• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Zoning compliance letters

SteveHarveyOswald

SteveHarveyOswald

Cyburbian
Messages
60
Points
4
At the municipality where I work, one of my predecessors created a policy that prohibited employees from preparing zoning compliance letters. In particular, "no employee shall either prepare a letter, or complete an application and/or form, on behalf of any company or individual, verifying the existence or non-existence of building or zoning compliance for any property within the City." The policy then directs representatives to file a FOIA request to obtain the documents so they may perform their own analysis.

Now, I assume the policy was put in place to ensure that staff members weren't consumed with creating compliance/verification reports all day. Maybe liability reduction as well for the City? However, I can't seem to get a direct answer for why the policy was originally put in place. Any other thoughts as to why this policy may have been adopted? Has any one else seen a similar policy?

I'm debating whether or not to keep the policy in place, but I don't want to open up a can of worms which will consume all of my time.
 
I'd keep it- it prevents your employees from being mired in these things by remote paralegals who won't do their job if you do it for them.

I have a "no outstanding documented violations" letter we offer for a nominal fee (because that's easy to look up). It is so covered in disclaimers it isn't wirth the paper it's printed on but it does the trick with most title searchers.

If people want a deep dive, our records are open for inspection during regular hours and we will provide a copy for a reasonable fee.
 
1693426848552.jpeg
 
Faust_Motel said:
I'd keep it- it prevents your employees from being mired in these things by remote paralegals who won't do their job if you do it for them.

I have a "no outstanding documented violations" letter we offer for a nominal fee (because that's easy to look up). It is so covered in disclaimers it isn't wirth the paper it's printed on but it does the trick with most title searchers.

If people want a deep dive, our records are open for inspection during regular hours and we will provide a copy for a reasonable fee.
Click to expand...
I waded that muddy water for a local nursing home that was refinancing or changing insurers or something. Was not able to clear up anything after I found lots of problems. I agree that policy protects staff time.
 
Definitely keep it. Most I do is a "zoning verification letter" providing answers that can be publicly found (zoning designation, regulations, etc.) and if there are any open zoning enforcement cases (as opposed to known, you never know what you don't know).

I also borrowed the legalese disclaimer from a past community that has worked wonders, explaining that we cannot verify compliance with X, Y, Z due to the ordinance being an evolving document, etc. It's all true, and even with an as-built site plan provided by a consultant, I'd be hesitant to perform a comprehensive review to tell them it's compliant with all zoning provisions. A true time sink for no fee.
 
We're a city of 30,000. My staff probably handles at least 1-3 per week, well over 100 last year. I didn't realize that some places just say "no". I need to get my city attorney on board.
 
A time or two ago I worked at a large municipality that provided zoning verification letters. There was and always has been an emphasis on being extremely customer-oriented in my region, so answering these types of requests with responses like 'here's the unified development code and a link to the online zoning map' just wouldn't cut it from management's perspective.

The main problem is that the amount of time needed to verify status or compliance can vary widely, and it's usually not possible to know until you start to dive in. Long story short is that, while I did appreciate the municipality making the effort to offer this as a service (and for a lot of individual property owners who don't want to have to hire a land use attorney for this kind of thing I do believe the service is quite valid), the associated fee for providing the service will never be high enough to cover the amount of staff time needed.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
I need to get my city attorney on board.
Click to expand...
Our ditching of the extensive zoning verification letters process was actually greatly encouraged by our corporation counsel.

Want me to loan our firm to your employer?

:cool:
 
This is interesting. I've never worked somewhere that you didn't answer. I mean, isn't that someone's job to verify that a proposed use is in accordance with the existing regulations? Someone asking if there are any known outstanding zoning violations seems to me to be a reasonable request. Plus we charged for it. I agree, don't do someone else's job but if the enforcer can't answer the question then what's really the point of having any rules at all?
 
MD Planner said:
This is interesting. I've never worked somewhere that you didn't answer. I mean, isn't that someone's job to verify that a proposed use is in accordance with the existing regulations? Someone asking if there are any known outstanding zoning violations seems to me to be a reasonable request. Plus we charged for it. I agree, don't do someone else's job but if the enforcer can't answer the question then what's really the point of having any rules at all?
Click to expand...
This was my thinking as well.
 
MD Planner said:
This is interesting. I've never worked somewhere that you didn't answer. I mean, isn't that someone's job to verify that a proposed use is in accordance with the existing regulations? Someone asking if there are any known outstanding zoning violations seems to me to be a reasonable request. Plus we charged for it. I agree, don't do someone else's job but if the enforcer can't answer the question then what's really the point of having any rules at all?
Click to expand...
estromberg said:
This was my thinking as well.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between reviewing a proposed site plan for compliance and some flunky asking whether the existing improvements at 4321 ABC St. comply with all applicable regulations.

The former is definitely our job and part of preventing expensive problems, the latter is often a bank/purchaser/seller CYA-ing because of reasons.
 
MD Planner said:
This is interesting. I've never worked somewhere that you didn't answer. I mean, isn't that someone's job to verify that a proposed use is in accordance with the existing regulations? Someone asking if there are any known outstanding zoning violations seems to me to be a reasonable request. Plus we charged for it. I agree, don't do someone else's job but if the enforcer can't answer the question then what's really the point of having any rules at all?
Click to expand...
Oh, I will absolutely provide a "Zoning Verification" letter confirming the zoning district of the parcel; I often provide a direct link to the use table and dimension table of the Zoning Ordinance as well. What the adopted policy states, however, is that staff is not allowed to research existing site conditions to see if there are any non-conformities; we won't count existing parking spaces, count trees, do a lot coverage analysis, confirm existing setbacks, measure building height, etc. We will give you any approved site plans/building plans through a FOIA, but we can't do the research for you.

Thanks for the responses, everyone. The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to keep the policy in place.
 
Back
Top