UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Zoning administration in Vancouver : time for a change? Chapman, Philip Thomas 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 C49.pdf [ 10.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095134.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095134-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095134-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095134-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095134-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095134-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095134-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095134-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095134.ris

Full Text

ZONING ADMINISTRATION IN VANCOUVER: TIME FOR A CHANGE? by PHILIP THOMAS CHAPMAN B.A.,' Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE .FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ' Sc h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA O c t o b e r 1982 © P h i l i p Thomas Chapman, 1982 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of / ^ W X W N J ^ <a~~X ^v&^^L Y ^ U t ^ v m n ^ The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date QckktS »« ^  \<^£> ABSTRACT R e g u l a t i o n o f l a n d t h r o u g h z o n i n g i s i n h e r e n t l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l as i t i n v o l v e s i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s and freedoms o f t e n i n c o n f l i c t w i t h p u b l i c g o a l s and p o l i c y . To e n s u r e the g e n e r a l r u l e s o f r e g u l a t i o n a r e not d i s p e n s e d i n an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s manner, t h e r e b y c a u s i n g undue o r u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p i n s p e c i f i c c a s e s , t h e z o n i n g board o f v a r i a n c e has been e s t a b l i s h e d . T h i s board i s a q u a s _ i - j u d i c i a l l a y t r i b u n a l s t a t u t o r i a l l y l i m i t e d t o r e s o l v i n g i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s o f h a r d s h i p , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e misjudgment o r e r r o r s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e l a t e d t o z o n i n g m a t t e r s . In r e c e n t y e a r s c o n c e r n has been e x p r e s s e d o v e r whether o r not t h e board o f v a r i a n c e can a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e s p o n d t o a p p e a l s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s which a r e t h e p r o d u c t o f an i n c r e a s i n g l y dynamic and complex z o n i n g and development p r o c e s s dependent on the d i s c r e t i o n a l y judgment o f p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , c o n c e r n has a l s o been e x p r e s s e d t h a t p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e s e l a y boards o n l y i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e f o r the r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . The purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o document and e v a l u a t e t h e d e c i s i o n -making p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e board o f v a r i a n c e . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e board system o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , as e x e m p l i f i e d by t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e , e n a b l e s m a x i m i z a t i o n o f p u b l i c b e n e f i t s a c c r u a b l e t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n a l y z o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s w h i l e a d e q u a t e l y m e e t i n g t h e e q u i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a q u a s i -j u d i c i a l a p p e a l body. To t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , the e v o l u t i o n o f z o n i n g i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a was r e v i e w e d and two c a s e s t u d y models o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e and t h e - i i -S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner, i n t r o d u c e d . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r h i s t o r y and o p e r a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e problems w i t h t h e s e systems. With t h i s background, a model w i t h e i g h t n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d u s i n g s e l e c t e d s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l e l ements o f o u r s o c i e t y . The two c a s e s t u d y systems were t h e n compared w i t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model and t h e h y p o t h e s i s d i s p r o v e n . I t was c o n c l u d e d t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e d i s p l a y e d s h o r t c o m i n g s r e s u l t i n g from t h e l o c a l z o n i n g p r o c e s s , t h e l a c k o f r e q u i r e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r Board members, and t h e i n f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s o f the Board. I t v/as f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e d t h e S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner s y s t e m , w h i l e b e t t e r meeting t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a , c o u l d not be a d o p t e d to t h e Vancouver a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e t t i n g . I t was then s u g g e s t e d the Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e c o u l d be m o d i f i e d so as t o b e t t e r meet t h e c r i t e r i a o f t h e n o r m a t i v e model, t h e r e b y r e c t i f y i n g t h e i d e n t i f i e d s h o r t c o m i n g s . A s e t o f recommendations p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s e s h o r t c o m i n g s was- p r e s e n t e d and a method o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u g g e s t e d . These recommendations i n c l u d e d : a) e l i m i n a t i n g t h o s e a p p e a l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e use o f e i t h e r l a n d o r s t r u c t u r e s from t h e Board's j u r i s d i c t i o n ; b) p e r m i t t i n g t h e P l a n n i n g Department t o i s s u e v a r i a n c e s i n c e r t a i n c a s e s ; c ) m o d i f y i n g t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t from mandatory t o d i s c r e t i o n a r y i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; d) c r e a t i n g a c i t i z e n s ' a d v i s o r y committee t o p r o v i d e a p o l i c y o v e r v i e w o f v a r i a n c e d e c i s i o n s f o r C i t y C o u n c i l ; e) p e r m i t t i n g w i d e r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a n c e a p p e a l s by i n c o r p o r a t i n g p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t s under t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f the " O f f i c i a l Development P l a n " ; f ) r e q u i r i n g Board members have q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ; g) l i m i t i n g t h e term o f membership to t h e Board and r e q u i r i n g a t t e n d a n c e o f m e e t i n g s ; h) r e q u i r i n g t h e Chairman o f t h e Board have a l e g a l background, a j u d i c i a l temperment and be a p p o i n t e d j o i n t l y by t h e P r o v i n c e and t h e C i t y ; i ) m o d i f y i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s and o p e r a t i o n o f the Board so t h a t : ( i ) t h e a p p e a l f o r m i n d i c a t e s grounds f o r a p p e a l and a d v i s e s o f r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r any subsequent j u d i c i a l a p p e a l , ( i i ) p u b l i c n o t i c e i s g i v e n a l l a p p e a l s and p r o v i s i o n i s made to i n v o l v e l o c a l g r o u p s , ( i i i ) an i n f o r m a t i o n pamphlet on the Board i s p u b l i s h e d , ( i v ) i n f o r m a t i o n can be exchanged p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g , (v) t h e powers o f t h e Chairman a r e s p e c i f i e d , ( v i ) ex p a r t e communication i s l i m i t e d , and ( v i i ) upon r e q u e s t , r e a s o n s i n w r i t i n g a r e g i v e n f o r d e c i s i o n s o f t h e B o a r d . I t was c o n c l u d e d t h e recommendations would r e s u l t i n the s i g n i f i c a n t improvement o f Board o f V a r i a n c e by: a) r e t u r n i n g p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , b) e x p e d i t i n g the h a n d l i n g o f v a r i a n c e a p p e a l s , c) i n c r e a s i n g t h e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f the Board t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e j u d i c i a r y , - i v -d) r e - e s t a b l i s h i n g membership q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r Board members, and e) e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o c e d u r e s to e n s u r e t h e Board c o n d u c t e d i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s w i t h f a i r n e s s , c l a r i t y and openness, f r e e from p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e . - v -TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE i LIBRARY PERMISSION FORM ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xi DEDICATION xi1\ CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE 1 1.2 STUDY HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES 2 1.3 LIMITATIONS 3 1.4 DATA SOURCES 5 1.5 ORGANIZATION 5 1.6 DEFINITIONS 6 CHAPTER II - SYSTEMS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION 8 2.1 RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERDEPENDENCES 8 2.2 HISTORY OF ZONING 10 2.2.1 The American Experience 11 2.2.2 The Canadian Experience 20 2.2.3 Variances 24 2.2.4 Summary 28 vi 2.3 ZONING ADMINISTRATION - VANCOUVER 29 2.3.1 H i s t o r y o f t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e 30 2.3.2 O p e r a t i o n o f t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e 32 2.3.2.1 power and j u r i s d i c t i o n 32 2.3.2.2 e x i s t i n g p r o c e s s 35 2.3.2.3 p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s 36 2.4 ZONING ADMINISTRATION - SEATTLE 43 2.4.1 H i s t o r y o f S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner 44 2.4.2 O p e r a t i o n o f S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner 47 2.4.2.1 powers and j u r i s d i c t i o n 48 2.4.2.2 e x i s t i n g p r o c e s s 49 2.4.2.3 p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s 51 2.5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SYSTEMS 58 2.5.1 Zoning Board o f V a r i a n c e 58 2.5.2 H e a r i n g Examiner 70 FOOTNOTES 83 CHAPTER I I I - A RATIONALE FOR IMPROVEMENT 93 3.1 METHODOLOGY 93 3.2 PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT 94 3.2.1 P a r l i a m e n t a r y Government - En g l a n d 96 3.2.2 P a r l i a m e n t a r y Government - Canada 101 3.2.3 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Government - U n i t e d S t a t e s 102 3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 105 3.3.1 N a t u r a l J u s t i c e 107 3.3.2 Due P r o c e s s 110 v i i -3.4 DELEGATION AND DISCRETION IN ADMINISTRATION 111 3.4.1 Delegation 113 3.4.2 Discretion 115 3.5 POLITICS - THE FLY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OINTMENT 120 3.6 NORMATIVE CRITERIA 122 * equitable treatment 123 * openness 123 * c l a r i t y 124 * propriety 124 * effectiveness 125 * f l e x i b i l i t y 125 * eff i c i e n c y 125 * p o l i t i c a l interference 126 FOOTNOTES 127 CHAPTER IV - SYSTEMS EVALUATION 132 4.1 PROCESS INDICATORS 132 4.2 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION USING SELECTED INDICATORS 135 * equitable treatment 135 * openness 141 * c l a r i t y 143 * propriety 146 * effectiveness 151 * f l e x i b i l i t y 153 * eff i c i e n c y 156 * p o l i t i c a l interference 159 - vi i i 4.3 DECISIONAL PROBLEM INDICATORS 163 4.3.1 L i m i t a t i o n s 163 4.3.2 D e c i s i o n s C o n s i d e r e d 164 4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 176 FOOTNOTES 180 CHAPTER V - IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING 182 5.1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS REFORM 183 5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD REFORM 190 5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL REFORM 196 ° Appeal Form 198 ° N o t i c e 198 ° I n f o r m a t i o n Pamphlet 200 ° I n f o r m a t i o n D i s c l o s u r e 201 ° Powers o f t h e Chairman 202 ° Ex P a r t e Communication 202 ° Reasoned D e c i s i o n s i n W r i t i n g 203 5.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS 209 5.5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 210 5.6 SUMMARY 211 FOOTNOTES 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY 216 APPENDIX I - Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e By-law 220 APPENDIX II - Appeal Form 224 APPENDIX I I I - Powers o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner i n O t h e r J u r i s d i c t i o n s 226 - i x -I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Comparative Requirements o f N o t i c e . 136 2 Comparison o f Components o f D e c i s i o n s . 139 3 I n f o r m a t i o n A v a i l a b i l i t y . 142 4 P r o t e c t i o n A f f o r d e d t h e R i g h t s o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l 150 by System. 5 S t a t e d O b j e c t i v e s o f Appeal Mechanism 151 Compared t o E x i s t i n g Systems. 6 Comparative Powers t o Set and Vary P r o c e d u r e s . 155 7 Spectrum o f Power by Case Type. 156 8 Comparison o f Optimum Times f o r Systems 158 t o P r o c e s s V a r i a n c e s . 9 S e a t t l e Board o f Adjustment D e c i s i o n s . 161 10 Y e a r l y Comparison o f t h e Number o f A p p e a l s 165 C o n s i d e r e d by t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e . 11 Number o f A p p e a l s C o n s i d e r e d by t h e 168 S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 12 Type o f D e c i s i o n Given by t h e Vancouver 170 Board o f V a r i a n c e - 1979 and 1980. 13 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f A p p e a l s C o n s i d e r e d i n 1979 and 171 1980 by t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e . 14 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Appeal Body D e c i s i o n and 175 Departmental Decision/Recommendations. - x -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement r e c e i v e d from Dr. V. S e t t y Pendakur, P r o f e s s o r , S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., and Mr. W i l l i a m T. Lane, G e n e r a l Manager, G r e a t e r V ancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . I hope t h e y f e e l t h e t i m e and e f f o r t t h i s t h e s i s r e q u i r e d o f them was w e l l s p e n t . I would a l s o l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dyan P r i n g l e , Margo Gram, C o r r i n e A n g e l l , Ray O h r n e r , and my o t h e r f r i e n d s f o r t h e i r h e l p , a d v i c e , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s . And t o D a v i d Thomsett and Penny Wohl, my co-workers i n t h e Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, who endured so many i n c o n v e n i e n c e s on my b e h a l f . I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o L l o y d G e l l , S e c r e t a r y , V ancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e and s e v e r a l members o f the Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e i n p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s i g h t i n t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Z o n i n g i n V a n c o u v e r . As w e l l , I would l i k e t o thank Ms. M. K l o c k a r s , Deputy H e a r i n g Examiner, C i t y o f S e a t t l e , Mr. R o b e r t B e a t y , Deputy H e a r i n g Examiner, King C o unty, and s e v e r a l members o f t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e and King County p l a n n i n g s t a f f s f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n p r o v i d i n g s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s i g h t i n t o the American systems o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . L a s t l y , I would l i k e t o thank Mrs. Barb W a l l e r f o r so c a p a b l y t y p i n g t h i s t h e s i s . - x i -DEDICATION For Mona E. Chapman, whose q u i e t c o n f i d e n c e i n her c h i l d r e n and u n s t a t e d b e l i e f i n the v a l u e o f e d u c a t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l development e n a b l e d me t o c o m p l e t e t h i s work. Her s p i r i t w i l l always be remembered. - x i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION i . l PURPOSE The b a s i s f o r l a n d use c o n t r o l i n North America l i e s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e s t a t e ' s p o l i c e powers. To s a f e g u a r d t h e abuse o f t h e s e powers by p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Canada has r e l i e d on a system o f w r i t t e n and u n w r i t t e n (but j u d i c i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d ) laws, w h i l e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on i t s C o n s t i t u t i o n and amendments t h e r e o f . These p r i n c i p l e s have e n a b l e d l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s t o e s t a b l i s h z o n i n g by-laws which attempt t o r e g u l a t e t h e use t o which p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y may be p u t , as w e l l as t h e q u a l i t y , q u a n t i t y , shape and form o f development t o be p e r m i t t e d t h o s e p r o p e r t i e s w i t h i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . R e c e n t l y t h e f l e x i b i i t y w i t h which t h e s e powers may be a p p l i e d has been g r e a t l y extended under t h e g u i s e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n . T h i s e x t e n s i o n has c r e a t e d a unique s i t u a t i o n where d e c i s i o n s t a k e n , o r not t a k e n , by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s may i n f r i n g e on s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s ' r i g h t s , and may t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e some form o f s t a t u t o r y s a f e g u a r d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e s e powers a r e not d i s p e n s e d i n an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s manner. In Vancouver t h i s mechanism i s t h e board o f v a r i a n c e , a q u a s i -j u d i c i a l l a y t r i b u n a l s t a t u t o r i a l l y l i m i t e d t o r e s o l v i n g i s s u e s c o n c e r n -i n g i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s o f undue o r u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e misjudgment o r e r r o r s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e l a t e d t o z o n i n g m a t t e r s . In r e c e n t y e a r s c o n c e r n has been e x p r e s s e d o v e r whether o r not t h e boards o f v a r i a n c e can a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e s p o n d t o a p p e a l s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s . These d e c i s i o n s a r e t h e p r o d u c t o f an i n c r e a s i n g l y dynamic and complex z o n i n g and development p r o c e s s dependent on t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y - 1 -judgment of p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f and s o p h i s t i c a t e d p o l i c y s t a t e -ments adopted by l o c a l c o u n c i l s . Concern has a l s o been e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h e i n f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e s e boards o n l y i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e s f o r t h e r i g h t s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l a p p e a r i n g b e f o r e them. In r e s p o n s e , s e v e r a l z o n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s , p r i m a r i l y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , have i n i t i a t e d r e f o r ms e n a b l i n g t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems t o b e t t e r meet t h e c h a l l e n g e s t h e s e c o n c e r n s p r e s e n t . The purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o document and e v a l u a t e t h e d e c i s i o n -making p r o c e d u r e s and p r o c e s s e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o ard of v a r i a n c e . T h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l employ n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a r e l a t e d t o an i d e a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - a d j u d i c a t i v e model t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l b o ard of v a r i a n c e and t h e r a d i c a l h e a r i n g examiner system i n r e s o l v i n g problems r e l a t e d t o d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and e q u i t y i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems o f z o n i n g . To f a c i l i t a t e t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c a s e s t u d i e s e x a m i n i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e and t h e S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner a r e p r e s e n t e d . To f u r t h e r augment t h e r e s e a r c h , a r e v i e w of t h e e v o l u t i o n of z o n i n g as a system o f l a n d use c o n t r o l and an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l b a s i s upon which t h e s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems have been e s t a b l i s h e d i s p r e s e n t e d . 1.2 STUDY HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES A s t a t e m e n t of t h e r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s a s s i s t s i n d e v e l o p i n g a s c i e n t i f i c a p p r oach t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n u n d e r t a k e n . The t e s t i n g of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s a s s i s t s i n d e v e l o p i n g t h e o b j e c t i v i t y w i t h which t h e i n v e s t i -g a t i o n must be u n d e r t a k e n t o e s t a b l i s h i t s c r e d i b i l i t y . The o b j e c t i v e s of t h e s t u d y d e f i n e i t s scope and frame of r e f e r e n c e . - 2 -The h y p o t h e s i s o f t h i s t h e s i s m a i n t a i n s t h e board o f v a r i a n c e s y s t e m , as e x e m p l i f i e d by t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g Vancouver Board, e n a b l e s m a x i m i z a t i o n o f p u b l i c b e n e f i t s a c c r u a b l e t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y z o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s w h i l e a d e q u a t e l y meeting t h e e q u i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l appeal body. The r e s e a r c h r e v i e w s two systems o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , known as t h e board o f v a r i a n c e and t h e h e a r i n g examiner, w i t h emphasis on t h e f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s : a) t o document t h e o r i g i n s , e v o l u t i o n , and d e v i a t i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , l e g i s l a t i v e and j u d i c i a l s t r u c t u r e s t h a t r e g u l a t e t h e use o f l a n d i n Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , b) t o d e t a i l t h e powers and p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m s , c) t o e v a l u a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t d e c i s i o n outcomes o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems have on a d o p t e d p l a n n i n g p o l i c y , d) t o compare and e v a l u a t e t h e adequacy o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems i n r e s o l v i n g i d e n t i f i e d o p e r a t i o n a l c o n c e r n s , u t i l i z i n g a p p r o p r i a t e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a , and e) t o make recommendations r e g a r d i n g p o t e n t i a l changes t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s and p r o c e s s e s where such changes, based on a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f r e l e v a n t s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l s t r u c t u r e s , a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h e improvement o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s . LIMITATIONS S e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e r e s e a r c h r e s t r i c t t h e v a l u e o f t h i s s t u d y . For example, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s c o n s u l t e d were o f n e c e s s i t y - 3 -l i m i t e d . Much o f t h e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e board o f v a r i a n c e , and a l l o f t h e m a t e r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e h e a r i n g e x aminer, r e f e r r e d t o t h e American p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m i l i e u x , which may have c a s t an u n i n t e n t i o n a l A m e r i c a n i z a t i o n t o t h e s t u d y . F u r t h e r m o r e , no attempt was made t o e s t a b l i s h a s c i e n t i f i c sample o r con d u c t e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y s o f randomly s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Indeed, most o f t h e s o u r c e s used a r e employed o r o t h e r -w i s e work i n one o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e two systems d i s c u s s e d and t h e r e f o r e any d i s c l a i m e r t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l b i a s c o u l d not have i n f l u e n c e d t h e s t u d y cannot be made. In a d d i t i o n , many o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s t u d y a r e m a t t e r s o f some s u b j e c t i v i t y and c o n c e r n m a t t e r s o f i n d i v i d u a l judgment and p h i l o s o p h y . P r e c i s e e v a l u a t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n t h e s e c a s e s a r e t h e r e f o r e d i f f i c u l t . F i n a l l y , a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e recommendations o f t h i s s t u d y t o o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s may prove t o be i m p o s s i b l e i n some c a s e s , o r u n a d v i s a b l e i n o t h e r s . T h i s d i f f i c u l t y stems from t h e f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n t communities, each a c c o r d i n g t o i t s own p a r t i c u l a r development needs, have ado p t e d p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s e s o f v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s which have a l s o v a r i e d t o acc o u n t f o r t h o s e l o c a l i z e d needs. The de g r e e o f a t o m i z a t i o n o f z o n i n g as an a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e system, as w e l l as t h e v a r i e t y o f p o s s i b l e development s t a g e s a community c o u l d be i n a t any p a r t i c u l a r moment, combine t o p r e c l u d e t h e b l a n k e t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e recommendations made f o r t h e Vancouver system. - 4 -1.4 DATA SOURCES Data employed in this study were obtained from various sources. Most procedural information was obtained by unobtrusive observation of both administrative systems on several occasions. For the hearing examiner system this entailed visiting the City of Seattle. Extensive information was gathered from meetings with several hearing examiners, the secretaries to the boards of variance for both Vancouver and Seattle, professional planning staff of both jurisdictions, and other knowledgeable and informed sources, regarding the hearing examiner system. Many publications, legal documents, and legislative statutes and by-laws were also consulted and the minutes and case files of various appeals reviewed. In several instances, personal site inspections were made. Lastly, in order to provide a theoretical per-spective to the study, a literature review of the political-administra-tive behaviour and the administrative laws governing the two countries was completed. The concepts gained through this review were used to form the basis of the ensuing analysis. 1.5 ORGANIZATION This thesis is organized in the following manner: a) Chapter I - introduces the purpose of the thesis and presents the research hypothesis and study objectives. Research limita-tions, data sources and definitions are discussed. b) Chapter II - traces, through literature, the evolution of zoning in Canada and America, and discusses the history and operation of two systems of zoning administration through the - 5 -introduction of the Vancouver Board of Variance and the Seattle Hearing Examiner. