Hayden rezones must align with 'neighborhood contexts'
Left, Hayden Councilman Ed DePriest and Council President Matt Roetter discuss the approval of a zone map amendment that would require rezones to meet the "neighborhood contexts." Council members will likely add further revisions to the amendment to better define "neighborhood contexts."
Photo courtesy of the City of Hayden
An amendment to the city of Hayden's standards for approval of zone change requests was adopted Tuesday by the Hayden City Council.
The amendment gives City Council members more discretion to approve, disapprove or outline conditions for approval of requests for zone changes by property owners.
The new standard requires that zone change proposals be consistent with “neighborhood contexts."
“Neighborhood contexts” is not defined by the text, or the city code, though it is referenced in the city’s comprehensive plan.
“Neighborhood contexts” can be interpreted as vague, simple, or as the planning and zoning report on the proposed amendment suggests, “arbitrary and capricious."
“Why shouldn’t the consideration of neighborhood contexts be fair and balanced and not arbitrary and capricious?” said Hayden property owner Theresa Roth. “Both developers and residents are landowners and have property rights.”
The planning and zoning committee recommended the council not approve the amendment, but comments received from residents were strongly in favor of the revised text.
“The vision of Hayden is a city with a small-town feel that does not compromise neighborhood integrity and character,” said Susan Edwards through public comment. “This amendment would help ensure that vision.”
The language for the new standard was taken from an earlier version of the standards of approval, with slight edits to the format, which included the clause for neighborhood context. It had been removed from earlier standards of approval because it had been appealed for being arbitrary and capricious, said Hayden Senior Planner Donna Phillips.
The openness to interpretation left zone change requests at the discretion of the council, which opened them to challenges in courts for inconsistencies in the interpretation.
The current council members opted to add the text back in because they’ve frequently found their hands tied on zone change requests, where they had no avenue to restrict projects for reasonable concerns.
“The idea is to give the property owners an opportunity to have a voice in the surrounding neighborhood as the property develops,” said Councilman Ed DePriest.
The council voted to accept the amendment, despite reservations, to give them the discretion, but they’ll probably suggest amendments in the future that might define “neighborhood contexts," or provide notes and examples to clarify what that can mean.
“I would suggest that we accept this tonight and then revisit it, but at least have this in place for now,” said Councilwoman Sandra White.
The amendment provides room for council members to voice concerns about things like traffic, infrastructure capacity, rights of existing property owners in the surrounding areas, or concerns not outlined in the comprehensive plan but still relevant to a project.
“I like it because it’s simple, yet it gives us lots of discretion to go in any direction,” said Councilman Roger Saterfiel.