I’ve noticed a troubling trend with our local governments. It is that members do not understand the scope, mission and authority of the boards, councils and commissions they serve on. The reason it is troubling is that, when the individual members don’t perform within the boundaries of their statutory authority, citizens may not get a fair hearing. Whether appointed or elected to boards, individuals must understand the scope of their authority and the purpose the board was created.

At the last meeting of the Zoning and Appeals Board in Stuart, a matter came before it that had to do with a lot split into two single-family home lots. Once split the lots would not conform with the existing code. The owner of the new homes intends to lease them once they are built. The controversy for some neighbors was that the new homes would have rear buildings. They feared they would be rented as apartments thus creating a four-family multiple dwelling. There is no Stuart ordinance preventing the rental of homes. The applicant and staff had already added language to the development order that would make it, if not impossible, harder to rent those back buildings as individual units. If they were, it would be a matter for Code Enforcement and, ultimately, a Magistrate.

While most of the discussion was about this fear of rental and of ancillary units, it should have been immaterial to the Board’s decision. Their responsibility is not whether those units would be rented but whether the lot split was justified under the regulations. The zoning of that lot is for a single-family home. By splitting the lot that has the right to have a single-family home, you are creating two lots that will be non-conforming.

It is not within the Board’s authority to decide whether rental units are being created. The structures being built are within code. The important matter before the Board was whether by not granting the lot split would there be a hardship. I contend that the answer is no, there is no hardship. A perfectly adequate single-family home could be constructed on the existing lot without splitting it into two lots to create two homes.

A “hardship” is not defined as an inability to maximize an investment. Otherwise every lot in Stuart could have an apartment house or office building on it. A “hardship” would be, if the entire original lot would have been only 56 feet wide, while a 60 feet wide minimum was necessary. In that case, then a home would not have been able to be built and a variance would be needed. In that instance it should be granted.

In this case, the Board has exceeded its authority. I agree that this type of housing with ancillary units are desirable for the City. The way to achieve this would be for staff to write a change in the code to allow these units and the City Commission could then vote in favor of doing so. By the Zoning and Appeals Board doing this in an ad hoc manner, it creates the necessity for every property owner to make an appeal in order to have the same outcome.

While the Board may have acted improperly in this case, I don’t believe it was done maliciously or intentionally. What happens is that board members, including commissioners, do not receive the necessary training to fulfill their duties. Education by staff and outside facilitators should be continuous and ongoing. Every meeting should have an agenda item to help in accomplishing just this. When you serve on a board it is more than just showing up. Too bad citizens don’t insist that this occurs.