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system, making reference to the case studies. c) Chapter III - discusses the evaluative methodolgy chosen and selected aspects of both parliamentary and constitutional government needed to establish a normative model of zoning administration. The development of eight criteria for this model concludes the chapter. d) Chapter IV - defines the normative criteria through develop-ment of process indicators which are then used to comparatively evaluate the administrative systems. Types of appeals considered by these systems are also discussed and conclusions from the analysis stated. e) Chapter V - presents and discusses a set of recommended changes to bring the Vancouver Board of Variance system closer to the normative model of zoning administration. 1.6 DEFINITIONS Terminology used in this thesis is a composite of language used in the administration of zoning in various jurisdications under discussion. As such, general terms are used from England, America and Canada, and specific terms are used from Vancouver and Seattle. Wherever possible, common terminology has been adopted and where this occurs, the Canadian or 'Vancouver' term has been adopted. Where a common term has not been established, meanings have been explained in footnotes. Throughout, the term "appellate" refers to the judiciary, "administrative system" and - 6 -" a d m i n i s t r a t i v e model" t o t h e board o f v a r i a n c e and/or t h e h e a r i n g examiner, and " t r i b u n a l " t o t h e z o n i n g board o f a d j u s t m e n t o r v a r i a n c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e term " a d j u d i c a t o r " i s used t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between t h e members o f t h e board o f v a r i a n c e o r t h e h e a r i n g examiner and t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f . = - 7 -CHAPTER II PAST AND PRESENT SYSTEMS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t h r e e f o l d : a) t o p r o v i d e a b r i e f h i s t o r y o f z o n i n g as a form o f l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n i n Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ; b) t o d e s c r i b e two d i f f e r e n t systems o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h r o u g h e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f Vancouver's Board o f V a r i a n c e and t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e ' s O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner; and c ) t o i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s used by b o t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems by comparing t h e r e l a t i v e advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f each s y s t e m . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between p l a n n i n g and z o n i n g and t h e dependency o f both t h e o f f i c i a l development p l a n and t h e z o n i n g by-law upon t h e enforcement a c t i o n s o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system a r e a l s o d i s c u s s e d . 2.1 RELATIONSHIPS AND INTER-DEPENDENCIES In t h e next s e c t i o n , changes t o z o n i n g , a method o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n used by a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o c o n t r o l l a n d use, a r e examined. T h i s knowledge w i l l a s s i s t i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems i n l a t e r c h a p t e r s but w i l l not e x p l a i n how t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e s e a d j u d i c a t o r s permeates t h e e n t i r e f i e l d o f p l a n n i n g . The purpose o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o e x p l a i n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e r o l e o f t h e a d j u d i c a t o r i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . - 8 -S u p e r i o r l e g i s l a t u r e s have g i v e n a u t h o r i t y t o p l a n t o t h e l o c a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n much t h e same way as t h e y have g i v e n them a u t h o r i t y t o c r e a t e z o n i n g . A l t h o u g h p l a n n i n g and z o n i n g a r e r e l a t e d , t h e y a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n n a t u r e . U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l h e l p c l a r i f y t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e i r dependency on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system f o r e n f o r c e m e n t . P l a n n i n g i s t h e p r o c e s s by which p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r t h e p r e s e n t and f u t u r e s o c i a l and economic needs o f a community i n an o r d e r l y f a s h i o n . * P l a n n i n g can be seen as a c o n c e p t o f b r o a d e r s i g n i f i c a n c e , one which c o n t e m p l a t e s development o f an o v e r a l l p l a n f o r t h e e n t i r e community. T h i s c o n c e p t i s h e l d t o be o f a d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e than t h a t o f z o n i n g , because i t s e r v e s as a p o s i t i v e g u i d e i n t h e renewal and expan-s i o n p r o c e s s e s o f l a n d development. As s u c h , i t dees not r e l y e x c l u s i v e -l y on t h e p o l i c e powers o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r c o n t r o l . A p l a n i s g e n e r a l l y assumed t o be a r e f l e c t i n o f community g o a l s . These g o a l s a r e u s u a l l y e x p r e s s e d o n l y i n g e n e r a l i t i e s , most o f t e n as vague p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t s , w h i c h , w h i l e p r o v i d i n g t h e c o u n c i l w i t h a d e g r e e o f p o l i t i c a l f l e x i b i l i t y , have t h e e f f e c t o f l i m i t i n g t h e p l a n ' s l e g a l power. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t b e f o r e a p l a n can b e n e f i t a community, some v e h i c l e which t r a n s l a t e s b r oad p o l i c y i n t o l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . One such v e h i c l e i s t h e z o n i n g by-law, a l e g a l document w r i t t e n i n a d e f i n i t e and c e r t a i n manner g i v i n g i t t h e l e g a l e f f e c t t h e p l a n l a c k s . I mplementation o f t h e p l a n , o r o f p l a n n i n g p o l i c i e s , i s a l s o dependent on t h e e f f e c t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e z o n i n g and o t h e r r e g u l a t o r y by-laws o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y . The r o l e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system can o n l y be c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d knowing t h a t t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p l a n n i n g p o l i c y i s dependent on t h e e n f o r c e -- 9 -ment of the zoning by-law, which is itself dependent on the actions of the board or examiner. These actions will be discussed in latter chapters but at present i t will suffice to state these adjudicators can indirectly help or hinder implementation of municipal planning policy through decisions they make on local zoning matters. These decisions have had an increasing potential for negative impact on zoning by-laws and planning policy due to the increasingly complex and technical nature of new zoning techniques. In addition, there is an increasing propensity for new construction to be developed through a negotiation process dependent to a large extent on the discretion of professional planning staff. The history zoning has followed to arrive at its current discretionary state is discussed in the next section. HISTORY OF ZONING While a detailed history of zoning as a means of land use control is beyond the scope of this thesis, i t is necessary to examine certain aspects of its historical development in order to understand the operation of existing administrative systems. Zoning has long undergone many small incremental changes, made in response to the immediate practical needs of the moment. It is argued here that these "needs" continue to exist and change, and that the greatest failure of zoning as an administrative technique has been the inability to account for these dynamics through establishment of a set of universal principles of administration. This historical description commences in the United States because i t was in that country that Canada's early zoning regula-tions originated. - 1 0 -2.2.1 The American Experience Prior to the development of zoning, land use in the U.S. was controlled solely through common laws of nuisance, restrictive covenants, building and fire regulations, all administered by separate and 2 uncoordinated agencies. Failure of these tools to provide adequate protection against obnoxious and incompatible uses of property was due primarily to the individual owners' interest in obtaining the maximum return from his property and by the forced reliance of those individuals suffering the nuisance to petition the court for a remedy of the alleged damages. The desire to change this ineffective method of control was the first step towards imposition of zoning in many North American cities. The vital second step towards an improved land use control system was removal of the burden of initiation of legal action by the individual alleging that a nuisance was being caused by his neighbour. This power to initiate action was subsequently vested, via delegation from superior legislatures (i.e., the state), to local municipalities under the aegis of the police power to protect public health and safety. Despite this improvement in regulation, many communities s t i l l faced rapid and unsettling changes brought upon by the advent of mass trans-portation and open immigration policies during the early 1900's. Gradually public interest in land and its development became as important as the private interest had been in the past. Municipalities, interested in maintaining, or increasing, public revenue from private property taxation, and private property owners interested in maintaining neigh-bourhood amenities, soon saw the value of zoning; a set of comprehensive regulations restricting the use and development of private property. - 11 -Zoning became, as one author has noted, "no more than a rational and comprehensive extension of public nuisance law, with the great advantage (over the common law nuisance) of providing all landowners with knowledge 3 before the fact of what they could and could not do with their land." According to the above author, the primary objective of early zoning measures was to isolate single family dwelling areas from intrusions by industry or multi-family development; this separation was to provide an environment of stable property values and development certainty. The concept envisioned land use control in a static state and was never intended to control the form or nature of development to take place. An integral part of the traditional concept were the assumptions that desired development would take place without detailed government regulation, and that the location of development could be predetermined by local council. The result was legislation that segregated incompat-ible land use and established certain general standards regarding the use 4 of land and buildings in each of the newly created zones or districts. Zoning in America first started in New York City in 1916. The adoption of zoning ordinances divided that city into three districts (residential, commercial and unrestricted use) and imposed height and area (bulk) controls on new buildings located in certain of those disticts. The success of these ordinances resulted in the rapid spread of zoning to other American cities and by 1926 over one-half of the urban population lived in communities that had adopted zoning ordinances similar to New York's. This spread was hastened by the development of two model acts developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. These acts were the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (1922 and 1926) and the Standard City Planning Act (1928). - 12 -Zoning, however, remained somewhat controversial, and it was not until 1926, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Euclid v. Amber Realty, approved the constitutional validity of zoning protection, that it became firmly established in American Law: "...Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analgous to those which justify traffic regulations,... The ordinance...and regulations must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare. The line which in this field separates the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power is not capable of precise delimitation. It varies with circumstances and conditions. A regulatory zoning ordin-ance, which would be clearly valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural commun-ities.... A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.... The exclusion of places of business from residential districts is not a declaration that such places are nuisances or that they are to be suppressed as such, but it is a part of the general plan by which the city's territory is allotted to different uses in order to prevent, or at least reduce, the congestion, disorder and dangers which . often inhere in unregulated municipal development." 6 From this case i t is evident that the court ascribed certain characteristics to zoning. Zoning was perceived as: a) an exercise of the police power, b) a legislative act, c) valid only i f asserted for the public welfare, d) valid only i f applied reasonably, and e) what was reasonable depends on circumstances. To understand these characteristics one must refer to the American Consitution and in particular to two of its Amendments. These are: - 13 -a) t h e F i f t h Amendment, which s t a t e s t h a t "no p e r s o n . . . s h a l 1 be d e p r i v e d o f . . . p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f law, nor s h a l l p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y be t a k e n f o r p u b l i c use w i t h o u t j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n . " ^ and b) t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment, which p r o v i d e s t h a t no s t a t e s h a l l d e p r i v e any p e r s o n o f l i f e , l i b e r t y , o r p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f law. I n h e r e n t t o t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a t e ownership o f l a n d i s t h e r i g h t t o use l a n d i n any manner t h e owner deems d e s i r a b l e . The o n l y c o n s t i t u t i o n -al j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r r e s t r i c t i n g such a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h a z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e i s t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s o r g e n e r a l w e l f a r e . T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n i s , however, o n l y v a l i d i f t h e owner o f p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y i s a l l o w e d a r e a s o n a b l e use f o r h i s p r o p e r t y . Should no such r e a s o n a b l e use remain t h e n t h e o r d i n a n c e must be h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as a p p l i e d t o o h i s p r o p e r t y . The E u c l i d c a s e w a r r a n t s f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n as i t was not o n l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l e g a l a c c e p t a n c e o f z o n i n g but a l s o because i t marked t h e f i r s t s u b s t a n t i a l change i n t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e . In r u l i n g on t h i s c a s e t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 9 " z o n i n g i s a comprehensive p l a n o f l a n d use based on t h e p u b l i c power" (emphasis added) and as s u c h , c o m p r e h e n s i v e z o n i n g f o r t h e e n t i r e c i t y was s a n c t i f i e d . T h i s d e c i s i o n was t h e f i r s t t o r e c o g n i z e t h e s o - c a l l e d " P l a n n i n g Theory o f Z o n i n g " . As one e x p e r t n o t e s , "subsequent z o n i n g l i t i g a t i o n |_hasj s t r e n g t h e n e d t h e z o n i n g p r o c e s s as a t o o l o f p l a n n i n g as c o n t r a s t e d t o t h e t h e o r y i t i s m e r e l y a method o f c o n t r o l l i n g n u i s a n c e . " 1 0 T h i s p l a n n i n g o b j e c t i v e i s r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e i n most modern z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n where t h e preamble o f t h e e n a b l i n g a c t - 14 -generally states zoning regulations shall be prepared in accordance with a comprehensive plan designed to lessen congestion and provide adequate light and air. The technique by which the orderly physical growth of the City was to be promoted is known as "districting". The Euclid decision not only recognized districting as a legitimate means of separating and control-ling incompatible uses of land but i t also recognized the hierarchical model of land use especially in residential development, and therefore in districting. The Court, in considering the case before i t , "generalized the living arrangements which then typified apartment development into a legally significant use category which then became subject to independent and less favourable treatment under the umbrella of land use regulations". 1 1 The famous quote "right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlour" indicates the judicial stance taken and at least implicitly indicates that classification of uses were founded on taste and value preferences. The court approved the constitutionality of zoning protection for neighbourhoods from uses which, while not nuisance in the old legal definition, had very similar effects on neighbourhood i .. 12 quality. The hierarchical model of districting contains elements of both the nuisance theory of various use types and the "pour over" theory of property values. Simply stated, the first theory meant that all uses other than single family residential constituted a nuisance in an exist-ing area of single family residential, while the second theory meant property zoned for a less use (i.e., commercial, industrial) could be also used for residential purposes. This cumulative effect was obviously - 15 -only applicable in a downward direction where the single family dwelling zone appeared at the top of the hierarchy. Diagram 1 will assist in explaining this concept. The notion of districting is so central to ZONE 1 Single family dwelling only. ZONE II Apartments, offices, commercial stores and single family dwellings. ZONE III Unrestricted - any use including single family dwellings. understanding the control that zoning provides and the methods by which zoning is administered, that a brief examination of how it has evolved over the years is required. After World War II the hierarchical model of districting was succeeded by the separate but equal facilities doctrine which saw each district reserved exclusively for those uses deemed appropriate for that district. This doctrine had several advantages: 1) it allowed future municipal growth to be mapped, thereby rigidly designating various uses of land in each section of the community prior to its development, 2) it allowed industry to operate with greater freedom as its neighbours were to be industrial rather than residential, and 3) it allowed possible diversion of "undesirable" residential growth by providing more indus-trially zoned land than would ever be needed for the community's purposes. This separate but equal doctrine lost much popularity when massive changes in building technology and design reduced the importance of - 16 -Diagram 1. r e c o g n i z i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i o u s u s e s . B e g i n n i n g i n t h e e a r l y 1950's i t became more i m p o r t a n t t o i d e n t i f y o f f e n s i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f use r a t h e r t h a n t o p r o h i b i t i t i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t a l t o g e t h e r . T h i s marked t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d as t h e l o c a t i o n d e t e r -minant and h e r a l d e d t h e age o f mixed use r e g u l a t i o n . The mixed use c o n c e p t was f i r s t a p p l i e d t o i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s where such i n d i c a t o r s and s t a n d a r d s as n o i s e , o d o u r , smoke, v i b r a t i o n and f i r e h a z a r d g e n e r a t e d d e t e r m i n e d i n which zone t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b u s i n e s s c o u l d l o c a t e . The r e s u l t was i f a p a r t i c u l a r b u s i n e s s c o u l d meet t h e p e r f o rmance s t a n d a r d o f t h e d e s i g n a t e d zone t h e n i t c o u l d l o c a t e t h e r e ( o r i n any o t h e r zone w i t h l o w e r p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s ) r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e 'nature o f t h e i n t e n d e d u s e . The s p r e a d o f t h e mixed use c o n c e p t as a r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l i n o t h e r use d i s t r i c t s has been v e r y s l o w . One e x p e r t n o t e s , "the h i t c h , o f c o u r s e , i s t h a t we have one s e t o f mores f o r t h e i n d u s t r i a l p i g s and a n o t h e r f o r t h e r e s i d e n t i a l p a r l o u r s . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f m u l t i - f a m i l y uses i n t o a s i n g l e - f a m i l y zone c a r r i e s s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s which a r e 13 a b s e n t i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f i n d u s t r y . " The mixed-up c o n c e p t has more r e c e n t l y r e - a p p e a r e d under t h e g u i s e o f " v e r t i c a l z o n i n g " whereby numerous uses such as r e t a i l , o f f i c e - c o m m e r c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l , a r e s t a c k e d i n a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g . D e s p i t e some s u c c e s s t h r o u g h a d o p t i o n o f t h e mixed use c o n c e p t , t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n c o n t r o l o f l a n d use soon came t o r e a l i z e t h a t a l l o -c a t i o n o f l a n d uses t o meet c o n t i n u a l l y s h i f t i n g p a t t e r n s o f community needs and consumer demands was much more complex and r e q u i r e d much more f l e x i b i l i t y t h a n e x i s t e d under t h e E u c l i d e a n system a t t h e same t i m e . As has been n o t e d : " E x p e r i e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f s y n t h e -14 s i z i n g t h e uses o f l a n d by a r i g i d m e c h a n i c a l a p p r o a c h . " The need t o i n c o r p o r a t e a f u r t h e r degree o f f l e x i b i l i t y i n t o z o n i n g ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n t h e development o f t h r e e new t y p e s o f c o n t r o l d e v i c e s . These were, 1) bonus z o n i n g , 2) c o n t r a c t o r s i t e c o n t r o l z o n i n g , and 3) t r a n s f e r o f development r i g h t s . Each i s b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d below. Bonus z o n i n g combines t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s e t o f b u l k and use r e g u -l a t i o n s w i t h t h e promise t h a t more l i b e r a l s t a n d a r d s o f c o n t r o l would be made a v a i l a b l e i n exchange f o r " b e t t e r " development. G e n e r a l l y , t h i s e n t a i l s t h e r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y p e r m i t t i n g t h e d e v e l o p e r h i g h e r d e n s i t y i n exchange f o r underground p a r k i n g , l a r g e r amounts o f open s p a c e , g r e a t e r p u b l i c a m e n i t i e s , o r improved d e s i g n f e a t u r e s . T h i s form o f r e g u l a t i o n r e f l e c t e d not o n l y new d e s i r e f o r f l e x i b i l i t y , but a l s o a new goal o f z o n i n g : t o promote i n a p o s i t i v e manner a p r e c o n c e i v e d n o t i o n o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . While t h i s d e v i c e s t i l l r e l i e d on a s e t o f s t a n d a r d s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i t was t h e p r o g e n i t o r o f a n e g o t i a t e d development p r o c e s s based on t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y . In t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s d e v i c e became known as t h e f l o a t i n g zone. E x e r c i s e o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y power was f u r t h e r e r o d e d w i t h t h e i n t r o -d u c t i o n o f c o n t r a c t z o n i n g , a d e v i c e even more dependent on a n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s between c i v i c s t a f f and p r o s p e c t i v e d e v e l o p e r s . C o n t r a c t z o n i n g was d e v e l o p e d i n r e s p o n s e t o l i m i t a t i o n s c o n v e n t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s p l a c e d on development o f l a r g e t r a c t s o f l a n d . The c o n c e r n o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s had been t o a f f o r d t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y owner p r o t e c t i o n from n e g a t i v e e x t e r n a l i t i e s o f new development s e e k i n g t o l o c a t e on - 18 -adjacent property. These regulations, however, were not particularly relevant to development of large sites where primary regulatory concerns were not with externalities of the site but with the nature of internal design. Contract zoning requires an agreement be reached between civic staff and the developer and as noted, "presupposes the development of land 15 prior to such an agreement". The developer is of course free to develop the land within the confines of regulations pertaining to the zone in which the land is already located should he so choose. However, in doing so available development benefits would be forfeited. It is through this negotiation process that detailed project plans are devel-oped and flexibility in zoning increased. This flexibility is achieved, however, at the cost of uniformity and stability, two cornerstones of the traditional zoning technique. This loss occurs because contract zoning entails tailoring a set of individual regulations to peculiarities of a specific site and to desires of the developer and civic staff. The outcome of this process is a new and unique zoning which has been created through a negotiation process based on the discretion of the planning staff and approved by the local council. In such cases, "unless there are external guidelines to constrain municipal activity, there may perhaps be a tendency for the local authority to impose whatever condi-tions the traffic will bear."**' Contract zoning appears today in various forms. In the United States, i t is primarily recognizable as planned unit developments or PUD's, while in Canada i t has taken the form of comprehensive developments or CD-I's. The third device which promotes flexibility in zoning is known as transfer of development rights, or TDR's. This device allows a developer to transfer the right to develop from one site to another in exchange for - 19 -p r o v i d i n g some p u b l i c amenity which would o t h e r w i s e not be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e community a t l a r g e . In Canada t h i s d e v i c e i s known by a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t name: " t r a n s f e r o f development p r i v i l e d g e " . 1 ^ While t h e t h r e e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e v i c e s d i s c u s s e d above e x p l a i n how g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y was i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e American system o f z o n i n g , t h e y do not e n t i r e l y e x p l a i n how f l e x i b i l i t y was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e Canadian z o n i n g . T h i s i s t h e s u b j e c t o f d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e next s e c t i o n . 