings of fact to cases that are appealed, and will bring it to city council for consideration. The draft will be shared with the boards for comment.
  • Staff will explore the creation of flowcharts, cheat sheets, and case study materials to aid in onboarding and decision-making.
  • Future training sessions will be scheduled (likely in the summer) to delve deeper into topics such as record-keeping, ethics, and the specific standards for each board.