2.2.2 The Canadian E x p e r i e n c e The h i s t o r y o f z o n i n g i n Canada a p p e a r s t o have c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l l e d developments i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s Canadian z o n i n g was a l s o i n i t i a l l y c o n c e r n e d e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h 18 t h e l o c a t i o n o f development. T h i s c o n c e r n became t h e b a s i s f o r a l l p l a n n i n g a c t s d e v e l o p e d i n Canada i n t h e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g . R e g u l a t i o n o f l a n d use i n Canada began a t t h e t u r n o f t h i s c e n t u r y when a u t h o r i t y was g i v e n t o impose minimum r e g u l a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o a b u i l d i n g ' s f r o n t a g e and s e t b a c k . In a d d i t i o n , minimal d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers r e l a t e d t o use o f l a n d were a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d . A c o n c e p t o f d i s t r i c t i n g was f i r s t implemented i n O n t a r i o i n 1921 and had s p r e a d t o t h e M u n i c i p a l i t y o f 19 P o i n t Grey by 1922. F i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h a t z o n i n g was f o r m a l l y adopted i n Vancouver. Those r e g u l a t i o n s remained more o r l e s s unchanged u n t i l t h e 1950's when c o n c e r n w i t h t h e form o f development began t o s h i f t t h e emphasis o f z o n i n g towards more f l e x i b l e t e c h n i q u e s o f c o n t r o l . T h i s s h i f t marked t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e d i v e r g e n c e between t h e C anadian and American z o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s . Each c o u n t r y was t o seek d i f f e r e n t d e v i c e s t o i n t r o d u c e f l e x i b i l i t y i n t o what u n t i l t h a t t i m e had been b a s i c a l l y t h e same method o f c o n t r o l . These s i m i l a r i t i e s were t h e r e s u l t o f common l e g i s l a t i o n and p a r a l l e l e v o l u t i o n o f r e s p e c t i v e - 20 -c i t i e s . P r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s , however, a r e not so e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d as t h e y o r i g i n a t e from such b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two c o u n t r i e s as d e f i n e d by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e government and l e g a l s ystems. As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e American stream o f p l a n n i n g i m p l e m e n t a t i o n produced such f l e x i b l e c o n t r o l d e v i c e s as bonus and c o n t r a c t z o n i n g and TDR's. S e v e r a l o f t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s were a l s o i m p o r t e d t o Canada i n an attempt t o s o l v e t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g system problems. However, t h e s e measures were not t h e o n l y ones implemented. Canadian o f f i c i a l s l o o k e d t o E n g l a n d and i m p o r t e d a n o t h e r f l e x i b l e d e v i c e known as development c o n t r o l t o h e l p s o l v e l o c a l l a n d use c o n t r o l problems. Development c o n t r o l i s a g r e a t d e p a r t u r e from t h e American system as - i t i s c o n t r o l o f l a n d use by p e r m i s s i o n r a t h e r t h a n r e g u l a t i o n . I t r e q u i r e s t h a t each proposed use f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y be examined on i t s m e r i t s by some p l a n n i n g agency o r o f f i c i a l , whereas t h e t r a d i t i o n a l American method e n t i t l e d an owner t o d e v e l o p l a n d w i t h o u t a p p r o v a l o f any government o f f i c i a l as l o n g as c e r t a i n minimal s t a n d a r d s were met. One e x p e r t n o t e s t h a t because development c o n t r o l i s a system based on d e c i s i o n s o f some p l a n n i n g agency o r o f f i c i a l , a n d not by by-law i t i s an 21 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r t h a n l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l . These two systems o f c o n t r o l s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s between B r i t a i n and t h e U.S.A. In A m e r i c a , p r o p e r t y r i g h t s occupy a more s a n c t i f i e d p l a c e t h a n i n England,and an i n d i v i d u a l has t h e r i g h t t o d e v e l o p h i s own p r o p e r t y t o i t s h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e . As w e l l , t h e owner has a r i g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d from n e g a t i v e developments o f n e i g h b o u r i n g p r o p e r t y owners. I t can be o b s e r v e d t h a t i n A m e r i c a , t h e r i g h t t o d e v e l o p one's own p r o p e r t y i s c o n s i d e r e d a r i g h t o f r e a l p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p . - 21 -On t h e o t h e r hand, p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i n England have d e v e l o p e d under t h e Common Law and w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h y t h a t l a n d ownership r e p r e s e n t s d u t i e s t o t h e community as w e l l as r i g h t s o f development t o t h e owner. An o f f - s h o o t o f t h i s n o t i o n i s t h e i d e a t h a t t h e p u b l i c has t h e r i g h t , t h r o u g h t h e Crown, t o t a k e from t h e owner any i n c r e m e n t i n l a n d v a l u e r e s u l t i n g from an a p p r o v a l g i v e n t o d e v e l o p t h e p r o p e r t y t o a h i g h e r 22 use. The s t a t u t o r y i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e E n g l i s h l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e r i g h t t o d e v e l o p l a n d has r e s u l t e d i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f a system o f development c o n t r o l dependent on b u r e a u c r a t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and t h e use o f l o c a l p l a n s t o approve o r deny i n d i v i d u a l p r o p o s a l s . T h i s r e q u i r e d a u t h o r i t y t o be g i v e n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f and i s q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e o f t h e American system which p l a c e s t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s r a t h e r t h a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f . The r e s u l t has been t h a t l a n d use 23 c o n t r o l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has become much more p o l i t i c i z e d and much l e s s d i s c r e t i o n a r y i n i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a n i n e i t h e r B r i t a i n o r Canada. In Canada, t h i s form o f development c o n t r o l i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have ado p t e d a Development Per m i t (D.P.) system o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The D.P. system i n Canada o r i g i n a t e d i n Vancouver t h r o u g h a C h a r t e r amendment i n 1956 which e n a b l e d C o u n c i l t o pass by-laws r e q u i r i n g i s s u a n c e o f a development p e r m i t p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t . S i n c e t h e n , m o d i f i e d D.P. systems have s p r e a d t o 24 A l b e r t a , Nova S c o t i a , New B r u n s w i c k , Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, by amendment t o t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t , R.S.B.C. (1 9 6 8 ) , o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n 25 B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . - 22 -As a thorough comprehension of the Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law will assist not only in understanding the Board of Variance's activities but also in how development control is used, a brief explana-tion is now undertaken. The Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law (No. 3575) is actually a rather unique mixture of both American regulatory and British permissive systems of administration. The regulatory aspects appear within the by-law as a system of outright uses applicable in general zones, and in the bulk regulations described in the by-law. This system assures a devel-oper a Development Permit (D.P.) provided that all general specifications laid down in the by-law have been met and the use to which the property is intended fits a l i s t of predetermined or outright uses for that zone. Several more recent American techniques are also reflected in the by-law; bonusing the maximum buildable floor area is used in several apartment zones to encourage such amenities as underground parking, open space, and vertical zoning. The discretionary nature of the permit system becomes prevalent in the by-law when a use proposed for a zone falls into a conditional rather than an outright use category. While administrative discretion does not play a large role in the issuance of conditional use D.P.'s in certain general zones, in other specific zones this authority has been greatly extended. This is because the legislature has constrained, through definition and condition, the authority of the Director of Planning to relax specific regulations. For example, the discretionary power of the Director is extremely limited in the single family residential zone (RS-1). However, in the specialized medium density apartment zone (RM-3A1), where the regulations have been designed to encourage retention of - 23 -e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s and good d e s i g n , t h e D i r e c t o r may use h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e l a x i n g a l m o s t any o r a l l o f t h e b u l k r e q u i r e m e n t s . In a d d i t i o n , Vancouver's C o u n c i l has used i t s power t o d e l e g a t e even g r e a t e r d i s c r e -t i o n a r y power t o i t s Development Per m i t Board when c o n s i d e r i n g d e v e l o p -ment under t h e Downtown (D.D.), West End (W.E.D.) o r F a l s e Creek (F.C.C.D.D.) o f f i c i a l development p l a n s . 2 6 As i s e v i d e n t from t h i s r a t h e r b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e Vancouver by-law, Canada's s e a r c h f o r a f l e x i b l e system o f z o n i n g has f o l l o w e d a path o f i n c r e a s i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers. The r e s u l t i n Vancouver has been t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a development p e r m i t system o f l a n d use c o n t r o l . T h i s system has p e r m i t t e d p l a n n i n g o f f i c i a l s t o use t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment t o v a r y r e g u l a t i o n s , e i t h e r by r e l a x i n g c e r t a i n z o n i n g p r o v i s i o n s , o r by i m p o s i n g s t r i c t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a n s e t out i n t h e z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . 2 ^ T h i s i s done i n a h i g h l y n e g o t i a t e d b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s w i t h t h e p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r . Noncompliance w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f development d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h t h i s p r o c e s s r e s u l t s i n a r e f u s a l t o i s s u e a D.P., and t h e r i g h t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t t o appeal t h a t d e c i s i o n t o t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e . 2.2.3 V a r i a n c e s The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f z o n i n g i s c o m p l i c a t e d because g e n e r a l r e g u -l a t i o n s cannot always be a p p l i e d i n a u n i f o r m manner w i t h o u t c a u s i n g undue h a r d s h i p t o i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y owners. Where t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s a r i s e as a r e s u l t o f unusual t o p o g r a p h i c c o n d i t i o n s , p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t e , o r unusual demands not e v i d e n t when t h e by-law was a d o p t e d , r e l i e f may be sought t h r o u g h a mechanism c a l l e d a v a r i a n c e . - 24 -A variance has been variously defined as: a) "a permission granted as relief from some specific and unusual hardship imposed by the strict interpretation of the 28 ordinance.", b) "a mechanism to adjust the application of the general zoning provisions to individual plots of land which have unique topographic, size or shape attributes.", and c) "a permit granted by the board of adjustment to allow a 30 departure from zoning law under certain conditions." The purpose of the variance is to allow a property owner to use his land at the same level of intensity that others located in the same zone are entitled but to which he would not be allowed i f the by-law were to be rigorously applied to his property. The power to grant variances is a statutory one delegated to an administrative board by the senior (provincial or state) legislature. Provision is generally made for the local council to appoint one or more of the members of that board. The statute will generally contain the following elements: a) variances must be granted only upon appeal, b) variances are only granted in specific cases, c) there must be special conditions, d) the variance granted shall not be contrary to the public interest, e) literal enforcement of the by-law would result in unnecessary hardship, f) the spirit or intent of the by-law must be observed, and - 25 -g) s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e must be done t o a l l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d , 31 i n c l u d i n g t h e p u b l i c . V a r i a n c e s a r e u s u a l l y s e p a r a t e d i n t o two t y p e s : use v a r i a n c e s and b u l k ( o r a r e a ) v a r i a n c e s . A use v a r i a n c e a u t h o r i z e s t h e use o f l a n d t h a t i s n o r m a l l y not p e r m i s s a b l e i n t h e d i s t r i c t where t h e l a n d i s s i t u a t e d , whereas, a b u l k v a r i a n c e a l l o w s t h e p r o p e r t y owner t o not conform t o p a r t i c u l a r d i m e n s i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s n o r m a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n t h a t d i s t r i c t . S e v e r a l w r i t e r s have n o t e d t h a t g r a n t i n g o f use v a r i a n c e s i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o be more d i l a t o r y t o t h e v a l u e s o f z o n i n g t h a n i s t h e g r a n t i n g 32 o f a b u l k v a r i a n c e . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s c o n c e r n l i e s i n t h e r e c o g -n i t i o n t h a t p e r m i t t i n g a new use i n a d i s t r i c t i s tantamount t o r e z o n i n g ; a l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n p r o p e r l y t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f l o c a l c o u n c i l s . To e n s u r e t h e v a r i a n c e mechanism i s not t o o o v e r l y abused and because s t a t u t e s which d e l e g a t e u n l i m i t e d d i s c r e t i o n on a board a r e open t o c h a r g e s o f u s u r p a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e power, r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e s t a n d a r d s t o g u i d e t h e board i n g r a n t i n g v a r i a n c e s have been d e v e l o p e d . These " s t a n d a r d s " a r e p h r a s e s a p p e a r i n g i n t h e by-law such as " p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s " and " u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p " , terms which, t o t h e layman, do not convey a v e r y e x a c t g u i d e as t o t h e i r meaning. However, a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e s e s t a n d a r d s have a r a t h e r more p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n t h a n perhaps i n i t i a l l y t h o u g h t . T h i s c l a r i t y i s g e n e r a l l y t h e r e s u l t o f i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e c o u r t s i n v a r i o u s z o n i n g c a s e s . I t has been n o t e d t h a f ' t h e fundamental r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a v a r i a n c e a r e s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d i n t h e o f t e n c i t e d o p i n i o n i n O t t o v. S t e i n h i l b e r : - 26 -" B e f o r e t h e Board may e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n and g r a n t a v a r i a n c e upon t h e ground o f u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , t h e r e c o r d must show t h a t (1) t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n cannot y i e l d a r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n i f used o n l y f o r a purpose a l l o w e d i n t h a t zone; (2) t h a t t h e p l i g h t o f t h e owner i s due t o unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s and not t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d which may r e f l e c t t h e u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e i t s e l f ; and (3) t h a t t h e use t o be a u t h o r i z e d by t h e v a r i a n c e w i l l not a l t e r t h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l o c a l i t y . " 33 From o t h e r c a s e law t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s have been f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean: a) t h a t t h e owner c o u l d make a g r e a t e r p r o f i t by u s i n g t h e l a n d i n a n o n - c o n f o r m i n g way i s , by i t s e l f , no ground f o r a v a r i a n c e ; b) t h e h a r d s h i p must not be s e l f - c r e a t e d ; c ) t h e e x c e p t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s must be p e c u l i a r t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r l o t . 3 4 The s t a n d a r d o f " u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p " does not have t o be proven i n c a s e s o f b u l k v a r i a n c e s . Here t h e t e s t i s p r o v i n g " p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t -i e s " and t h i s g e n e r a l l y does not r e q u i r e "a showing t h a t w i t h o u t a 35 v a r i a n c e t h e l a n d c a n n o t y i e l d a r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n . " J u d i c i a l l y , t h e p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s t e s t has come t o mean t h a t : a) t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e from t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f t h e s i t e I t s e l f (and not from p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s ) , and b) t h e problem must be unique t o t h e s i t e , o r not so w i d e s p r e a d so 3fi as t o be more a p p r o p r i a t e l y remedied by amending t h e by-law. must be proven b e f o r e a v a r i a n c e i s g r a n t e d . As can be seen from t h e f o r e g o i n g , v a r i a n c e s a r e used t o "take t h e 37 p i n c h out o f t h e z o n i n g shoe" , as w e l l as t o r e l i e v e l o c a l c o u n c i l s - 27 -from the burden of continually amending the zoning by-law, which would not only expose zoning to charges of discrimination and unconstitutional takings of property rights but would require exorbitant amounts of Council's time. In the next sections two different administrative systems used to grant variances are discussed, commencing with a detailed examination of the traditional system as represented by the Vancouver Board of Variance and followed by a similar examination of a new system as represented by the Seattle Hearing Examiner. 2.2.4 Summary The history of zoning has been one increasingly dependent upon the exercise of administrative discretion. New zoning techniques discussed above have given modern zoning administrators tremendous powers which affect the rights of an individual and the good of the entire community. In the U.S., expansion of discretionary power has been accompanied at judicial insistence, by development of procedural safeguards to limit abuse by staff or laymen involved in the administrative process. Corres-ponding developments have not occurred in Canada where adoption of a permit system changed the development process from one based on regula-tion of rights to one based on the negotiation of permission to develop. With the growth of administrative discretion in both countries the role the variance plays in zoning has also increased in importance. Where once the variance was sought to provide relief from the strict applications of firmly established standards or regulations such is no longer the case. The size and complexity of today's urban developments, in combination with the increasingly discretionary nature of modern zoning, has resulted in the potential for the variance to be used as a device to circumvent the discretionary authority now given to professional - 28 -planning staff and, in certain circumstances, the direct wishes of the 38 elected legislative body. This potential danger exists as denial of development permission is appealable to a lay body of appointed adjudi-cators known as a board of variance. The need for control of this board forms the basis of this thesis and its operation is described in detail in the next section of this chapter. A final note about zoning is that it is a process by which govern-ment regulates the use of both public and private lands. It is therefore a political process dependent as much upon the personalities of individ-39 uals, partisan politics, and petty jealousies as i t is upon legislated planning policy and the discretionary authority of the professional planner. It therefore has no sacred principles of its own, although i t is often treated as i f i t does. Its goals cannot be separated from those 40 goals ascribed to the political process as a whole. This theme will be further developed in discussing two popular systems of zoning administra-tion and the theory behind them. 2.3 ZONING ADMINISTRATION - VANCOUVER In this section the Vancouver Board of Variance (VBV) is introduced. For the purposes of this study the Board represents the traditional model of administration in zoning. Discussion commences with an explanation of the system's constitutional genesis and local history. It concludes with an examination of the detailed operating procedures currently used in the Board's deliberations. - 29 -2.3.1 History of the Vancouver Board of Variance In British Columbia a board of variance is a function of local government. Statutorial provision can therefore be found in both the Municipal Act (R.S.C.B., 1960) and the Vancouver Charter (S.B.C. 1953). It is through these documents and the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, that the Province has delegated its legislative authority to the local council. Council thus enacted legislation enabling establishment of a Board of Variance in 1960. The by-law (No. 3844) authorized the creation of a quasi-judicial tribunal empowered to make minor adjustments in the strict application of the Zoning and Development By-law (No. 3575). The intent of the legislation is to create an administrative device to deal with . various contingencies and local conditions unforeseen at the time of implementation of, or having arisen in the subsequent administration of, the general regulations contained in the Zoning and Development By-law. The enabling acts find their constitutional basis in Section 92 of the British North America Act (1867), a statute of the British Parliament which separates legislative authority between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. A more detailed examination of this Act will be helpful in understanding how the board came about. Under Section 92 the provincial legislature receives almost exclu-sive jurisdiction over matters of local government and much control over the use of lands within the province. Of the various headings contained within this section, 92(8) - "Municipal Institutions in the Province", authorizes the province to establish any number of quasi-municipal bodies required to conduct the specialized functions of local government. The - 30 -board o f v a r i a n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d one such body r e q u i r e d f o r t h e management of m u n i c i p a l a f f a i r s . P r o v i n c i a l c o n t r o l o v e r m a t t e r s o f l a n d use has f o l l o w e d from j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f S e c t i o n s 92(13) - " P r o p e r t y and C i v i l R i g h t s i n t h e P r o v i n c e s " and 92(16) - " G e n e r a l l y a l l m a t t e r s o f a m e r e l y l o c a l o r p r i v a t e n a t u r e i n t h e p r o v i n c e " . The r e s u l t o f t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s has been t o g i v e t h e p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e t h e power t o r e g u l a t e t h e use o f a l l l a n d s w i t h i n t h e boundary, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h o s e l a n d s h e l d as f e d e r a l crown l a n d s o r I n d i a n r e s e r v e s . As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r , d i v i s i o n o f power i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t which o c c u r s i n Washington S t a t e . These l e g a l and governmental p r e c e p t s have a l l o w e d t h e B r i t i s h Columbia l e g i s l a t u r e t o pass t h e Vancouver C i t y C h a r t e r which i n t u r n a u t h o r i z e s t h e C o u n c i l by-law, t o e s t a b l i s h t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e . T h i s a u t h o r i t y i s found i n s e c t i o n 572(1) o f t h e C h a r t e r , which s t a t e s t h a t C o u n c i l " s h a l l e s t a b l i s h , by by-law, a Board o f f i v e members..." whose j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c l u d e s h e a r i n g a p p e a l s stemming from: a) d e c i s i o n s on q u e s t i o n s o f z o n i n g made by any o f f i c i a l c h a r g e d w i t h t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a z o n i n g by-law, b) p e r s o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t s t r i c t e n f o r c e m e n t o f a z o n i n g by-law r e g a r d i n g s i t i n g , s i z e , shape, o r d e s i g n o f a b u i l d i n g would cause undue o r u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p a r i s i n g out o f t h e p a r t i -c u l a r i t i e s i n t h e s i t e o r s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e development, c ) t h e c o n t i n u a n c e o f n o n - c o n f o r m i n g u s e s , d) need t o add t o o r s t r u c t u r a l l y a l t e r a non-conforming b u i l d i n g , - 31 -e) need to repair or re-construct a non-conforming building that has been damaged or destroyed by fire to the extent of 60% of its value above its foundations, and f) a decision made by any board or tribunal authorized by Council 41 to relax the provisions of a zoning by-law. This authority does not extend beyond matters related to zoning and therefore limits the overall impact of the Board on the control of land use in the city. A detailed breakdown of the types of cases heard is illustrated by Table 13. .2 Operation of the Vancouver Board of Variance The Board of Variance has been delegated both quasi-judicial and administrative powers. The legality of one body having such a duality of power without direction from Section 96 of the B.N.A. Act is tolerated by the courts because the Board's functions are of an administrative nature notwithstanding that i t may have been invested with quasi-judicial 42 powers. The courts in Canada do not differentiate between "the exercise of a quasi-judicial power" and the exercise of "administrative power in a judicial fashion"4"*, probably because Board members do not enjoy the same 44 degree of independence as do judges appointed under Section 96 and because the Board's powers and authority to act must be in accordance 4b with the Zoning and Development By-law. 2.3.2.1 powers and jurisdiction The Board acts quasi-judicially when it makes an authoritative and final decision based on the facts ascertained about a specific dispute - 32 -related to the enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning and Develop-ment By-law. Additionally, the Board is seen to act judicially when i t complies with certain procedural directives as specified in both the Charter and its own by-law. These procedures are the legislature's attempt to ensure the Board does not abuse its delegated powers by 46 forcing i t to perform with the "minimum standards of a fair procedure". These procedures include providing notice of the hearing (Section 9(1) and the opportunity to be heard (Section 10(1)). When the Board operates in such a manner and makes a decision which may prejudice an individual's rights, i t is seen to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner. The procedural details by which the Board operates will be further examined in section 2.3.2.3. The Board's administrative powers, as defined in Sections 573(1) of the Charter, are to hear and determine appeals: "(a) made by persons aggrieved by a decision made by any official, board, or tribunal concerning the enforcement or relaxation of any zoning by-law, or (b) made by persons who allege that enforcement of a zoning by-law will cause undue or unnecessary hardship owing to special circumstances,." provided that the appeal falls within prescribed standards also set out in the Charter. Those standards require the Board not to allow any appeal solely on the grounds that the land or building could be put to a.more profitable use. As well, other conditions must exist before an appeal can be granted: a) The undue or unnecessary hardship arises from circumstances applying to the applicant's property only; - 33 -b) The strict application of the provisions of the by-law would impose an unreasonable restraint or unnecessary hardship on the use of the property inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law; and c) The allowance of the appeal will not disrupt the official 47 development plan. The imposition of these conditions on the Board's decision-making, in theory at least, restricts its ability to hear only those so entitled and to grant relief only in those cases where i t is consistent with the policies and regulations set out in the Zoning and Development By-law. It would be an abuse of power i f the Board were to create new zoning or permit uses that were not permitted uses, or to correct what i t may consider and what may be defective planning or zoning.. These are matters for Council, as the elected body responsible for regulating land use by 48 the Zoning By-law, to consider. Administrative power is further defined by the legislative restric-tions placed upon how the Board is to render its decisions. These restrictions appear in the Board of Variance By-law, section 13, which states: "(1) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board may thereupon render its decision or may adjourn the appeal and render its decision at a subsequent meeting. (2) The Board may grant or deny the appeal and may reverse or uphold the decision of the Director of Planning or other official charged with the enforcement of the Zoning By-law being appealed against either in whole or in part or may modify such decisions as appears warranted by the facts disclosed at the hearing." - 34 -T h e r e remains a number o f powers p r e s c r i b e d under t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e By-law and as y e t u n c l a s s i f i e d o r u n d e f i n e d . The f i r s t o f t h e s e r e l a t e s t o t h e d u t i e s d e l e g a t e d t o t h e s e c r e t a r y o f t h e Board and which a r e g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d t o be o f a h o u s e k e e p i n g o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e n a t u r e . These powers appear i n s e c t i o n s 3, 4, 5, 9 and 12 o f t h e By-law which i s a t t a c h e d as Appendix 1. The second b u n d l e o f u n c l a s s i f i e d powers r e l a t e s t o s e v e r a l p r o c e d -u r a l m a t t e r s d e l e g a t e d t o t h e Board i t s e l f . The Board has been g i v e n t h e a u t h o r i t y , under s e c t i o n s 4, 9 ( 3 ) , and 16 o f i t s By-law, t o : a) d e t e r m i n e how an appeal s h o u l d be f i l e d ; b) d e t e r m i n e f o r which t y p e s o f c a s e s a n o t i c e o f p u b l i c h e a r i n g s h o u l d be g i v e n ; and c ) e s t a b l i s h , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e By-law, i t s own p r o c e d u r e . These powers i l l u s t r a t e an example where l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e (or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ) powers have been merged t h r o u g h t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , making t h e e x a c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t . I t i s perhaps s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e t h e s e powers a r e s u b o r d i n -a t e t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and p r o c e d u r a l l y do not endanger t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e Board's d e c i s i o n s o r t h e c o n t i n u a n c e o f i t s o p e r a t i o n . 2.3.2.2 t h e e x i s t i n g p r o c e s s The system o f l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n c u r r e n t l y i n p l a c e i n Vancouver i s 49 unique i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f B.C.. In r e c o g n i t i o n o f both t h e c o m p l e x i t y and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n w i t h which development i s l i k e l y t o o c c u r i n such a c o n f i n e d g e o g r a p h i c a r e a as t h e C i t y o f Vancouver, s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s - 35 -were made in the Zoning By-law to allow for the creation of a development permit system. The result has been, over a period of years, a change in administrative techniques from one based largely on fixed regulations to one based on both fixed regulations and the exercise of considerable discretion and negotiation on the part of civic staff. The key partici-pants are the Director of Planning and several advisory boards such as the Development Permit Board, Urban Design Panel and the Heritage Advisory Board. Further comment on the permit system appears elsewhere in this chapter. As in the zoning system used in Seattle and discussed in the next section, the power of approval in land use matters varies between the Director of Planning and the City Council, according to the nature and classification of the action proposed. 2.3.2.3 procedural details The procedural rules governing the Vancouver Board of Variance are established by the province through the Vancouver Charter and by the Board itself through the By-law. Vancouver, unlike Seattle, has not developed such an extensively codified set of procedural rules for each of its civic functions, agencies, or bodies. This difference in admini-strative approaches is primarily thought to be the result of the intensive judicial scrutiny zoning matters have undergone in Washington courts rather than from any fundamental difference in the function or operation of administrative tribunals in the two countries. In the typical variance case before the Vancouver Board the following procedural details would apply: - 36 -Timing Any person appealing a decision of a zoning official must fil e a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days of issue of a development permit or notification of refusal to issue a permit. The Board, however, may extend this limitation in any given case i f cause to do so is given by the applicant in writing. Content of Appeal All appeals must be filed in writing on a form approved by the Board. This form consists of: o a) an indication of the clause or clauses of the Vancouver Charter under which the appeal is made, b) a statement of the section(s), subsection(s) or clause(s) of the Zoning and Development By-law desired to be relaxed, c) a statement of the amount and/or type of relaxation desired, d) documents and sketch plans for consideration, e) location of development, and f) name, address, telephone number of appellant. Clarification At the discretion of the Secretary to the Board, the applicant may be requested to provide additional information such as building or site plans, in order to allow for the proper understanding of an appeal. Requests for clarification can only be made by either the Secretary or the Board. Participation by Non-parties In Vancouver the hearing is open to the public and testimony is generally allowed from any person whose evidence may assist the Board in - 37 -r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n . T h i s p e r s o n need not be a w i t n e s s n o r , i t would a p p e a r , even be an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t ( i n t h e l e g a l s e n se) i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r under a p p e a l . In t h e absence o f any g u i d e l i n e s t o a s s i s t i n d e t e r m i n i n g who t o h e a r , t h e Board must hear anyone w i s h i n g t o speak. R i g h t o f P a r t i e s RTghts o f an i n d i v i d u a l a p p e a l i n g t o t h e Board a r e p r o t e c t e d t h r o u g h both s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y s a f e g u a r d s and t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . An e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i s l e f t u n t i l C h a p t e r I I I , however, two o f t h e major components o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e a p pear i n b o t h t h e C h a r t e r and t h e By-law and a r e t h e r e f o r e d i s c u s s e d below. The r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e r e q u i r e t h a t : a) n o t i c e o f t h e i n t e n t i o n t o make a d e c i s i o n be g i v e n t o any per s o n whose r i g h t s a r e t o be a f f e c t e d ; and b) t h e t r i b u n a l making t h e d e c i s i o n must be i m p a r t i a l and f r e e from i n t e r e s t or b i a s . ^ These a r e t h e "audi a l t e r a m partem" and t h e "nemo j u d e x i n ca u s a sua" r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e ; t h e o n l y ones r e c o g n i z e d by E n g l i s h law. The r i g h t t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g i s a f f o r d e d b o t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r " i n t e r e s t e d " i n d i v i d u a l and t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e ( i f t h e m a t t e r i s deemed by t h e Board t o be o f s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a n c e ) . However, w h i l e t h e a g r i e v e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o a h e a r i n g i s e n s u r e d , i t does not imply t h a t a l l m a t t e r s which r e q u i r e a d j u d i c a t i o n a r e t o be h e l d i n p u b l i c . P r o v i s i o n f o r t h a t i s made e l s e w h e r e , however i t need not have 51 been made a t a l l , a t l e a s t i n t h e s t r i c t e s t l e g a l s e n s e . F u r t h e r m o r e , wide d i s c r e t i o n i s g i v e n t o t h e Board t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s - 38 -o f t h e m a t t e r . Indeed, t h e o n l y a s s u r a n c e a v a i l a b l e t h a t t h e Board w i l l a c t u a l l y c o n d u c t i t s e l f i n a p r o p e r manner i s t h a t i t s f a i l u r e t o do so may r e s u l t i n grounds t o quash any d e c i s i o n made on t h e m a t t e r . E x c e p t i o n s t o t h e c o u r t ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h i s r i g h t t o n o t i f i c a t i o n may o c c u r where t h e a p p l i c a n t s u f f e r e d no l o s s o r i f e v a s i o n o f n o t i c e was p u r p o s e f u l . E x a c t n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e hea d i n g below. The second r u l e o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e , t h e r i g h t t o an a d j u d i c a t o r who i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d and i m p a r t i a l , i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e s e c t i o n o f t h e C h a r t e r which p r e v e n t s appointment t o t h e Board o f i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e members o f t h e A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission o r who h o l d m u n i c i p a l o f f i c e , e i t h e r a p p o i n t e d o r e l e c t e d . F u r t h e r p r o t e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e by-law where p e r m i s s i o n i s g i v e n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o seek a r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t f o r adjournment p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g , and where t h e Board i s g i v e n a u t h o r i t y t o a d j o u r n an appeal where t h e a p p l i c a n t i s not p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , o r f a i l s t o p r o c e e d w i t h h i s appeal when c a l l e d t o do so by t h e S e c r e t a r y . The o r i g i n o f t h i s r u l e i s t i e d t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t must have s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o p r e p a r e t h e c a s e . While s e v e r a l o f t h e l e s s e r r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e a r e not s p e c i f i c a l l y m entioned i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e by t h e Board i s i m p l i e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s which a r e a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y s e t out i n t h e s t a t u t e s . .These r u l e s p e r m i t t h e a p p e l l a n t t h e r i g h t t o a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t m a t e r i a l s , c a l l and c r o s s - e x a m i n e w i t n e s s e s , and t o p o s s e s s knowledge o f a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e a p p e a l . The o p e r a t i v e r u l e i n t h i s r e g a r d , and t h e r e seems t o be s u b s t a n t i a l a g r e e -ment w i t h t h i s from t h e c o u r t s , i s t h a t i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o o b s e r v e - 39 -o n l y some o f t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e ; t h e y must a l l be o b s e r v e d . T h i s r u l e seems t o a p p l y t o j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s a t a l l l e v e l s and as such i s a p p l i c a b l e t o any q u a s i - j u d i c i a l t r i b u n a l n o t o n l y t h e b o a r d o f v a r i a n c e . ^ N o t i c e Requirements The S e c r e t a r y i s r e q u i r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e o f a p u b l i c h e a r i n g o f a p p e a l s , t h e c o n t e n t o f which c o n s i s t s o f : a) a st a t e m e n t o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f t h e h e a r i n g , b) a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y a u t h o r i z i n g t h e h e a r i n g , and c) i n s t r u c t i o n s on who t o c o n t a c t f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s n o t i c e must be m a i l e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t by t h e S e c r e t a r y a t l e a s t f i v e days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g d a t e . F o r tho'se a p p e a l s deemed o f s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a n c e a p u b l i c n o t i c e must be p l a c e d i n a aewspaper c i r c u l a t i n g i n t h e C i t y i n not l e s s t h a n two c o n s e c u t i v e i s s u e s , and p u b l i s h e d between t e n and t h r e e days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g . P o s t i n g o f t h e s i t e i s not required,.* as i t i s f o r major development p e r m i t and r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e S e c r e t a r y i s r e q u i r e d t o n o t i f y any o f f i c i a l o r h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e where t h e ap p e a l i n v o l v e s a d e c i s i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e en f o r c e m e n t o f t h e z o n i n g by-law. T h i s t h e n p e r m i t s a wide range o f o f f i c i a l s from t h e l o c a l a r e a p l a n n e r t o t h e development p e r m i t group l e a d e r ( t h e D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g i s d e l e g a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ) t o be p r e s e n t o r s u p p l y i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e Board f o r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t i s a l s o t h r o u g h t h e a r e a p l a n n e r t h a t t h e views o f any c i t i z e n s ' p l a n n i n g committees a r e u s u a l l y c h a n n e l l e d t o t h e Board. Other t y p e s o f r e s i d e n t g r o u p s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n a p a r t i c u l a r n e i g h b o u r h o o d o r g e o g r a p h i c a r e a n o t r e l a t e d t o a l o c a l a r e a p l a n n i n g - 40 -program, o f t e n have d i f f i c u l t y making t h e i r views known as t h e r e i s no f o r m a l s t a t u t o r y o r i n f o r m a l method o f i n v o l v i n g them i n t h e appeal p r o c e s s . Ex P a r t e Communications While b o t h t h e by-law and t h e s t a t u t e g u i d i n g t h e Board f a i l t o p r o h i b i t an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y from d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e r i t s o f a c a s e w i t h a Board member p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g e x p l i c i t l y , t h e u n s t a t e d r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e would n e c e s s a r i l y c r e a t e such a r e s t r i c t i o n . T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n does not a p p l y t o q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r s . Record and C o n t e n t The Board's p r o c e e d i n g s , w h i l e open t o t h e p u b l i c , a r e not r e c o r d e d v e r b a t i m o r e l e c t r o n i c a l l y . The o f f i c i a l r e c o r d , and t h e one which s e r v e s as t h e b a s i s o f any a p p e a l t o a h i g h e r c o u r t , c o n s i s t s o f : a) t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , b) a l l e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d o r c o n s i d e r e d , c ) a minute o f t h e h e a r i n g , and d) a d e c i s i o n . P r e s i d i n g O f f i c i a l s P r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Board a r e g e n e r a l l y v e r y i n f o r m a l . T h i s i s t o l e r a t e d by t h e c o u r t s because i t a f f o r d s a wide l a t i t u d e i n t h e manner o f p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e views o f t h o s e b e f o r e t h e Board, who f o r t h e most p a r t , a r e j u s t f o l k s u n r e p r e s e n t e d by l e g a l c o u n s e l . The Chairman has, however, i n o r d e r t o be a b l e t o move t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a l o n g , been a c c o r d e d c e r t a i n powers i n c l u d i n g : a) t h e power t o a d m i n i s t e r o a t h s ; - 41 -b) t h e power t o r e g u l a t e t h e c o u r s e o f t h e h e a r i n g and t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s ; c) t h e power t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m e e t i n g ' s l o c a t i o n and t i m e ; and d) " t h e power t o p o l l o t h e r members f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n on an a p p e a l . A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e Board c o l l e c t i v e l y has t h e power t o : a) r u l e on which a p p e a l s s h o u l d have p u b l i c n o t i c e g i v e n them; b) r e q u e s t f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a n t o r a w i t n e s s o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e wording o r i n t e n t o f t h e Zoning and D e v e l o p -ment By-law; c) c a n v a s s n e i g h b o u r h o o d o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f an a p p e a l ; d) view t h e s i t e o f t h e a p p e a l e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g ; e) g r a n t a d j o u r n m e n t s ; f ) d e c i d e an appeal e i t h e r a t t h e end o f t h e h e a r i n g o r a t a s u b s e q u e n t m e e t i n g ; and g) r e f u s e t o r e - h e a r an a p p e a l c o v e r i n g i d e n t i c a l grounds o r p r i n c i p l e s a l r e a d y r u l e d on by t h e B o a r d . D e c i s i o n C o n t e n t The d e c i s i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e members o f t h e Board p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g c o n s t i t u t e s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board and must be g i v e n i n open mee t i n g and r e c o r d e d i n w r i t i n g by t h e s e c r e t a r y . Reasons f o r t h e d e c i s i o n a r e u s u a l l y not w r i t t e n , however, a t t h e t i m e t h e Chairman p o l l s t h e B o a r d , i n d i v i d u a l members may v e r b a l l y s t a t e p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n . The o f f i c i a l r e c o r d o f t h e d e c i s i o n made me r e l y c o n s i s t s o f whether t h e a p p e a l was a l l o w e d , d i s a l l o w e d , o r a l l o w e d s u b j e c t t o such c o n d i t i o n s as t h e Board deemed a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . T h i s d e c i s i o n r e c o r d a p p e a r s a t t h e bottom o f t h e o f f i c i a l n o t i c e o f appeal f o r m . - 42 -Format of Hearing The Board of Variance By-law prescribes the format followed by the Board at the hearing. Proceedings are directed to be informal and evidence is generally taken without administering an oath to the witness. In the typical case before the Board, the secretary "calls the case" by reading aloud the notice of appeal and asking i f the appellant is present. The Chairman then asks the appellant i f he or she wishes to add to or explain further the reasons for appealing the decision. At this time also, other "friendly" witnesses will be asked to speak, after which the same opportunity to be heard is given to any party in opposition to the appeal. In cases where the appeal is from a decision of an official responsible for the enforcement of the Zoning By-law, the Director of Planning or his representative is also afforded an opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal. This is followed by a period during which the Board may ask questions of the appellants, other witnesses or staff members present. The powers of the Vancouver Board and the procedural details of its operation discussed above will form the basis for both the forthcoming comparative analysis with the hearing examiner system currently in use in the City of Seattle and for the comparative evaluation of both these administrative systems as measured against the normative criteria devel-oped in Chapter III. This evaluation will be presented as Chapter IV, but first the intricacies of the Office of the Hearing Examiner must be fully discussed. ZONING ADMINISTRATION - SEATTLE In this section the Seattle Hearing Examiner (SHE) is introduced. This system represents a departure from the previous system of zoning - 4 3 -I a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and i s t h e r e f o r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a r a d i c a l model o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . D i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s model f o l l o w s t h e same format e s t a b -l i s h e d f o r t h e VBV system and commences w i t h a b r i e f h i s t o r y f o l l o w e d by an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s used by t h e Examiner. Z.4.1 H i s t o r y o f t h e S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner D e s p i t e i n d i c a t i o n s o f t h e c h a n g i n g j u d i c i a l v i e w p o i n t on m a t t e r s o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e s p r e a d o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system has been r e l a t i v e l y slow and r e s t r i c t e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h o s e s t a t e s whose j u d i c i a r y have a d o p t e d t h e more s t r i n g e n t r u l i n g s . T h i s phenomena s h o u l d not be c o n s t r u e d as l a c k o f e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e system i t s e l f but from "doubts t h a t l o c a l e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s can d e l e g a t e such a u t h o r i t y t o any pe r s o n o r 53 body o t h e r t h a n t h e p l a n n i n g c ommission." The problem l i e s i n t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y e n a b l i n g p l a n n i n g as a f u n c t i o n o f l o c a l government. T h i s a u t h o r i t y v a r i e s between j u r i s d i c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e a r e v i e w o f t h e r e l e v a n t Washington S t a t e s t a t u t e s w i l l be u s e f u l i n i l l u s t r a t i n g how S e a t t l e ' s O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner was e s t a b l i s h e d . In t h e U.S., r e s i d u a l power under t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e s i d e s i n t h e s t a t e s , whereas, i n Canada, i t l i e s w i t h t h e f e d e r a l government. In both c o u n t r i e s , however, l o c a l governments e x i s t as c r e a t u r e s o f i m m e d i a t e l y s u p e r i o r l e g i s l a t u r e s ( i . e . , t h e s t a t e o r p r o v i n c e ) . In t h e U.S., s t a t e governments d e a l w i t h i n d i v i d u a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and c o u n t i e s t h r o u g h c h a r t e r s w h i c h , i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l home r u l e s t a t e s , e n a b l e t h e s a t i s -54 f a c t i o n o f l o c a l needs and w i s h e s . In Washington, one such "home r u l e " s t a t e , a u t h o r i t y o v e r l a n d use p l a n n i n g and r e g u l a t i o n has been g i v e n t o c i t i e s and c o u n t i e s by g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y g r a n t s o f s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t powers, and by -44 -s p e c i f i c g r a n t s o f a u t h o r i t y , i n t h e R e v i s e d Code o f Washington (RCW) and 55 i n t h e " P l a n n i n g E n a b l i n g A c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Washington." 56 Under t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o c i t i e s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o c r e a t e p l a n n i n g commissions and boards o f v a r i a n c e t o a s s i s t l o c a l e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s i n l a n d use p l a n n i n g and r e g u l a t i o n . No p l a n n i n g e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y a l l o w s f o r t h e use o f a h e a r i n g e x a m iner. The paramount f u n c t i o n o f t h e p l a n n i n g commission i s t o p l a n : " E v e r y code c i t y , by o r d i n a n c e , s h a l l d i r e c t t h e ( p l a n n i n g department o r 57 c o mmissions) t o p r e p a r e a comprehensive p l a n . " The commission, i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t u a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e g o a l s and p o l i c i e s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e comprehensive p l a n , i s a l s o d i r e c t e d t o p l a y a l e a d i n g r o l e i n t h e development o f o f f i c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s o r c o n t r o l s . These a r e t y p i c a l l y t h e z o n i n g by-law and s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g t o one a u t h o r , " i t i s t h e n , a t t h e p o i n t o f a p p l y i n g s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n s t o p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l s o f l a n d o r proposed a c t i v i -t i e s , t h a t d i s c o n t e n t w i t h t h e p l a n n i n g commission's r o l e i n l o c a l l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n has g e n e r a t e d t h e r e q u e s t f o r a l t e r n a t i v e systems" o f 58 a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . How t h e n was t h e O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner e s t a b -l i s h e d i n t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e , when t h e p r e v a i l i n g p o l i t i c a l d o c t r i n e s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e must be e i t h e r e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d a u t h o r i t y i n s t a t u t e e n a c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r e v e r y a c t i o n t a k e n by a l o c a l g o v e r n i n g 59 body? T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n was e n a b l e d because t h e g r a n t o f home r u l e p r o v i d e s t h e l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e body w i t h b r o a d powers l i m i t e d o n l y by g e n e r a l law. U s i n g t h e s e powers, t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n was amended t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e ( l o c a l ) l e g i s l a t i v e body may, by r e s o l u t i o n , d e l e g a t e any o f i t s e x e c u t i v e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers, a u t h o r i t y o f d u t i e s not e x p r e s s l y v e s t e d i n s p e c i f i c o f f i c e r s by t h e c h a r t e r , t o any o f f i c e r o r employee o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y . In 1973, S e a t t l e ' s C i t y C o u n c i l - 45 -e x e r c i s e d t h i s o p t i o n t h e r e b y c r e a t i n g t h e O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner. The a p p r o a c h t a k e n by S e a t t l e C o u n c i l i s i l l u s t r a t i v e o f one o f t h e examiner system's s t r o n g e s t a d v a n t a g e s : i t s f l e x i b i l i t y i n d e a l i n g w i t h a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s h e l d under one j u r i s -d i c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Examiner was f i r s t a s s i g n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a l l z o n i n g m a t t e r s and t h e n , as t h e need a r o s e and t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n became e v i d e n t , more a r e a s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n were added t o i n c l u d e : a) Z o n i n g ( v a r i a n c e s , c o n d i t i o n a l u s e s , r e z o n e s ) , b) L i c e n s i n g , c ) D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n Employment and H o u s i n g , d) C a b l e T e l e v i s i o n ( r a t e r e g u l a t i o n ) , e) A p p e a l s from d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f B u i l d i n g s , f ) S h o r t S u b d i v i s i o n s ( f o u r o r fewer l o t s ) , g) A p p e a l s from e n v i r o n m e n t a l (SEPA) d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , h) S p e c i a l Review and H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s , i ) Housing Code (minimum s t a n d a r d s ) , j ) N o i s e C o n t r o l , k) Landmark P r e s e r v a t i o n , 1) R e l o c a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e , m) P i o n e e r Square Minimum M a i n t e n a n c e , n) G r a d i n g O r d i n a n c e , o) S e i z u r e o f V e h i c l e s p u r s u a n t t o RCW 69.5U.505, and p) B u s i n e s s and O c c u p a t i o n a l Tax D e t e r m i n a t i o n . 6 0 - 46 -I t s h o u l d be e v i d e n t from t h e above t h a t t h e O f f i c e has become more t h a n j u s t a c l e a r i n g house o f z o n i n g m a t t e r s . The Examiner s e r v e s as an u m b r e l l a f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f a wide a r r a y o f S e a t t l e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . However, d e s p i t e t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y , most b u s i n e s s i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h z o n i n g and t h a t emphasis w i l l remain t h e f o c u s o f t h i s t h e s i s . A d e t a i l e d breakdown o f t h e t y p e s o f c a s e s heard i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e 9. 2.4.2 O p e r a t i o n o f t h e S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner In Washington, as i n Oregon, M a r y l a n d , and s e v e r a l o t h e r s t a t e s , i n t e n s e j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y o f z o n i n g appeal c a s e s c r e a t e d t h e demand f o r p r o c e d u r a l r e f o r m b e f o r e l a n d use r e g u l a t o r y b o d i e s . The judgments made had wide i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h o s e c i t i z e n s making z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s w h i l e s e r v i n g on t h e Board o f A d j u s t m e n t , P l a n n i n g Commission o r t h e C i t y C o u n c i l as i t was g e n e r a l l y f e l t t h a t l a y b o d i e s were not q u a l i f i e d t o s e r v e as q u a s i - j u d g e s . Members o f t h o s e l a y b o d i e s were "not t r a i n e d t o weigh e v i d e n c e , c o n d u c t a f a i r and o r d e r l y h e a r i n g - w i t h due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t o f p a r t i e s t o p r e s e n t and r e b u t e v i d e n c e , t o examing and c r o s s - e x a m i n e w i t n e s s e s ) , o r t o base t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s on a w r i t t e n r e c o r d s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " ^ 1 and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d o n l y i n a d e q u a t e l y respond t o t h e d i c t a as s e t down i n Fasano v. Board o f Commissioners o f Washington County, 507 p.2d 23 (Oregon 1973), d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The n e c e s s i t y o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s such as S e a t t l e t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e s e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t o t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a d j u d i c a t i o n s had been t h e g r e a t e s t m o t i v a t o r i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system. The r e s u l t has been t h a t t h e h e a r i n g examiner has become t h e l e g a l i n s t r u m e n t f o r h o l d i n g f a i r h e a r i n g s and p r e p a r i n g a r e c o r d o f f a c t s . - 47 -2.4.2.1 powers and j u r i s d i c t i o n As a l r e a d y n o t e d , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f S e a t t l e ' s H e a r i n g Examiner has expanded c o n s i d e r a b l y i n t h e s i x y e a r s o f i t s e x i s t e n c e . P e r t a i n i n g t o m a t t e r s o f z o n i n g , t h i s o f f i c e has r e p l a c e d t h e P l a n n i n g Commission and C i t y C o u n c i l as t h e h e a r i n g body f o r r e z o n i n g and C o u n c i l C o n d i t i o n a l use 62 a u t h o r i z a t i o n s . The Commission now a c t s s o l e l y i n an a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y , w h i l e C o u n c i l has f i n a l d e c i s i o n on r e z o n i n g and major s u b d i v i s i o n ( i . e . , more t h a n f o u r l o t s c r e a t e d ) based on t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e . H e a r i n g Examiner. T h i s r e c o r d would, o f n e c e s s i t y , i n c l u d e t h e Examin-e r ' s recommendation on t h e p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r a t hand. The H e a r i n g O f f i c e r i s t h e h e a r i n g body and f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k e r on v a r i a n c e s and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , which i n c l u d e s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s , c o n d i t i o n a l uses ( a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ) and s i g n v a r i a n c e s . In each c a s e t h e Examiner h o l d s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and f i l e s a w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n which i s f i n a l u n l e s s a p p e a l e d t o t h e Board o f Adjustment ( V a r i a n c e ) . T h i s s i t u a t i o n o f h a v i n g t h e H e a r i n g Examiner's d e c i s i o n a p p e a l a b l e t o a c i t i z e n b o a r d i s t h e s u b j e c t o f some c o n t r o v e r s y and has l e a d one s t a f f r e p o r t t o s t a t e t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n i s "an i n c o n g r u i t y i n t o d a y ' s l a n d use p r o c e d u r e s which can be u n d e r s t o o d o n l y i n t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f CO S e a t t l e ' s h i s t o r y . " The c r u x o f t h e problem a p p e a r s t o be t h a t t h e Board's h e a r i n g i s c o n d u c t e d "de novo", and so i s e s s e n t i a l l y l i k e s o l i c i t i n g a second o p i n i o n about a d i s p u t e d m a t t e r . A major p r o c e d u r a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e S e a t t l e and Vancouver Boards i s t h a t d e c i s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h o s e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner, must be j u s t i f i e d ( i n w r i t i n g ) w i t h new o r c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and - 48 -conclusions. However, despite this procedural safeguard, there remains discontent on the part of the various departments involved in the process and by the citizens, who must view this procedure as trial by fire -twice. The situation is expected to be resolved by Council when stream-65 lining of the entire permitting process comes under review. 2.4.2.2 existing process The current system of land use regulation in Seattle is complex, varied, and sophisticated, involving numerous public and private groups, shifting powers (of recommendation or final decision) according to the nature and classification of actions proposed or appealed and a wide fifi array of legislated policy. The procedural rules adopted will be discussed in detail in the next section which follows a generalized overview of the process used. The Hearing Examiner is involved in three areas directly related to zoning. In each of these areas the procedures followed are similar, however the process itself differs. In the case of special exceptions, variances, administrative conditional uses, and sign variances, initial applications are made with the Department Of Community Development. The Director of that Department is then required to submit a written report and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Concurrently, the Examiner schedules a public hearing of the request and notice of the application and hearing is mailed at least thirty days before the hearing to persons residing within 300 feet of subject site and to persons or organizations that may have filed a request with the Hearing Examiner to be notified of public hearings affecting property within that specified area. Copies of the application are made available for public viewing at the Examiner's office where the Departmental analysis 6 7 and recommendation are also - 49 -available, not less than seven days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, City staff and the applicant and any interested citizen may testify before the Examiner according to well defined procedural 68 rules. An electronic record of the proceedings is made. Within four-teen days of the conclusion of the hearing the Examiner must issue a written decision with findings of fact and conclusion; this decision is final unless appealed to the Board of Adjustment. In the case of rezones and Council conditional uses only, the procedure followed is the same, however the Examiner merely submits a recommendation to Council for their final decision. While this somewhat softens the impact that the Examiner may have on these zoning matters, i t is considered an appropriate safeguard of the legislative power of Council. Any party aggrieved by the Examiner's recommendation may seek further consideration by Council which must then determine i f there has been an error of fact or judgment before rendering a final decision. This determination is based upon the record established at the initial hearing. If Council finds the record inadequate or that an error was made, i t may remand the proceedings to the Hearing Examiner, or i t may enter new findings of fact. If Council determines than an error of judgment or conclusion was made, i t may take contrary action provided that i t enters new findings and conclusions based on the record which 69 support the new action. While this legislative appeal mechanism exists, Council has rarely over-ruled the recommendation of its Hearing Examiner. Further appeal is afforded the applicant through petition to the court. In the third type ot zoning matter ruled on by the Hearing Examiner, that of errors of interpretation made by the Superintendent of Building - 50 -and Z o n i n g Codes, t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d i s as d e s c r i b e d above. However, t h e appeal mechanism i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t a g a i n . In t h e s e c a s e s , t h e w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n o f t h e Examiner i s f i n a l u n l e s s a p p e a l e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e c o u r t s . 2.4.2.3 p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s The p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s d e v e l o p e d by t h e C i t y o f S e a t t l e r e c o g n i z e t h a t d e c i s i o n s on v a r i a n c e s and o t h e r z o n i n g m a t t e r s a r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and q u a s i - j u d i c i a l r a t h e r t h a n l e g i s l a t i v e and p o l i c y - s e t t i n g i n n a t u r e . In r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e r u l e s e s t a b l i s h e d attempt t o promote f a i r d e c i s i o n s by p r o v i d i n g e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c n o t i c e , an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c t o be h e a r d , and e s t a b l i s h i n g p r e d i c t a b l e s t a n d a r d s o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and p r o c e d u r e s . These a s p e c t s o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner p r o c e s s a r e now examined. The Fasano c a s e , p r e v i o u s l y mentioned i n t h i s c h a p t e r , b e s t i l l u s -t r a t e s t h e c a r e and c o m p l e x i t y w i t h which S e a t t l e ' s H e a r i n g Examiner's p r o c e d u r e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d . That c a s e l a i d down t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r p r o c e d u r e s t o be used i n both p r e - h e a r i n g and p o s t - h e a r i n g m a t t e r s as w e l l as t h e h e a r i n g i t s e l f . These g u i d e l i n e s i n c l u d e : a) t h e e n t i t l e m e n t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t t o n o t i c e o f h e a r i n g , b) t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d , c) t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t and r e b u t e v i d e n c e , d) an i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l , f r e e from p r e - h e a r i n g , "ex p a r t e " c o n t a c t s from any p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , e) a r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , f ) adequate f i n d i n g s e x e c u t e d . ^ 0 - 51 -The Washington Supreme Court has been even more strident in this area, stating specifically that "due process standards should govern the conduct of zoning proceedings."'7* 72 Aside from the "Rules of General Application" developed to guide the Hearing Examiner, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and the City Council, each body also has a detailed set of procedures with which it must comply. While these specific rules are too extensive to be fully discussed here, selected headings which emphasize the uniqueness of the examiner system have been expanded upon below. In the typical variance case the following applies: content of appeal An appeal is filed in writing and consists of: (a) a statement of how the appellant is significantly affected by or interested in the appeal; (b) a statement containing explicit exceptions and objections with regard to the appealed matter; (c) the requested relief; (d) the signature, mailing address, and telephone number of the appellant. clarification of appeal Clarification of appeal is an interesting power of the Examiner, one which allows any appeal containing a technical error or is vague or ambiguous, to be returned to the appellant for clarification. This request may be made by any party through the Examiner. - 52 -i n t e r v e n t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n by n o n - p a r t i e s I t i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e Examiner t o a l l o w an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y (who has not f i l e d an a p p e a l ) t o i n t e r v e n e i n an a c t i o n upon showing a s u b s t a n t i a l o r s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r . In e x e r c i s i n g t h i s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e Examiner must c o n s i d e r whether t h e i n t e r v e n e r ' s i n t e r e s t s a r e a l r e a d y a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d and whether t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l unduly broaden t h e i s s u e s o r d e l a y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . While t h e h e a r i n g i s open t o t h e p u b l i c , t e s t i m o n y i s not g e n e r a l l y a l l o w e d from p e r s o n s who a r e not p a r t i e s u n l e s s c a l l e d as w i t n e s s e s . However, t h e Examiner may, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g o b j e c t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , p e r m i t o r a l and/or w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s by p e r s o n s who a r e not p a r t i e s . r i g h t s o f p a r t i e s 73 The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code ( O r d i n a n c e 102228) g i v e s e v e r y p a r t y t h e r i g h t of "due n o t i c e , c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , p r e s e n t a t i o n of e v i d e n c e , 74 o b j e c t i o n , m o t i o n , argument and a l l o t h e r r i g h t s t o a f a i r h e a r i n g " . n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s The Examiner i s r e q u i r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , t h e c o n t e n t o f which i s as f o l l o w s : a) a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e t i m e , p l a c e , a c t i o n p r o p o s e d and h e a r i n g body i n v o l v e d ; b) a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y and j u r i s d i c t i o n under which t h e h e a r i n g i s t o be h e l d ; c ) r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n of t h e o r d i n a n c e ; d) a s t a t e m e n t of t h e t i m e and l o c a t i o n a t w hich t h e D i r e c t o r ' s Report w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c . - 53 -T h i s n o t i c e must be g i v e n not l e s s t h a n t h i r t y days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g and must be m a i l e d o r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t and t o a l l p r o p e r t y owners and o t h e r r e s i d e n t s who l i v e w i t h i n 300 f e e t o f t h e s i t e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , S e a t t l e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e s i t e be p o s t e d and t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be p u b l i s h e d i n one o f t h e major d a i l y newspapers and m a i l e d t o t h e news media and o t h e r l o c a l c i v i c g r o u p s . The O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner goes t o g r e a t l e n g t h s t o i n v o l v e c i t i z e n g r oups i n i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s . The D i r e c t o r o f t h e Department o f Community Development must m a i n t a i n a l i s t o f l o c a l groups and o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i s h i n g n o t i f i c a t i o n o f l a n d use and z o n i n g p r o c e e d -i n g s . A l l t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n t h i s s e r v i c e i s f o r t h e group t o make a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t c o n t a i n i n g t h e names and a d d r e s s e s o f i t s o f f i c e r s and d i r e c t o r s , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l purpose o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s e r v e d . C u r r e n t l y , t h e q u a l i f i e d groups and o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e c l a s s i f i e d as f o l l o w s : a) c i v i c , p r o f e s s i o n a l , t r a d e and e n v i r o n m e n t a l groups h a v i n g c i t y wide i n t e r e s t s ; b) community and n e i g h b o u r h o o d o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; c) chambers o f commerce and o t h e r s i m i l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s 75 r e p r e s e n t i n g b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r y . The S e a t t l e system does not i n c o r p o r a t e some o f t h e more r e s t r i c t i v e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r d e f i n i n g " r e c o g n i z e d " n e i g h b o u r h o o d groups as promoted i n t h e American Law I n s t i t u t e ' s "A Model Land Development C o d e " . 7 6 Q u a l i f i e d g roups under t h a t Code would, a d d i t i o n a l l y have t o : a) r e p r e s e n t more t h a n 50% o f t h e a p o d u l t s r e s i d i n g w i t h i n i t s b o u n d a r i e s ; b.) have a t l e a s t 50 members; - 54 -c) have a t l e a s t 50% o f t h e a r e a o f l a n d w i t h i n i t s b o u n d a r i e s d e v e l o p e d o r a v a i l a b l e f o r r e s i d e n t i a l use; d) have f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i n g membership i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n open t o a l l r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s w i t h i n i t s b o u n d a r i e s . The d e f i n i t i o n o f " r e c o g n i z e d community o r n e i g h b o u r h o o d group o r o r g a n i z a t i o n " i s i m p o r t a n t because r e c o g n i t i o n e n a b l e s t h e group t o become a p a r t y o f r e c o r d and t h u s e n j o y t h e r i g h t s o f f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t t h e examiner's h e a r i n g and t o i n i t i a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l a ppeal o f t h e examiner's d e c i s i o n . 7 7 ex p a r t e communications S p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n i s made i n t h e o r d i n a n c e t o p r o h i b i t any p e r s o n , a g e n t , employee o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e who has an appeal s u b j e c t t o an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g from d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e w i t h t h e 78 Examiner w i t h o u t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a l l o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s ( i . e . , a t t h e h e a r i n g o r p r e - h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e ) . Ex p a r t e communications r e l a t e d t o p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r s a r e not so r e s t r i c t e d . r e c o r d and c o n t e n t In k e e p i n g w i t h t h e c o u r t s ' demands, a l l p r o c e e d i n g s a t t h e h e a r i n g a r e e l e c t r o n i c a l l y r e c o r d e d and become p a r t o f t h e o f f i c i a l r e c o r d . C o p i e s o f t h e r e c o r d i n g s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c on r e q u e s t and payment o f a f e e . In a d d i t i o n , t h e o f f i c i a l r e c o r d c o n s i s t s o f : a) t h e w r i t t e n a p p e a l ; b) t h e Department's (CDC) w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e ; c ) a l l e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d o r c o n s i d e r e d ; d) a s t a t e m e n t o f a l l m a t t e r s o f f i c i a l l y n o t i c e d ; and e) a d e c i s i o n o r recommended d e c i s i o n c o n t a i n i n g t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e E x a m i n e r . 7 9 - 55 -p r e s i d i n g o f f i c i a l s In o r d e r f o r t h e Examiner t o c o n d u c t f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g s , a v o i d d e l a y and m a i n t a i n o r d e r , t h e Examiner has been a c c o r d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g powers: a) t o a d m i n i s t e r o a t h s and a f f i r m a t i o n s ; b) t o i s s u e subpoenas; c) . r u l e upon o f f e r s o f p r o o f and r e c e i v e e v i d e n c e ; d) t o r e g u l a t e t h e c o u r s e o f t h e h e a r i n g and t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r a g e n t s ; e) t o h o l d c o n f e r e n c e s f o r s e t t l e m e n t , s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f i s s u e s o r any o t h e r p r o p e r p u r p o s e ; f ) t o c o n s i d e r and r u l e upon a l l p r o c e d u r a l and o t h e r m o t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g ; and 80 g) t o make and f i l e d e c i s i o n s . d e c i s i o n c o n t e n t Any d e c i s i o n , whether recommended o r f i n a l ( a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ) must i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s : a) The n a t u r e and background o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g ; b) The p a r t i e s , a g e n t s , and i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s a c t i v e i n t h e p r o c e e d i ng; c ) F i n d i n g s o f f a c t , i n c l u d i n g not o n l y t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e u l t i m a t e f a c t s but a l s o t h e b a s i c o r u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s s u p p o r t -i n g t h e f i n d i n g s . The f i n d i n g s s h a l l be based e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e h e a r i n g and t h o s e m a t t e r s o f f i c i a l l y n o t i c e d , and s h a l l c o n s i s t o f a c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f each f a c t f o u n d upon each c o n t e s t e d i s s u e o f f a c t ; - 56 -d) C o n c l u s i o n s of law, r e f e r e n c e d whenever p r a c t i c a l , t o s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s of t h e law and r e g u l a t i o n s o r b o t h , t o g e t h e r w i t h r e a s o n s and p r e c e d e n t s r e l i e d upon t o s u p p o r t t h e same. The c o n c l u s i o n s s h a l l make r e f e r e n c e t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n l i g h t of t h e l a n d use p o l i c i e s and z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , as w e l l as t h e e f f e c t o f b o t h a p p r o v a l and d e n i a l on p r o p e r t y i n t h e v i c i n i t y , b u s i n e s s , o r commercial a s p e c t s , i f r e l e v a n t , and on t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c ; e) The a p p r o p r i a t e r u l e , o r d e r , o r r e l i e f , so t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s h a l l be based upon a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e whole r e c o r d and 81 s u p p o r t e d by r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . f o r m a t o f h e a r i n g 82 The "Rules of P r a c t i c e f o r P u b l i c H e a r i n g s " , p r e s c r i b e s t h e format f o l l o w e d i n t h e Examiner's h e a r i n g . The h e a r i n g i s t o be i n f o r m a l i n n a t u r e y e t d e s i g n e d so as t o a l l o w t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e f a c t t o become most r e a d i l y and e f f i c i e n t l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Examiner. "A p u b l i c h e a r -i n g s h a l l i n c l u d e , but need not be l i m i t e d t o , t h e f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s : a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t o r y s t a t e m e n t by t h e Examiner; a r e p o r t by t h e D i r e c t o r which s h a l l i n c l u d e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e o f f i c i a l f i l e , r e f e r e n c e t o v i s u a l a i d s (maps), and a summary o f t h e recommendation of t h e D e p a r t -ment; t e s t i m o n y by t h e a p p l i c a n t o r p e t i t i o n e r ; t e s t i m o n y i n s u p p o r t ; t e s t i m o n y of o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s ; o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and r e b u t t a l ; and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r q u e s t i o n s by t h e Examiner. In S e a t t l e , t h e Examiner has t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o s e t t i m e 83 l i m i t s f o r t h e o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e a c h c a s e and t o r u l e on t h e 84 a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e , a l t h o u g h from p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f both t h e King County and t h e C i t y of S e a t t l e , t h e s e powers a r e l i t t l e used i n r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e v a r i a n c e c a s e s . - 57 -2.5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SYSTEM Each o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y d e v e l o p e d i n r e s p o n s e t o s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t o r y needs o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The s y s t e m s , however, s h a r e a commonality o f p u r p o s e which e n c o u r a g e s a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f e a c h . T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s u n d e r t a k e n below. 2.5.1 Z o n i n g Board o f V a r i a n c e The z o n i n g board o f v a r i a n c e ' s major s t r e n g t h i s f o u n d i n t h e c l a s s i c r e a s o n s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g any a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l t o pre-empt j u r i s d i c t i o n s n o r m a l l y d e a l t w i t h by t h e c o u r t s and i t s j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s . These r e a s o n s have been e x p l a i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: a) t h e n a t u r e o f problems d e a l t w i t h r e q u i r e some s p e c i a l e x p e r t i s e not n o r m a l l y p o s s e s s e d by t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r t , b) h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e demands o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s , t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r t s a r e s a i d t o be d i l a t o r y and cumbersome, and governed by o v e r - s t r i n g e n t r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e and p r o c e d u r e , c) t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r t s a r e t o o e x p e n s i v e , and d) t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r t s would become s e r i o u s l y o v e r - b u r d e n e d i f t h e y were r e q u i r e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e t r i b u n a l The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l ' s major s t r e n g t h t h e n l i e s i n t h e speed o f i t s procedures-, i t s f l e x i b i l i t y and i t s r e l a t i v e cheapness t o o p e r a t e . One e x p e r t n o t e s s e v e r a l o b j e c t i v e s a c h i e v e d by such an a d m i n i s t r a -86 t i v e d e v i c e a r e common t o a l l systems o f law e n f o r c e m e n t . He c i t e s a v o i d a n c e o f a r b i t r a r y useage o f p o l i c e powers, s a f e g u a r d i n g r i g h t s o f - 58 -p r o p e r t y owners, and e n s u r i n g f a i r a p p l i c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n s as t h e most n o t a b l e b e n e f i t s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s . These o b j e c t i v e s a l o n e , however, do not t o t a l l y e x p l a i n t h e p o p u l a r -i t y of boards o f appeal i n t h e f i e l d of z o n i n g , f o r c e r t a i n l y numerous o t h e r methods of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r a d o p t i o n by t h e e a r l y p r o p o n e n t s o f z o n i n g . S e v e r a l unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , however, promoted t h e use o f t h e s e t r i b u n a l s o v e r any o t h e r method. D u r i n g e a r l y a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h z o n i n g as t h e p r e m i e r method o f l a n d use c o n t r o l , many of t h o s e i n v o l v e d r e a l i z e d t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f d r a f t i n g g e n e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s which c o u l d be a p p l i e d w i t h e q u i t y t o a l l s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s d i f f i c u l t y a r o s e because t h e c o r n e r s t o n e of z o n i n g l a y i n t h e d i v i s i o n o f a community i n t o use d i s t r i c t s g o verned by g e n e r a l r e g u l a t i o n . T h i s p r a c t i c e n e c e s s a r i l y imposes s i m i l a r l i m i t a t i o n s upon p a r c e l s of l a n d w h i c h , i n f a c t and i n law, a r e u n i q u e . The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r i n e q u i t a b l e t r e a t m e n t of s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d p r o p e r t y owners under such r e g u l a t i o n s became t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b a s i s of arguments a g a i n s t z o n i n g by i t s many op p o n e n t s . I t was t h e r e -f o r e b e l i e v e d t h a t i f h a r d s h i p c a s e s were not d i s p o s e d of a t an a d m i n i -s t r a t i v e l e v e l t h e j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s a g a i n s t z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n would m u l t i p l y , q u i c k l y r e s u l t i n g i n d e s t r u c t i o n o f z o n i n g as an i n s t r u m e n t o f 87 l a n d use c o n t r o l . The bo a r d of appeal t h e r e f o r e became "the d e v i c e d e v e l o p e d t o a v o i d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l problems r a i s e d when broad g e n e r a l 88 r e g u l a t i o n s imposed h a r d s h i p due t o u n i q u e n e s s " . I t s prime f u n c t i o n 89 was t o keep z o n i n g out o f t h e c o u r t s . F u r t h e r m o r e , c o n c e r n was a l s o e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h o s e c a s e s which d i d r e a c h t h e c o u r t , d i d so w i t h a r e c o r d made b e f o r e an e x p e r t a d m i n i s t r a -- 59 -t i v e body. T h i s was viewed as d e s i r a b l e as i t was f e a r e d t h a t z o n i n g l a n guage would be m i s u n d e r s t o o d i f i t was c o n s t r u e d i n t h e same manner as 90 o t h e r t y p e s o f e n f o r c e m e n t l i t i g a t i o n . O t h e r o b j e c t i v e s met by t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e s e boards were, 1) f o r e s t a l l i n g p o t e n t i a l l y numerous and d e s t r u c t i v e amendments t o l e g i s l a t i o n and hence p r e s e r v i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e community p l a n , and 2) a l l o w i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p e r f e c t t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t h r o u g h e x e r c i s e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n . These o b j e c t i v e s c l e a r l y b e l i e a m i s t r u s t o f l e g i s l a t o r s , as t h e o b j e c t i v e s attempt t o b r i n g i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y t o an o t h e r w i s e r i g i d p a t t e r n o f E u c l i d e a n z o n i n g 91 and p r e c l u d e l e g i s l a t i v e amendments t o t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e by s u b s t i t -u t i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y judgment a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r t h a n l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l l e v e l s . Not a l l a u t h o r i t i e s a g r e e t h a t f l e x i b i l i t y was one o f t h e e a r l y o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e t r i b u n a l s . In one s t u d y c o n c e r n i n g t h e L e x i n g t o n , Kentucky Board i t was c o n c l u d e d , "the b o ard was not i n s t i t u t e d t o a c h i e v e f l e x i b i l i t y . V a r i a n c e s were not t o be g r a n t e d m e r e l y because t h e p r o p o s e d use d i d not i n v o l v e a s u b s t a n t i a l d e p a r t u r e from t h e comprehen-s i v e p l a n n o r i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t t h e a d j o i n i n g l a n d . U n n e c e s s a r y h a r d -s h i p , not i n s u b s t a n t i a l harm, i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y t h e t o u c h s t o n e o f t h e 92 b o a r d ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " R e g a r d l e s s o f i n i t i a l i n t e n t , t h e r e can be l i t t l e doubt t h a t f l e x i b i l i t y has become one o f t h e main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e modern b o a r d o f a p p e a l . The e a r l y days o f z o n i n g have been summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: - 60 -"In s h o r t , when z o n i n g was new i t s most v i g o r o u s a d v o c a t e s were aware o f i t s i n h e r e n t i m p e r f e c t i o n s , i t s d o u b t f u l c o n s i t u t i o n a l i t y and i t s i m p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s t o o d t e r m i n o l o g y . In s p i t e o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s , t h e y d e t e c t e d a need f o r c o n t r o l l i n g l a n d use which was so u r g e n t as t o demand enactment o f z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . The board o f z o n i n g a p p e a l s was c r e a t e d t o i n t e r p r e t , t o p e r f e c t , and t o e n s u r e t h e v a l i d i t y o f z o n i n g . And i t was e x p e c t e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s e t h i n g s by d e c i d i n g t h e ha r d c a s e s , by a r t i c u l a t i n g new and t e c h n i c a l c o n c e p t s , and by b u i l d i n g r e c o r d s which would d i s p l a y z o n i n g i n a f a v o u r a b l e l i g h t when c a s e s r e a c h e d t h e c o u r t s . " 9 3 The use o f t h e b o a r d o f appeal method o f p r o v i d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l i e f has been a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l i n t h o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s a d o p t i n g z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s . T h i s a p p l i e s t o both U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada; and i t has o n l y been i n much more r e c e n t t i m e s t h a t o t h e r methods o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have been a t t e m p t e d i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s . One c u r i o s i t y t o note i s u n i f o r m i t y o f powers, o p e r a t i o n s and j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f t h e s e b o a r d s . S e v e r a l r e a s o n s h e l p e x p l a i n t h i s phenomenon and p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t i n t o an a r e a o f t h e b o a r d which i s o f t e n c r i t i c i s e d . The p o p u l a r i t y o f e a r l y boards was p r i m a r i l y based on t h e assumption t h a t b o a r d members would s i t as an e x p e r t body. Indeed, t h e by-laws which e s t a b l i s h e d t h e v e r y f i r s t b o a r d o f ap p e a l r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e c h a i r -man be an a r c h i t e c t o r s t r u c t u r a l e n g i n e e r h a v i n g a minimum f i f t e e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e and t h r e e o t h e r o f t h e b o a r d members have a t l e a s t t e n y e a r s 94 e x p e r i e n c e i n b u i l d i n g , a r c h i t e c t u r e and s t r u c t u r a l e n g i n e e r i n g . The U n i t e d S t a t e s e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n d i d not p o s s e s s t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t , and i t was t h e r e f o r e not made p a r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d s t a t e z o n i n g e n a b l i n g model a c t s which f o l l o w e d from t h e Department o f Commerce model o f 1922. The a d o p t i o n o f t h e model a c t became t h e v e h i c l e by which t h e board became a s t a n d a r d f e a t u r e o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and t h r o u g h which i t s p r e a d t o v i l l a g e s , towns and c i t i e s a l l a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y . One a u t h o r 95 has c a l l e d t h i s p r o c e s s " p l a g i a r i s m f o r t h e p u b l i c good". - 61 -The r e a s o n s why p e r s o n n e l r e q u i r e m e n t s were not r e p e a t e d i n l a t e r l e g i s l a t i o n remain u n c l e a r . The r e s u l t has been t h a t l o c a l boards draw on p e r s o n s from a v a r i e t y of o c c u p a t i o n s , t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n u n d e r l y i n g an appointment changed from p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e t o common sense and knowledge of t h e l o c a l a r e a . In t h e t a s k of b a l a n c i n g i m p e r f e c t r e g u l a -t i o n s and e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s , t h e e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t y o f member-s h i p has become achievement of "a b a l a n c e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p a l economic and p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y " . 9 6 While some change i n membership q u a l i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s has been i d e n t i f i e d , one a r e a i n which t h e r e has been l i t t l e change from t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e S t a n d a r d A c t (1922) i s i n t h e board's powers. Those powers i n c l u d e : a) To hear and d e c i d e a p p e a l s where i t i s a l l e g e d t h e r e i s e r r o r i n any o r d e r , r e q u i r e m e n t , d e c i s i o n , o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n made by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h i s a c t o r o f any o r d i n a n c e a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o , b) To hear and d e c i d e s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e terms o f t h e o r d i n a n c e upon which such b o a r d i s r e q u i r e d t o pass under such o r d i n a n c e , c ) To a u t h o r i z e upon appeal i n s p e c i f i c c a s e s such v a r i a n c e from t h e terms o f t h e o r d i n a n c e as w i l l not be c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , where, owing t o s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , a l i t e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e o r d i n a n c e w i l l r e s u l t i n u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , and so t h a t t h e s p i r i t of t h e o r d i n a n c e s h a l l be o b s e r v e d and s u b s t a n t i a l 97 j u s t i c e done. - 62 -Many t r i b u n a l system advantages a r e e a s i l y r e c o g n i z a b l e i n e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e board's o p e r a t i o n . T h e r e r e m a i n s , however, o t h e r a d v a n t a g e s not y e t mentioned t h a t r e l a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e Vancouver Board and make i t somewhat u n i q u e . These a d v a n t a g e s a r e d i s c u s s e d below. The f i r s t of t h e s e i s i n c r e a s e d scope o f appeal a f f o r d e d an a p p e l l a n t t o t h i s B o a r d . T h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e has a r i s e n because t h e Zoning and Development By-law a d o p t e d i n Vancouver c o n t a i n s numerous d i s t r i c t s c h e d u l e s , each c o n s i s t i n g o f complex r e g u l a t i o n s and d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n s t h a t have been t a i l o r - m a d e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n v e r y p r e c i s e 98 z o n e s . The d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e o f z o n i n g i n Vancouver and t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e c i t y i t s e l f has been r e z o n e d has r e s u l t e d i n t h e Board p l a y i n g a much l a r g e r r o l e i n t h e p h y s i c a l development of Vancouver t h a n have o t h e r boards i n o t h e r c i t i e s . The Vancouver Board's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e P l a n n i n g Department i s a l s o somewhat u n i q u e . The Department can o f t e n be seen t o t a k e a r a t h e r b e n e v o l e n t b u r e a u c r a t i c r o l e when a c t i o n s o f t h e Board r e l a t e t o s p e c i f i c and u s u a l l y m i n o r v a r i a n c e s o r when i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y does not have t h e d i s c r e t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o i s s u e a development p e r m i t d e s p i t e t h e i n s u b s t a n -t i v e n a t u r e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . The Department uses t h e Board t o a u t h o r i z e development n o r m a l l y not p e r m i t t e d but t o which no t r u e o b j e c t -i o n s a r i s e . The need t o f o r m a l l y amend e v e r y r e g u l a t o r y i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s t h u s a v o i d e d , and i f development c o n d i t i o n s change t h e Board c o u l d s i m p l y s t a r t d e n y i n g a p p e a l s p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d . T h i s i m p l i c i t d e c i s i o n a l t r a d e - o f f i s q u i t e i n d i c a t i v e o f a w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t has a v o i d e d t h e a n t a g o n i s t i c o r a d v e r s a r i a l r o l e e v i d e n t w i t h o t h e r boards of v a r i a n c e . - 63 -A f i n a l advantage t h e Vancouver Board has d i s p l a y e d o v e r t h e p a s t y e a r s i s s t a b i l i t y . T h i s s t a b i l i t y r e s u l t s from a chairman who has h e l d o f f i c e f o r many y e a r s and who t h u s has a w e a l t h o f p e r s o n a l knowledge o f o t h e r c a s e s t o use as a b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e advantage o f t h i s s t a b i l i t y i s t h e i n c r e a s e d c o n s i s t e n c y o f Board d e c i s i o n s . D e s p i t e t h e advantages o f t h e t r i b u n a l s y s t e m , a d o p t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l b o a r d o f v a r i a n c e mechanism has not been w i t h o u t c r i t i c i s m . I m p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d use v a r i a n c e s undermine p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e z o n i n g p l a n , c a u s e urban b l i g h t and decay i n e x i s t i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d s ; p r e v e n t sound growth a t urban f r i n g e s ( t h r o u g h l a n d p r e - e m p t i o n ) ; and c o u l d c a u s e l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t s f o r p u b l i c improvements t o be 99 i n c r e a s e d . A l s o , u n j u s t i f i e d l e n i e n c y by t h e b o a r d can a l l but d e s t r o y c e r t a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e o r d i n a n c e 1 0 0 and t h a t v a r i a n c e a p p r o v a l i n use c a s e s i s tantamount t o r e z o n i n g . T h i s form o f " h i d d e n z o n i n g " can r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s where t h e b o a r d has a t t a c h e d c o n d i t i o n s t o an u n d e s e r v e d p e r m i t and t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e p e r i o d i c i n s p e c t i o n t o e n s u r e c o n t i n u i n g c o m p l i a n c e . 1 0 1 The i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body u s i n g i t s powers t o c r e a t e z o n i n g has been d i s c u s s e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s t h e s i s . The board has a l s o been c r i t i c i z e d f o r p a y i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l e g a l l i m i t a t i o n s p l a c e d on i t s powers and o p e r a t i n g w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t s a f e g u a r d s t o a d e q u a t e l y a s s u r e c i t i z e n s o f equal t r e a t m e n t . 1 0 In t h e c a s e o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n s Kentucky b o a r d , i t was c o n c l u d e d "the Board abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i n t h a t t h e r e were no a l l e g a t i o n s o r e v i d e n c e o f l e g a l h a r d s h i p i n t h e p e t i t i o n s , no s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e m i n u t e s t o s u p p o r t any f i n d i n g o f h a r d s h i p , and no f i n d i n g s t h a t - 64 -c o n d i t i o n s or h a r d s h i p s a l l e g e d were no t t y p i c a l o r r e c u r r e n t . " J ' u u These same problems a r e r e c o g n i z e d by a n o t h e r e x p e r t , who s t a t e s : " i n my o p i n i o n f i f t y p e r c e n t o f a l l r u l i n g s of z o n i n g b o a r d o f a p p e a l s i n t h e 104 U n i t e d S t a t e s a r e p r o b a b l y i l l e g a l u s u r p a t i o n s of power." Ot h e r s s e e k i n g t o e x p l a i n t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f t h e s e boards have not e d t h a t f a i l u r e t o impose m e a n i n g f u l c o n t r o l s o r s t a n d a r d s has r e s u l t e d i n i n c o n s i s t e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , poor d e f i n i t i o n of r e l e v a n t i s s u e s a t t h e h e a r i n g , d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r u l e o f law, and poor s e p a r a t i o n 105 of l e g i s l a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s of government. As one s o u r c e s t a t e s , " t h e r e s u l t i s t h a t z o n i n g board members, h a v i n g no m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d , f a l l back t o a c t i n g i n l i g h t o f what t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e i r r o l e t o be, t h a t o f a board o f e q u i t y s i t t i n g t o do rough j u s t i c e i n d i f f i c u l t c a s e s . " 1 0 6 The b o a r d o f v a r i a n c e has g e n e r a l l y been s u b j e c t t o c r i t i c i s m s c h a r a c t e r i z e d under t h e f o l l o w i n g h e a d i n g s : s e p a r a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n s ; a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ; p r e d i c t a b i l i t y ; and e q u i t y . These w i l l be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I I . The g e n e r a l c r i t i c i s m s of v a r i a n c e t r i b u n a l s do not n e c e s s a r i l y have a p p l i c a t i o n when d i s c u s s i n g t h e Vancouver Board of V a r i a n c e because many r e f e r t o American b o a r d s , which have more power t h a n t h e Vancouver Board, and a r e made i n t h e c o n t e x t o f h i g h l y c a n n o n i z e d American law. I t i s t h o u g h t t h a t f e a r s e x p r e s s e d o v e r d e l e g a t i o n o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s stems from t h e American d i s t r u s t of unchecked a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e power. These t h o u g h t s a r e more f u l l y e x p l a i n e d i n C h a p t e r I I I , where d i f f e r e n c e s between p a r l i a m e n t a r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l governments, and a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g d i s c r e t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power a r e d i s c u s s e d . W h ile s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e of wrong d o i n g on t h e p a r t o f t h e V ancouver Board of V a r i a n c e w i l l not be p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s , t h e - 65 -p r e v i o u s e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h a t Board's p r o c e d u r e s and o p e r a t i o n l e a d s t h e a u t h o r t o c o n t e n d t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o abuse e i t h e r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system o r t h e z o n i n g p r o c e s s , o r b o t h , e x i s t w i t h i n t h e c u r r e n t Vancouver s e t t i n g . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e as n e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l nor p u b l i c r i g h t s a r e b e s t s e r v e d when i t i s o n l y a m a t t e r o f t i m e b e f o r e f l a g r a n t abuse draws enough a t t e n t i o n t o t h e Board t o demand r a d i c a l r e f o r m a t i o n . What a r e t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system p o s s e s s e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e Vancouver s e t t i n g ? These appear t o be: 1. power t o r e z o n e : where a m b i g u i t y i n t h e by-law p o t e n t i a l l y a l l o w s more i n t e n s i v e use o f a s i t e t h a n t h a t f o r which t h e d e v e l o p e r i s a p p l y i n g . 1 0 7 The m a t t e r becomes an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e one and t h e g r a n t i n g o f an appeal by t h e Board c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t t e d as p e r m i t -t i n g a r e z o n i n g . T h i s seems p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e as i t i s p o s s i b l e under Vancouver's e x i s t i n g development c o n t r o l p r o c e s s t h a t t h e P l a n n i n g Department has r e f u s e d t h e p e r m i t on t h e d i r e c t recommendatin o f C o u n c i l . T h i s recommendation c o u l d be c o n s t r u e d as i n d i c a t i v e o f what C o u n c i l , t h e r i g h t f u l l e g i s l a t o r i n z o n i n g m a t t e r s , f e l t i s an a p p r o p r i a t e t y p e and l e v e l o f use o f t h e s i t e . " R e z o n i n g " p r o p e r t y a l s o o c c u r s t h r o u g h g r a n t i n g o f a p p e a l s e x t e n d -i n g a n o n - c o n f o r m i n g use. T h i s can o c c u r by e x t e n d i n g any t i m e l i m i t p l a c e d on a DP i s s u e d o r i g i n a l l y o r t h r o u g h p r o l o n g e d use by p e r m i t t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t r e n o v a t i o n t o an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g o r r e c o n -s t r u c t i o n o f a f i r e damaged b u i l d i n g t h a t p r e v i o u s l y housed a non-c o n f o r m i n g use. 2. l o s s o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e by-law: t o o v e r r u l e t h e d e c i s i o n s o f e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s (conveyed t h r o u g h t h e D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g ) , - 66 -p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n i n g and e n g i n e e r i n g s t a f f (and t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l 108 n o n - s t a f f a d v i s o r y p a n e l s ) , can r e s u l t i n l o s s of i n t e g r i t y of s p e c i f i c Z o n ing and Development By-law r e q u i r e m e n t s , and t o t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n of t h e i s s u i n g i n d i v i d u a l o r body. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y , m i n d f u l of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t can appeal' a r e f u s a l t o t h e Board may g i v e more c o n c e s s i o n s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t t h a n n o r m a l l y j u s t i f i e d . W h i l e t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h i s i s happening i n Vancouver p r e s e n t l y , a change i n t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e Board c o u l d e a s i l y l e a d t o a s h i f t i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h e Board t a k e s o f i t s r o l e i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e z o n i n g by-law. 3. l a c k o f m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d s f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g : t h e i n c r e a s i n g s c a l e , c o m p l e x i t y , and d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e w i t h which development now o c c u r s i n Vancouver i n c r e a s e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t major down-town development c o u l d be approved on appeal u s i n g l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s so vague as t o be m e a n i n g l e s s and so s i m p l e as t o be i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h a t a p p e a l . The e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s a s c r i b i n g t o c o n t r o l t h e Board f a i l t o r e c o g n i z e t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e i s s u e s f a c i n g t h e Board of V a r i a n c e . The f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d s l e a d s t o i n c o n s i s t e n t d e c i s i o n s , t h e r e b y i n c r e a s i n g t h e u n c e r t a i n t y f a c e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t and o p e n i n g t h e Board t o c h a r g e s of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . 4. f a i l u r e t o g i v e r e a s o n s : e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s p r e s c r i b e d a r e i r r e l e v a n t i n c e r t a i n c a s e s h e a r d by t h e Board and c o n s e q u e n t l y i g n o r e d i n t h o s e (and o t h e r ) c a s e s . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o s u b s t i t u t e t h e r u l e of man f o r t h e r u l e o f law i s i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y , e s p e c i a l l y when w r i t t e n r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s a r e not r e q u i r e d . - 67 -5. i n f o r m a l i t y o f p r o c e e d i n g s : t h e i n f o r m a l n a t u r e o f p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Board n o r m a l l y p r e c l u d e s j u d i c i a l appeal e x c e p t upon c l a i m s t h a t t h e laws o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e were not f o l l o w e d o r t h e t r i b u n a l exceeded powers g i v e n i t by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The c o u r t s would not n o r m a l l y s u b s t i t u t e t h e i r o p i n i o n on t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a c a s e f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i b u n a l ' s e x c e p t where t h e r e was c l e a r e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h i s a c t i o n . The p o t e n t i a l f o r t h i s t o happen i s l i m i t e d because a w r i t t e n o r e l e c t r o n i c r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e not k e p t . The i n f o r m a l i t y o f t h e Board p r o c e e d i n g s may cause i s s u e s p e r t i n e n t t o a c a s e t o remain unmentioned by t h e a p p e l l a n t o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e d i n t h e minds o f t h e Board members. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i n f o r m a l i t y o f t h e t e s t i m o n y t a k e n a t t h e h e a r i n g means d e c i s i o n s a r e made based on i n f o r m a t i o n c o m p r i s e d o f a m i x t u r e o f f a c t and he a r s a y and g i v e n t h e s c a l e o f some p r o j e c t s h e a r d by t h e Board and t h e d e b i l i t a t i n g impact a p p r o v a l c o u l d have on t h e by-law and t h e l o c a l n e i g h b o u r h o o d , i t can be e x p e c t e d t h a t d e c i s i o n s based on t h i s t y p e o f t e s t i m o n e y w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h e Board w i l l e r r i n i t s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r o l e . The i n f o r m a l i t y w i t h which t h e Board a p p r o a c h e s i t s d u t i e s i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r o l e t h e S e c r e t a r y has o f e s c o r t i n g members on t h e i r s i t e i n s p e c t i o n . The S e c r e t a r y i s a C i t y employee and member o f t h e P l a n n i n g Department who has e x p e r t i s e i n t h e p l a n n i n g f i e l d , knowledge o f both C o u n c i l and d e p a r t m e n t a l p o l i c y and an i n h e r e n t b i a s towards t h e d e c i s i o n s made by p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . The S e c r e t a r y has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s w i t h t h e Board d e t a i l s o f each appeal p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g and were t h e a p p e l l a n t a f f o r d e d - 68 -t h e same p r i v i l e d g e , t h e c o u r t s would l i k e l y f i n d t h e Board's d e c i s i o n i n t h e m a t t e r v o i d a b l e because o f t h e ex p a r t e communica-t i o n s . 6. no membership q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : w h i l e t h e i n t e n t may be t o e n s u r e t h e Board f u n c t i o n s more as an i n t e r v e n o r between t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l b u r e a u c r a t and t h e p o l i t i c a l l e g i s l a t o r , t h i s seems t o be an i n f e r i o r method o f a v o i d i n g c h a r g e s o f b i a s . The f a i l u r e t o r e q u i r e t h e Board be a p p o i n t e d w i t h a member o f t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n f o r c e s t h e Board's dependence on c i t y l e g a l s t a f f . T h i s dependence may l e a d t o a d i s p l a y o f b i a s i n f a v o u r o f .the c i t y and i s not i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , f a i l u r e t o r e q u i r e l e g a l p r e s e n c e may i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d d i s c a r d i n g t h e r u l e o f law d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . The l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n by a board i n o t h e r f i e l d s such as p l a n n i n g , c i v i l , s t r u c t u r a l , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g may a l s o mean an i n c r e a s i n g s h o r t f a l l i n t h e a b i l i t y t o r e a l i z e p u b l i c g o a l s t h r o u g h t h e power t h e Board has t o a t t a c h c o n d i t i o n s t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f any a p p e a l , and i n r e c o g n i z i n g when t o g r a n t a p r o p e r a p p e a l . 7. l a c k o f p r o c e d u r e s : no c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o c e d u r e s t o g u i d e Board a c t i v i t i e s o r t h o s e o f t h e a p p a l l a n t have been d e v e l o p e d . The Board f a i l s t o make f o r m a l p r o v i s i o n t o n o t i f y any n e i g h b o u r h o o d i n t e r e s t group ( i . e . , r a t e p a y e r s , p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s , p l a n n i n g committee, e t c . ) o p e r a t i n g i n t h e a r e a o f t h e a p p e a l . I t i s o n l y t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n t h a t t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n o f any appeal a p p e a r s i n p u b l i c a t a l l . - 69 -F u r t h e r , t h e Bo a r d , i n s e e k i n g l o c a l views has f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h f o r m a l p r a c t i c e as t o t h e e x t e n t n o t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d p r o p e r l y t a k e . T h i s l e a d s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f p o s s i b l y v a l i d l o c a l c o n c e r n s by t h e Board i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , and t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f . a n angry and r e s e n t f u l crowd a t t h e h e a r i n g . A n o t h e r a r e a where t h e Board d i s p l a y s a harmful l a c k o f p r o c e d u r e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e form used t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n o f a p p e a l . No i n d i c a t i o n o f grounds upon which an appeal would be c o n s i d e r e d v a l i d a r e p r o v i d e d and t h e c a s e t o be made b e f o r e t h e Board c o u l d g r a n t t h e appeal i s not i d e n t i f i e d . The form encourages t h e f i l i n g o f many a p p e a l s t h a t a r e w i t h o u t t r u e grounds f o r r e l i e f and must o n l y encourage t h e Board t o s t e p beyond t h e bounds o f i t s 109 power t o a l l o w t h e a p p e a l . 2.5.2 H e a r i n g Examiner The major s t r e n g t h s o f t h i s form o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a r e found i n what Americans have p e r c e i v e d t o be t h e g e n e r a l s h o r t c o m i n g s o f z o n i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by t r i b u n a l s . Z o n i n g i s no l o n g e r r e g a r d e d as a s t a t i c s t a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n t o o l . E f f o r t s have been made i n two phases t o i n t r o d u c e change as an element o f t h e z o n i n g by-law. When z o n i n g was i n t e n d e d t o be r i g i d and i n f l e x -i b l e , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e v i c e s o f s p e c i a l ( o r c o n d i t i o n a l ) use p e r m i t s , p a r c e l r e z o n i n g s and v a r i a n c e s were p r o v i d e d t o amend t h e by-law. In more r e c e n t y e a r s , f l e x i b i l i t y has been i n t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h such d e v i c e s as c o n t r a c t and c o n d i t i o n a l z o n i n g , f l o a t i n g and o v e r l a y z o n i n g , p l a n n e d u n i t developments and v a r i o u s development i n c e n t i v e o r bonus t e c h -n i q u e s . 1 1 0 In p a r t s o f Canada t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y has been f u r t h e r e x t e n d e d - 70 -w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a development p e r m i t s y s t e m . The use of t h e s e d e v i c e s has not been w i t h o u t s t r o n g c r i t i c i s m by t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g and development. The i n f l e x i b i l i t y and p r o c e d u r a l d i f f i c u l t y o f o b t a i n i n g one of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e v i c e s and t h e c o m p l e x i t y and u n c e r t a i n t y i n h e r e n t i n t h e newer, f l e x i b l e t e c h n i q u e s has c a u s e d numerous problems i n z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . These problems a r e e s p e c i a l l y e v i d e n t i n t h e " a l r e a d y b u i l t " e n v i r o n m e n t , such as t h e a g i n g c e n t r a l c i t y where much re-d e v e l o p m e n t i s t a k i n g p l a c e and t h e r e i s a h i g h demand f o r s p e c i a l p e r m i t s , p a r c e l r e z o n i n g s and v a r i a n c e s . The a t t e n d a n t r e s u l t s a r e o v e r l y l o n g p r o c e s s i n g t i m e s f o r t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s and an o v e r b u r d e n i n g of t h e p l a n n i n g commissions, boards of a d j u s t m e n t and l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of development of l o n g range p l a n n i n g g o a l s and o t h e r g e n e r a l p o l i c i e s . 1 1 ' ' ' As t h e l e g a l i t y o f z o n i n g i s based on t h e i n d i v i d u a l l o t , i t a p p e a r s t h a t l o c a l c o u n c i l s , commissions and boards have become n o t h i n g more th a n p u r v e y o r s o f t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s w i s h e s . T h i s has g i v e n r i s e t o t h e c h a r g e o f l a c k o f p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s . T h i s p r e m i s e i s s u g g e s t e d by one s o u r c e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: "The g e n e r a l l y a r b i t r a r y n a t u r e of un-p l a n n e d z o n i n g has l e a d most z o n i n g commissions t o approve most r e q u e s t s f o r z o n i n g v a r i a t i o n s . In t h e a b s e n c e o f a g u i d i n g l a n d - u s e p o l i c y , 112 z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s a r e g e n e r a l l y p o l i t i c a l i n n a t u r e . " A n o t h e r a g r e e s , s t a t i n g , " D e c i s i o n s t h a t s h o u l d be based on p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e s and 113 t e c h n i c a l a n a l y s i s a r e made, i n s t e a d , t h r o u g h p o l i t i c a l b a r g a i n i n g . " I m p o s i t i o n of more f l e x i b l e z o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s has marked t h e t r a n s -i t i o n o f z o n i n g from a m e r e l y p e r m i s s i v e o r p r o h i b i t i v e s t a t e t o one where development i s dependent on a u t h o r i t a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power and - 71 -an o f t e n t e c h n i c a l l y complex n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s . These c o m p l e x i t i e s added t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o c e s s have c r e a t e d a need f o r c a p a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o i n t e r p r e t b y - l a w s , r e v i e w development p r o p o s a l s and g r a n t p e r m i s s i o n f o r development. Y e t , z o n i n g i s s t i l l l a r g e l y i n t h e hands o f c i t y c o u n c i l s , p l a n n i n g commissions and boards o f a d j u s t m e n t ( v a r i a n c e ) who a r e not e q u i p p e d t o t a k e f u l l advantage o f t h e complex, f l e x i b l e z o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s a v a i l a b l e . As one r e p o r t s t a t e s : "The growing body o f r e s e a r c h on urban problems and t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between l a n d - u s e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and t h e s o c i a l and economic f u n c t i o n i n g o f a community show t h a t l a n d - u s e problems a r e n e i t h e r s i m p l e o r c a p a b l e o f i n t u i t i v e s o l u t i o n . T r u s t i n g t h e s o l u t i o n e n t i r e l y t o t h e common knowledge o f laymen i s a c o u r s e t h a t w i l l more and more f a l l s h o r t o f our [ p l a n n e r s ' ] c a p a b i l i t y i n t h i s f i e l d " 114 The r o l e o f t h e j u d i c i a r y must a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e r i s i n g p o p u l a r i t y o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system i n l o c a l z o n i n g m a t t e r s . The j u d i c i a l system o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s o r g a n i z e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o t h a t o f Canada; both c o u n t r i e s o p e r a t e f e d e r a l and s t a t e o r p r o v i n c i a l supreme c o u r t s . In 1926 t h e U.S. Supreme C o u r t f i r s t u p h e l d z o n i n g as a v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f t h e p o l i c e power and i n t h a t d e c i s i o n e x p r e s s e d a d e f e r r e n c e t o l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n , making i t s u b j e c t o n l y t o c o n s t i -115 t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s . More r e c e n t l y a new j u d i c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f z o n i n g has been d e v e l o p -i n g a t t h e s t a t e l e v e l . F or example, i n t h e l e a d i n g c a s e , Fasano v.  Board o f Commissioners o f Washington County, t h e d e f e r e n c e t r a d i t i o n a l l y g i v e n t o l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s i n c o n s i d e r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r p a r c e l r e z o n i n g s , s p e c i a l use p e r m i t s and v a r i a n c e s was d e n i e d . The d e c i s i o n s t a t e s : - 72. -"[We] would be i g n o r i n g r e a l i t y t o r i g i d l y view a l l z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s by l o c a l g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s as l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s t o be a c c o r d e d f u l l p r e s u m p t i o n o f v a l i d i t y and s h i e l d e d from l e s s t h a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s c r u t i n y by t h e t h e o r y o f s e p a r a t i o n o f powers. L o c a l and s m a l l d e c i s i o n groups a r e s i m p l y not t h e e q u i v a l e n t i n a l l r e s p e c t s o f s t a t e and n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t u r e s . There i s a growing j u d i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h i s f a c t o f l i f e : ' I t i s not a p a r t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n t o g r a n t p e r m i t s , make s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s , o r d e c i d e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s . Such a c t i v i t i e s a r e not l e g i s l a t i v e , but a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , q u a s i - j u d i c i a l o r j u d i c i a l i n c h a r a c t e r . To p l a c e them i n t h e hands o f l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s , whose a c t s a r e not j u d i c i a l l y r e v i e w a b l e , i s t o open t h e d o o r c o m p l e t e l y t o a r b i t r a r y government.' Ward v. V i l l a g e o f S k o k i e , 26 111.2d 415, 186 N.E.2d 529, 533 ( I l l i n o i s 1962)" 116 A d d i t i o n a l l y , an Oregon c o u r t has h e l d l o c a l governments' e x e r c i s e o f r e g u l a t o r y power o v e r l a n d u s e , i f l i m i t e d t o p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e s o f l a n d , i s not a l e g i s l a t i v e o r p o l i c y - m a k i n g f u n c t i o n . 1 1 7 " O r d i n a n c e s l a y i n g down g e n e r a l p o l i c i e s w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o a s p e c i f i c p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y a r e u s u a l l y an e x e r c i s e o f l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . . . . [ A ] d e t e r -m i n a t i o n whether t h e p e r m i s s i b l e use o f a s p e c i f i c p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y 118 s h o u l d be changed i s u s u a l l y an e x e r c i s e o f j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y . " The q u a s i - j u d i c i a l n a t u r e o f many z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s i s i m p o r t a n t i n view o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between l e g i s l a t i v e and a d j u d i c a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s . The change from l e g i s l a t i v e t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s has n e c e s s i t a t e d a change i n s t a n d a r d s o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and p r o c e d u r e s f o r z o n i n g 119 a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . These p r o c e d u r e s and s t a n d a r d s must now meet r e q u i r e -ments . s e t f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w and c l e a r l y a p p l y t o h e a r i n g s h e l d and d e c i s i o n s made by " c i t y and c o u n t y c o u n c i l s , boards o f cou n t y c o m mission-e r s , and p l a n n i n g commissions on a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r p a r c e l r e z o n i n g s , 120 s p e c i a l use p e r m i t s and v a r i a n c e s . " In a n o t h e r noteworthy c a s e , F l e m i n g v. T a c o m a , 1 ^ 1 t h e d e c i s i o n s t a t e s : "Whatever t h e i r n a t u r e o r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s . . . . m u s t be a r r i v e d a t f a i r l y . " The c o u r t c o n t i n u e d , c l a r i f y i n g t h a t " i n amending a z o n i n g code o r r e c l a s s -- 73 -i f y i n g l a n d t h e r e u n d e r , t h e same l e g i s l a t i v e body, i n e f f e c t , makes an a d j u d i c a t i o n between t h e r i g h t s sought by t h e proponent and t h o s e c l a i m e d by t h e o p p o n e n t s . . . . [ A l t h o u g h i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y may permeate a z o n i n g amendment, t h e d e c i s i o n has f a r g r e a t e r impact on one 122 group o f c i t i z e n s t h a n on t h e p u b l i c g e n e r a l l y . " The Fasano and F l e m i n g c a s e s were i n s t r u m e n t a l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g f i v e p r i n c i p l e s i n z o n i n g ; p r i n c i p l e s which t h e e x i s t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s were t o f i n d d i f f i c u l t t o l i v e up t o . These p r i n c i p l e s were: a) z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e o r i g i n a l a d o p t i o n o f a z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , t e x t amendments o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o r compre-h e n s i v e l a r g e s c a l e r e z o n i n g s a r e a d j u d i c a t o r y r a t h e r t h a n l e g i s l a t i v e i n n a t u r e even though a p a r c e l r e z o n i n g i s e n a c t e d by an amendment t o a z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , b) members o f a l o c a l l e g i s l a t i v e body who p a r t i c i p a t e i n a z o n i n g h e a r i n g o r d e c i s i o n must be o b j e c t i v e , open-minded, i m p a r t i a l and f r e e from e n t a n g l i n g i n f l u e n c e s , p r e j u d i c e o r b i a s , c ) not o n l y must z o n i n g h e a r i n g s be c o n d u c t e d f a i r l y but t h e y must a l s o have an "appearance o f f a i r n e s s " t o a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s , d) t e c h n i c a l r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s a r e not r e q u i r e d i n z o n i n g h e a r i n g s , and e) due p r o c e s s s t a n d a r d s must be o b s e r v e d i n z o n i n g d e t e r m i n -a t i o n s . W h ile t h e above d i s c u s s i o n o f z o n i n g ' s s h o r t c o m i n g s and t h e j u d i c i a l a t t e n t i o n g i v e n z o n i n g ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n c e r t a i n American j u r i s d i c t i o n s has a s s i s t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g why a change i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e was - 74 -r e q u i r e d , i t has not drawn d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e advantages and d i s -a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system. A d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s f o l l o w s . The a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n f a l l i n t o s i x t o p i c s f o r d i s c u s s i o n . These t o p i c s a r e : a) p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s , b) q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l , c) c o m p l e t e n e s s o f r e c o r d , d) f l e x i b i l i t y , e) freedom from p o l i t i c s , and f ) e f f i c i e n c y . Each i s b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d : a) p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s - e f f o r t s have been made t o e n s u r e t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d comply w i t h due p r o c e s s and f a i r h e a r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s as d i c t a t e d by t h e Fasano and F l e m i n g c a s e s . The e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e r i g h t s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t o c r o s s -examine and r e b u t e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e a d h e r e n c e t o t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s . P r o c e d u r e s l a i d down attempt t o f o c u s a t t e n t i o n on t h e r e l e v a n t i s s u e s o f each a p p e a l . The r e s u l t has been t o i n c r e a s e p u b l i c n o t i c e , t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s t a f f r e p o r t s and t o i n c r e a s e t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i m o n y a t t h e 123 h e a r i n g . b) q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l - q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l weigh e v i d e n c e , c o n d u c t f a i r h e a r i n g s , and base d e c i s i o n s on s t a t e d f a c t s , and f i n d i n g s . T h i s p r o c e s s a l l o w s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o t a k e f u l l a dvantage o f t h e complex and f l e x i b l e t e c h n i q u e s o f z o n i n g . The r e q u i r e m e n t o f q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l improves t h e a b i l i t y f o r - 75 -p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t h e q u a l i t y of c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n i s s u e s , and e n s u r e s d e c i s i o n s a r e based on t h e s t a t e d p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e s and g o a l s o r o b j e c t i v e s of a comprehensive p l a n , z o n i n g by-law o r o t h e r o f f i c i a l p o l i c y . Completeness o f r e c o r d - t h e examiner system p r o v i d e s w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and d e c i s i o n s . P r o c e e d -i n g s a r e e l e c t r o n i c a l l y r e c o r d e d t o e n s u r e a complete r e c o r d o f each appeal i s a v a i l a b l e . T h i s a v a i l a b i l i t y i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t i n t h e American s e t t i n g where t h e j u d i c i a r y r e g u l a r l y s u b s t i -t u t e s i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s of a case f o r t h o s e e x p r e s s e d by t h e l e g i s l a t o r s o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . T h i s a c t i v i t y a s i d e , t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s of t h e r e c o r d i s one of t h e major f a c t o r s t o e n s u r e a h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d f a i r l y and t h e d e c i s i o n a r r i v e d a t r a t i o n a l l y . f l e x i b i l i t y - t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y i s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o d e l e g a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s u n r e l a t e d t o z o n i n g and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power t o t h e examiner i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The f l e x i b i l i t y of f u n c t i o n s means a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s a r e a c c o r d e d equal and u n i f o r m t r e a t m e n t , w h i l e f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power e n s u r e s t h e l e g i s l a t o r s r e t a i n c o n t r o l o v e r d e c i s i o n s r i g h t -f u l l y t h e i r - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The o v e r a l l r e s u l t i s a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . F l e x i b i l i t y can be p e r c e i v e d as e n c o u r a g i n g development of l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y w h i l e d i v e s t i n g c o u n c i l of t h e o f t e n c o n t r o v e r s i a l f u n c t i o n s o f c o n d u c t i n g c o n t r o v e r s i a l h e a r i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l r e z o n i n g s , c o n d i t i o n a l uses and use v a r i a n c e s . - 76 -freedom from p o l i t i c s - where C o u n c i l has r e t a i n e d f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y , changes t o t h e recommendation o f t h e examiner may have t o be s u p p o r t e d w i t h new w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r r e a s o n s f o r d i f f e r i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . T h i s e n s u r e s a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e examiner d i s a g r e e , t h e immediate o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n a c l e a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e meaning o f t h e p o l c i y o v e r which t h e d i s a g r e e m e n t has t a k e n p l a c e . P r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n i s a l s o a f f o r d e d t h e o f f i c e under t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g ex p a r t e c o mmunications. E l i m i n a t i o n o f p o l i t i c s from l a n d use d e c i s i o n s has n e v e r been one o f t h e g o a l s o f t h e new a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m . R a t h e r , t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p o l i t i c s on i n d i v i d u a l l o t s and o f v a r i o u s p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d has been reduced t h r o u g h b i n d i n g t h e examiner t o p o l i c i e s o f a c omprehensive p l a n and s t r i c t p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s . T h i s r e d u c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s t o an i n c r e a s e d o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y t o shape t h e p o l i c i e s a p p r o v e d by a c o u n c i l and t h e r e f o r e s e p a r a t e s p e t t y p o l i t i c s from day t o day a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f z o n i n g . e f f i c i e n c y - t h r o u g h t h e a d h e r e n c e t o j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d grounds f o r a p p e a l and p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e , t h e examiner system has made t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f z o n i n g more e f f i c i e n t . T h i s i s because fewer f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l s can be h e a r d by t h e examiner who c o n d u c t s a l e s s e m o t i o n a l , more j u d i c i a l h e a r i n g , which p r o d u c e s a c o m p l e t e r e c o r d open t o t h e s c r u t i n y o f t h e p u b l i c . - 77 -F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e examiner a c t s as a s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s , s h i e l d i n g t h e c o u n c i l from w a s t i n g t i m e on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r s and a l l o w i n g i t t i m e t o d e v e l o p p o l i c y . F i n a l l y , t h e examiner 124 system i s seen t o s h o r t e n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g t i m e s and r e d u c e t h e t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s o f t e n imposed on p l a n n i n g 125 commissions t o u n d e r t a k e l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s . A number of o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e S e a t t l e examiner system not y e t mentioned r e q u i r e some e l a b o r a t i o n . These a r e d i s c u s s e d below. F i r s t l y , f l e x i b i l i t y i s amply d e m o n s t r a t e d and g r e a t l y exceeds t h e powers a c c o r d e d o t h e r examiners i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , as d e m o n s t r a t e d i n Appendix I I I . S e c o n d l y , r e g a r d i n g t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n and d e t a i l d e v o t e d t o t h e development of a s e t of p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s as opposed t o r e s t r i c t i n g o r s p e c i f y i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f o f f i c e , t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e f o r m was t o promote p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s r a t h e r t h a n t o p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a p p a r a t u s . T h i r d l y , t h e S e a t t l e e xaminer, w h i l e a p p o i n t e d by c o u n c i l , i s not p a r t of t h e c o u n c i l s t a f f and i s a c o m p l e t e l y i n d e p e n d e n t body. L a s t l y , t h e examiner r e s o l v e s non-c o n t r o v e r s i a l c a s e s , l e a v i n g t h e P l a n n i n g Commission t i m e t o d e a l w i t h c o n t r o v e r s i a l c a s e s and g e t on w i t h t h e j o b of p o l i c y development. D e s p i t e c o n s i d e r a b l e a d v a n t a g e s a p p a r e n t from d i s c u s s i o n s above and t h e r e v i e w of t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e examiner system, t h e r e has been some v e r y s e r i o u s doubts e x p r e s s e d o v e r t h e p o p u l a r i z a t i o n of t h i s method o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . These doubts g e n e r a l l y r e v o l v e around t h e f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s : a) i n t i m i d a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s , - 78 -b) p r o f e s s i o n a l b i a s , c) u n r e s p o n s i v e , d) a p o l i t i c a l , e) dependency on p o l i c y , and f ) i n e f f i c i e n c y . Each w i l l be b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d below: a) i n t i m i d a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s - a f o r m a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e o f p r o c e e d -i n g s e n s u r e s a l l a p p e l l a n t s a f a i r h e a r i n g w h i l e p o s s i b l y a l s o l e a v i n g t h e system open t o c h a r g e s t h e f o r m a l i t i e s "tend t o i n t i m i d a t e p e r s o n s u n f a m i l i a r w i t h o r u n t r u s t f u l o f , b i g 127 government". I t has been no t e d t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t any i n t i m i d a t i o n a c t u a l l y e x i s t s , i t i s a n e c e s s a r y e v i l , " f o r i t i s t h i s same f o r m a l i z a t i o n which l e n d s t h e system i t s 128 tremendous a p p e a r a n c e o f f a i r n e s s and c r e d i b i l i t y . " b) p r o f e s s i o n a l b i a s - t h e examiner c a n n o t h e l p but d i s p l a y a p r o f e s s i o n a l b i a s i n h i s d e c i s i o n s . T h i s b i a s would p a r t i a l l y stem from p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g , but more i m p o r t a n t l y , from t h e a d h e r e n c e t o t h e comprehensive p l a n and p o l i c i e s , which would t e n d t o l e s s e n t h e impact o f e m o t i o n a l a p p e a l s on d e c i s i o n -making. c j u n r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e p u b l i c - whether o r not t h i s i s a problem w i l l depend on how w e l l t h e a s p i r a t i o n s o f each p a r t i c u l a r segment o f a community a r e e x p r e s s e d i n a comprehensive p l a n and t h e s t r e n g t h o f b e l i e f t h a t o p p o s i t i o n s i m p l y because something i s not l i k e d i s s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n t o deny i t . C l a i m s have a l s o been made t h a t t h e examiner system, because o f a d a i l y d i e t o f s p e c i a l i z e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , - 79 -d e v e l o p s s t a n d a r d s which a r e l o w e r t h a n p u b l i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h i s c r i t i c i s m i s t o some d e g r e e v a l i d f o r a l l b u r e a u c r a c i e s , p l a y i n g as i t does on t h e n a t u r a l c o n s e r v a t i v i s m i n h e r e n t i n any a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n . A f u r t h e r c r i t i c i s m i s t h a t t h e examiner may be s u b j e c t t o " c l i e n t c a p t u r e " - a s c e n a r i o i n which t h e r e g u l a t e d become t h e r e g u l a t e r . T h i s must be r e c o g n i z e d as a danger o f any a d m i n i -s t r a t i v e agency, e s p e c i a l l y ones where l o c a l autonomy and c o n c e n t r a t e d power c o - e x i s t i n an envi r o n m e n t w i t h o u t s t r i c t p r o c e d u r e s t o g u i d e b e h a v i o u r . The examiner system has a l s o been c r i t i c i z e d f o r h i d i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Concern here i s o v e r t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f m e r e l y s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f one p r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a -t o r ( e . g . , t h e p l a n n i n g department) f o r t h a t o f a n o t h e r ( e . g . , t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r ) . R e g a r d i n g t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e d e c i s i o n , i t has been n o t e d t h a t a l a y p a n e l , "a j u r y o f p e e r s i s not 129 o n l y f u n d a m e n t a l l y American but i s i n n a t e l y more f a i r . " a p o l i t i c a l - t h e examiner system has been c r i t i c i z e d as an attempt t o d i s p l a c e p o l i t i c s from d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g by c i r c u m -v e n t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o p r e s e n t h i s c a s e t o t h e d u l y e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . The l e s s e m o t i o n a l n a t u r e o f p r o c e e d -i n g s would t e n d t o r e d u c e p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s a s c r i b e d h e a r i n g s i n t h e p a s t . dependency on p o l i c y - a n o t h e r s h o r t c o m i n g o f t h e examiner system i s i t s dependency on t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s a b i l i t y and d e s i r e t o f o r m u l a t e e f f e c t i v e c omprehensive l o n g - r a n g e p o l i c y - 80 -and a r t i c u l a t e community g o a l s . l o u - T h i s assumes t h e l e g i s -l a t u r e can r e s o l v e a l l unanswered q u e s t i o n s o f e q u i t y p r i o r t o t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e examiner and t h e r e i s a p o l i t i c a l w i l l t o a d d r e s s t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . T h i s i s one o f t h e most p e r s u a s i v e arguments a g a i n s t t h e examiner system g i v e n t h e m u l t i p l e l e v e l s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n l a n d development and t h e l a c k o f i n f l u e n c e l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e r e a l l y has o v e r f a c t o r s d e t e r m i n i n g q u e s t i o n s o f e q u i t y . f ) i n e f f i c i e n c y - t h e c r i t i c i s m here i s t h a t t o e n s u r e f a i r n e s s i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s , t h e examiner system may a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e t i m e needed t o p r o c e s s c e r t a i n t y p e s o f a p p l i -c a t i o n s . 1 ^ 1 In a d d i t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l s h o r t c o m i n g s d i s c u s s e d above t h e S e a t t l e Examiner system d i s p l a y s s e v e r a l o t h e r p e c u l i a r i t i e s which wa r r a n t some n o t i c e . These p e c u l i a r i t i e s a r e p r i m a r i l y t h e r e s u l t o f S e a t t l e ' s r a t h e r unusual s i t u a t i o n o f h a v i n g b o t h an Examiner and a Board system o p e r a t i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . The major d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e Examiner-Board c o m b i n a t i o n a r e t h a t t h e p r o c e s s t a k e s l o n g e r , i s l e s s e q u i t a b l e , r e s u l t s i n l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e 132 d e c i s i o n outcomes and e n c o u r a g e s s t r a t e g i c g a m e - p l a y i n g . I r o n i c a l l y , i t has a l s o meant t h e Board o f A djustment has a c q u i r e d more power t h a n i t had p r i o r t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner. The Board now a c t s as t h e f i n a l a ppeal body p r i o r t o a c a s e g o i n g t o t h e c o u r t s , whereas p r e v i o u s l y t h i s a c t i v i t y was t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e 133 l o c a l c o u n c i l . Where t h e examiner has o n l y powers o f recommendation t o - 81 -C o u n c i l , o v e r 95% o f d e c i s i o n s a r e a c c e p t e d . However, where t h e examiner has f i n a l d e c i s i o n , 25 t o 40% o f t h e c a s e s a r e a p p e a l e d t o t h e Board, 134 about h a l f o f them s u c c e s s f u l l y . T h i s r e s u l t o c c u r s because t h e Board r e j e c t s i t s i n t e n d e d a p p e l l a t e r o l e and c o n d u c t s h e a r i n g s "de novo" w i t h c o u n c i l ' s t a c i t a p p r o v a l . From d i s c u s s i o n o f b o t h Canadian and American boards o f v a r i a n c e , s e v e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s h o r t c o m i n g s have been r e v e a l e d . In t h e S e a t t l e j u r i s d i c t i o n , a d vantages o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a p p e a r t o a d d r e s s t h e s e d i s a d v a n t a g e s . A l t h o u g h t h i s second system i s e v i d e n t l y not w i t h o u t d i s a d v a n t a g e i t s e l f , s p e c u l a t i o n s u g g e s t s i m p o r t -a t i o n o f t h e examiner system t o t h e Vancouver s e t t i n g would r e l i e v e d i s a d v a n t a g e s i d e n t i f i e d t h e r e . To a s s e s s how a p p r o p r i a t e t h i s a p p r oach i s , a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l models o f government f o l l o w s i n t h e next C h a p t e r . - 82 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER II 1. J . D h i l l o n , "Zoning Board o f A p p e a l : Study o f i t s R o l e i n Implementing M u n i c i p a l P l a n n i n g P o l i c y " , ( V a n c o u v e r : M a s t e r o f A r t s T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., 1966). 2. J . D h i l l o n , 1966. 3. R. Babcock, The Zoning Game, M u n i c i p a l P r a c t i c e s and P o l i c i e s , ( M a d ison, W i s c o n s i n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1966). 4. S. Makuch, " Z o n i n g : Avenues o f Reform", D a l h o u s i e Law J o u r n a l , v o l . 1 (December, 1973). 5. R. N e l s o n , Zoning and P r o p e r t y R i g h t s , ( B o s t o n : MIT P r e s s , 1977). 6. R. A r n e s b e r g h , "The F u n c t i o n s and D u t i e s o f a Board o f Zoning A d j u s t m e n t " , I n s t i t u t e on P l a n n i n g and Z o n i n g , ( V o l . 1, 1960) p.109. 7. C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a . 8. R. A r n e s b e r g h , 1960. 9. J . D h i l l i o n , 1966, p.26. 10. M. S p r i n g e r , " Z o n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " I n s t i t u t e on P l a n n i n g and  Z o n i n g , ( D a l l a s : S outhwestern Legal F o u n d a t i o n , 1962), p.127. 11. D. M a n d e l k e r , The Z o n i n g Dilemma, (Washington: Bobbs M e r r i l l Co., 1971), p.36. 12. N e l s o n , 1977. 13. R. Babcock, 1966, p.133. - 83 -14. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , "The Z o n i n g Board o f A d j u s t m e n t : A Case Study i n M i s r u l e " , Kentucky Law J o u r n a l , v o l . 50 (1961-62) p.340. 15. G. A d l e r , Land P l a n n i n g by A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e g u l a t i o n : The P o l i c i e s  o f t h e O n t a r i o M u n i c i p a l Board, ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1971), p.97. 16. C. A d l e r , 1971, p.120. 17. L. R i c h a r d , " T r a n s f e r o f Development P o t e n t i a l i n t h e C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r " , ( V a n c o u v e r : Daon Development C o r p o r a t i o n , September, 1981) (mimeographed). 18. S. Makuch, 1973. 19. M i c h a e l G o l d b e r g and P e t e r Horwood, Zoning f o r t h e 1980's, ( V a n c o u v e r : F r a s e r I n s t i t u t e , 1980). 20. M. G o l d b e r g , 1981. 21. I . Rogers, Canadian Law o f P l a n n i n g and Z o n i n g , ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l Co. L t d . , 1973). 22. M. G o l d b e r g , 1980. 23. M. G o l d b e r g , 1980. 24. I. R o g e r s , Canadian Law o f P l a n n i n g , 1973. 25. J . I n c e , "Land Use Law - A Study o f L e g i s l a t i o n G o v e r n i n g Land Use i n B.C.", ( V a n c o u v e r : C e n t r e f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , U.B.C. 1977) (mimeographed). - 84 -26. Vancouver C h a r t e r , (R.S.B.C.), ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1956),. S.565A(d). 27. J . In c e , 1977. 28. A. G a l l i o n , and S. E i s n e r , The Urban P a t t e r n , C i t y P l a n n i n g and  Design,(New York: Van N o s t r a n d , 1975), p.276. 29. J . I n c e , 1977, p.124. 30. J . Reps, " D i s c r e t i o n a r y Powers o f t h e Board o f Z o n i n g A p p e a l s " , Law and Contemporary Problems, v o l . 20 (1955) p.280. 31. P. S t r o n g , "Powers o f a Z o n i n g Board o f A d j u s t m e n t " , I n s t i t u t e on  P l a n n i n g and Z o n i n g , v o l . 2 (19 6 1 ) . 32. D. Bryden, "The Impact o f V a r i a n c e s : A Study o f S t a t e w i d e Z o n i n g " , M i n n e s o t a Law Review, v o l . 61:2 (1977). 33. J . Reps, 1955, p.282. 34. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , 1961-62. 35. D. Br y d e n , 1977, p.772. 36. D. Br y d e n , 1977. 37. J . Reps, 1955. 38. F o r example, when C o u n c i l ' s o p i n i o n i s sought by t h e D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g on t h e i s s u a n c e o f a c o n d i t i o n a l use D.P.A., t h e D i r e c t o r u s u a l l y f o l l o w s t h e a d v i c e g i v e n ( i . e . i s s u e o r deny t h e p e r m i t ) and t h a t d e c i s i o n can t h e n be a p p e a l e d t o t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e who c o u l d o v e r - r u l e t h e d e c i s i o n . - 85 -39. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, C i t y Z o n i n g : The Once and F u t u r e F r o n t i e r , ( C h i c a g o : P l a n n e r s P r e s s , American P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1979). 40. R. Babcock, 1966. 41. Vancouver C h a r t e r , 1956, S . 5 7 2 ( 1 ) . 42. W. Lane, e d i t o r , " S e l e c t e d Readings i n Law f o r L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s " , second e d i t i o n ( V a n c o u v e r : SCARP, UBC, 1975) (mimeographed). 43. R. R e i d , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law and P r a c t i c e ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1971), p.62. 44. A b o a r d o f v a r i a n c e can be r e p l a c e d . 45. M. Gram, "Vancouver C i t y Board o f V a r i a n c e " (paper s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f P l a n n i n g 525, UBC, SCARP) (Van c o u v e r : March 1981). 46. M. Gram, 1981, p.5. 47. Vancouver C h a r t e r , 1956, S e c . 5 7 3 ( 2 ) . 48. O n t a r i o P l a n n i n g N e w s l e t t e r , "Committee o f A d j u s t m e n t s " ( T o r o n t o : n.p., v o l . 3, No. 6) ( 1 9 5 6 ) . 49. M u n i c i p a l A c t , (R.S.B.C.), V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1961. The M u n i c i p a l A c t p r o v i d e s f o r a p e r m i t system i n o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , however, i t i s o f a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e t h a n t h e system used i n Vancouver under t h e C h a r t e r . See J . Ince ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p.121-123. 50. F. Laux, The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s , T h i r d e d i t i o n ( U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a : F a c u l t y o f Law, 1975). - 86 -51. The M u n i c i p a l A c t does not r e q u i r e v a r i a n c e h e a r i n g s t o be h e l d i n p u b l i c . 52. P. Chapman, "By-law No. 3844: A By-law t o E s t a b l i s h Vancouver's Board o f V a r i a n c e " , ( p a p e r s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f P l a n n i n g 522, SCARP, UBC) ( V a n c o u v e r : 1980). 53. S. C r a n e , "The H e a r i n g Examiner System i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington" ( O l y m p i a , W a s h i n g t o n : Department o f Housing and Urban Development) ( A p r i l , 1977) p . i i . 54. D. G o l d s c h m i d t , S u p e r v i s i o n o f L o c a l Land Use C o n t r o l :  The O n t a r i o M u n i c i p a l Board, ( T o r o n t o : n.p., 1970). 55. S. C r a n e , 1977, p . l . 56. In code j u r i s d i c t i o n s , Commissions have w i d e r s t a t u t o r y powers; i n non-code c i t i e s commissions a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o r e s e a r c h and f a c t f i n d i n g . 57. R e v i s e d Code o f Washington S t a t e , 35A.63.060. 58. S. C r a n e , 1977, p.3. 59. R. T i t u s , "The H e a r i n g Examiner System o f Zoning A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Amendment" ( S e a t t l e : M a s t er o f Urban P l a n n i n g T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, 1971). 60. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " H e a r i n g Examiners Annual R e p o r t , 1979" ( S e a t t l e : O f f i c e o f H e a r i n g Examiner, 1979) (mimeographed). 61. S. C o l e , "Land Use A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Task F o r c e Recommendations f o r S t r e a m l i n i n g t h e Requirements f o r V a r i a n c e s and o t h e r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e t e r -m i n a t i o n s A u t h o r i z e d by The Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e and an E v a l u a t i o n o f A l t e r n a t i v e - 87 -P r o c e d u r e s f o r P e r m i t t i n g V a r i a n c e s from t h e Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e R e q u i r e m e n t s " , ( S e a t t l e : Land Use A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Task F o r c e , September 14, 1979) (mimeographed), p.8. 62. A C o u n c i l c o n d i t i o n use i s a use l i s t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t s c h e d u l e which may be a l l o w e d a f t e r n o t i c e and a p u b l i c h e a r i n g i f i t i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e use i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g uses i n t h e a r e a . 63. S. C o l e , 1979, p.8. 64. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , "Zoning R u l e s " ( S e a t t l e : O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner, 1979) (mimeographed) 65. S e a t t l e Board o f V a r i a n c e S e c r e t a r y , P e r s o n a l Communication, I n t e r v i e w , June, 1980. 66. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " S t a t e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A c t " , ( S e a t t l e : 1979) (mimeographed) 67. U n l i k e Vancouver, S e a t t l e d e p a r t m e n t a l s t a f f have d e v e l o p e d c r i t e r i a f o r a u t h o r i z i n g v a r i a n c e s . 68. These a r e l e g i s l a t i v e l y a p p r o v e d . 69. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , "Zoning R u l e s " , 1979. 70. D. L a u b e r , "The H e a r i n g Examiner i n Z o n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , P l a n n i n g  A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e Report No. 312, ( S e a t t l e : ASPO, 1975) (mimeographed). 71. D. L a u b e r , 1975, p.11. 72. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979. 73. These were a d o p t e d F e b r u a r y 15, 1977. - 88 -74. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979, p.5. 75. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979. 76. American Law I n s t i t u t e , "A Model Land Development Code" ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e , American Law I n s t i t u t e , 1975). 77. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 78. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " H e a r i n g Examiner Appeal R u l e s " ( S e a t t l e : O f f i c e o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner, 1979) (mimeographed) 79. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " H e a r i n g Examiner Appeal R u l e s " , 1979. 80. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979. 81. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979. 82. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " Z o n i n g R u l e s " , 1979. 83. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " H e a r i n g Examiner Appeal R u l e s " , 1979. 84. C i t y o f S e a t t l e , " H e a r i n g Examiner Appeal R u l e s " , 1979. 85. M. H a r r i s , " C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f t h e C o m p o s i t i o n , H e a r i n g P r o c e d u r e s , A p p e l l a t e S t r u c t u r e and Powers o f South A u s t r a l i a n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l s " , A d e l a i d e Law Review, v o l . 4 (1971-72). 86. R. A n d e r s o n , "The Board o f Z o n i n g A p p e a l s - V i l l a i n o r V i c t i m ? " , S y r a c u s e Law Review, v o l . 13, No. 3 ( S p r i n g , 1962). 87. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962. 88. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , 1961-62. 89. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962. - 89 -90. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962. 91. At t h i s t i m e , t h e o n l y o t h e r f l e x i b i l i t y was t h r o u g h r e z o n i n g o r s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s ( i . e . , c o n d i t i o n a l u s e ) . V a r i a n c e became t h e t h i r d method o f i n t r o d u c i n g f l e x i b i l i t y t o E u c l i d i a n z o n i n g . 92. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , 1961-62, p.321. 93. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962, p.357. 94. See t h e C h a r t e r o f t h e C i t y o f New York, c h a p t e r XIV ( 1 9 2 0 ) . R e l e v a n t e x t r a c t s a r e r e p r i n t e d i n B a s s e t t , Z o n i n g , ( 1 3 6 ) , 1940. 95. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962, p.358. 96. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962, p.358. 97. J . Reps, 1955. 98. F o r example, t h e commercial s c h e d u l e s d e v e l o p e d f o r West Broadway, West 4th Avenue, and Commercial D r i v e i n Vancouver. 99. J . Reps, 1955. 100. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n . 101. J . Reps, 1955. 102. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n . 103. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , p.291. 104. W. B l u c h e r , " I s Zoning Wagging t h e Dog?", P l a n n i n g , v o l . 96 (1955) p.100. 105. R. A n d e r s o n , 1962. - 90 -106. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979, p.161. 107. F o r example, a Canadian T i r e s t o r e a t t e m p t i n g t o l o c a t e i n a C - l l o c a l commercial zone. The Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department views t h i s use more c o r r e c t l y l o c a t e d i n C-2 z o n e s . 108. F o r example, t h e Development P e r m i t A d v i s o r y P a n e l , H e r i t a g e A d v i s o r y Committee, and t h e Urban D e s i g n P a n e l . 109. P e r s o n a l communication. 110. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 111. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 112. J . R o b e r t s and L. Bush, "Managed Growth: Overview and A n a l y s i s " , E n v i r o n m e n t a l Comment, (March, 1975) p . l . 113. J . R o b e r t s and L. Bush, 1975, p.3. 114. A.S.P.O., "Problems o f Z o n i n g and Land Use R e g u l a t i o n " , R e s e a r c h Report No. 2 ( S e a t t l e : 1968) (mimeographed) p.38. 115. E u c l i d v. Amber R e a l t y . 116. Fasano v . Board o f Commissioners o f Washington County, 507 P.2d.23 (Oregon, 1973) p.26. 117. D. L a u b e r , 1972. 118. Fasano v. Board o f Commissioners o f Washington County, 1973, p.26. 119. S. C o l e , 1979. 120. D. L a u b e r , 1975, p.8. - 91 -121. F l e m i n g v. Tacoma, 67 Washington, 2d 292 (Washington, 1972) p.298. 122. F l e m i n g v. Tacoma, 1972, p.847. 123. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 124. D. L a u b e r , 1975, p.22. D e c i s i o n s on p a r c e l r e z o n i n g may have t o be g i v e n by a c e r t a i n d a t e as t i m e l i m i t s on d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g can be s p e c i f i e d i n t h e o r d i n a n c e . 125. S. C r a n e , 1977. 126. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979. 127. R. T i t u s , 1971, p.82. 128. R. T i t u s , 1971, p.82. 129. R. T i t u s , 1979, p.79. 130. R. T i t u s , 1971. 131. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 132. D. L a u b e r , 1975. 133. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979. 134. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979. - 92 -CHAPTER I I I A RATIONALE FOR IMPROVEMENT The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o d i s c u s s t h e e v a l u a t i v e methodology chosen f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t o examine s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s o f both p a r l i a m e n t -a r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l government and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e models r e l e v a n t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; and t o s e l e c t v a r i o u s c r i t e r i a w i t h which t h e two c a s e s t u d i e s i n l a n d use a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r can be compara-t i v e l y e v a l u a t e d . 3.1 METHODOLOGY E v a l u a t i o n o f an a d j u d i c a t o r y p r o c e s s such as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n s i s d i f f i c u l t as t h e measures o f s u c c e s s a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y as e v i d e n t i n t h e d e c i s i o n outcomes o f t h e a d m i n i s t e r i n g body as t h e y a r e i n o t h e r government and p r i v a t e s e c t o r a c t i v i t i e s . In s h o r t , t h e outcomes o f t h e s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s a r e not m e a s u r a b l e i n such f a m i l i a r terms as i n c r e a s e d s e r v i c e o r p r o d u c t i v i t y . E v a l u a t i o n i s f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d as e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s f o l l o w e d can o n l y be i n c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e d . The r e a s o n s why a p a r t i c -u l a r d e c i s i o n i s a r r i v e d a t remain h i d d e n as no r e c o r d i s made o f what t h e s e r e a s o n s might be, even i f t h e s e a r e s t a t e d v e r b a l l y . F o r t u n a t e l y an a l t e r n a t e e v a l u a t i v e t e c h n i q u e i s a v a i l a b l e t h a t a t t e m p t s t o e v a l u a t e i n p u t s r a t h e r t h a n o u t p u t s t o t h e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . T h i s t e c h n i q u e i s known as n o r m a t i v e a s sessment and i s based on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a "good" a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s w i l l p r oduce a "good" d e c i s i o n outcome. The problem t h e n becomes how t o d e f i n e "good". - 9 3 -Normative assessment as an e v a l u a t i v e t e c h n i q u e i s p r i m a r i l y c o n -c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r o c e s s . B e l i e f i n t h i s a p p roach stems from t h e n o t i o n t h a t i f t h e a c t i o n s l e a d i n g up t o a d e c i s i o n a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y a s o c i e t y ' s v a l u e s , t h e f i n a l outcome i t s e l f w i l l r e f l e c t t h a t s o c i e t y ' s w i l l . Normative assessment i s s i m p l y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a v a l u e system t o an e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e s s and s e t o f p r o c e d u r e s . The r e s u l t a n t measurement i s e n a b l e d because t h e r e i s g e n e r a l l y g r e a t e r agreement on v a l u e s t h a t d e t e r m i n e what p r o c e s s e s a r e a c c e p t a b l e t h a n t h e r e i s upon t h e g o a l s o r o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y agency* i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s c o ncensus o c c u r s , a t l e a s t i n t h e o r y , because s o c i e t i a l v a l u e s a r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e m a j o r i t y w i t h i n t h e s o c i e t y . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s some o f t h e major d e r i v a t i o n s between t h e norms o f A n g l o - C a n a d i a n and American s o c i e t i e s a s t h e f i r s t s t e p i n d e v e l o p i n g a s e t o f common n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a f o r use i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems used as c a s e s t u d i e s . PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT The r e l a t i o n s h i p between government and t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s o n l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e from s t u d y o f t h e l e g a l system as a whole. C o n t r o l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s made p o s s i b l e t h r o u g h t h e r u l e o f law, which Lowe d e f i n e s as "a s t a t e m e n t made i n advance w i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t h a t when c e r t a i n h y p o t h e t i c a l f a c t s o c c u r and an i n d i v i d u a l c o n d u c t s h i m s e l f i n a 2 c e r t a i n way, t h e community f o r c e s s h a l l t a k e c e r t a i n p r e s c r i b e d a c t i o n " . W h i l e t h i s i s a somewhat s i m p l i f i e d d e f i n i t i o n i t i s i l l u s t r a t i v e o f s e v e r a l n o t i o n s : a) t h e mechanism by which t h e s t a t e i m p a r t i a l l y a p p l i e s i t s power; b) t h e appeal t h e r u l e has t o form a l p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l e q u a l i t y ; and - 9 4 -c) t h e dependence on a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e t r i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n o f 3 p o l i t i c a l power f o r t h e r u l e ' s v i a b i l i t y . The r u l e o f law c r e a t e s t h r e e d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r i e s o f governmental power. These powers a r e l e g i s l a t i v e , e x e c u t i v e and j u d i c i a l and have t h e f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s : " 1 ) L e g i s l a t i v e power, t h e s t a t e m e n t o f r u l e s o f law, i n v o l v e s an a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n as t o what t h e r u l e s s h o u l d be, a r r i v e d a t on grounds o f p o l i c y ; 2) J u d i c i a l power i n v o l v e s an a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n as t o what t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e under r u l e s . o f law on t h e f a c t s i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e ; 3) E x e c u t i v e power i n v o l v e s no power o f ' a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n ' but i s a d i r e c t i o n t o t a k e a p r e s c r i b e d a c t i o n i n a p r e s c r i b e d f a c t u a l s t a t e . " 4 These p r e c i s e t h e o r e t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s a r e , however, l e s s d i s t i n c t when seen i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e where l e g i s t a t i v e power can be used t o p r e s c r i b e e i t h e r g e n e r a l o r s p e c i f i c r u l e s , and can be d e l e g a t e d t o s u b o r d i n a t e s t o make both g e n e r a l r u l e s o r r e g u l a t i o n s and s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n . D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i s f u r t h e r b l u r r e d where t h e j u d i c i a r y must e x e r c i s e some c h o i c e o r d i s c r e t i o n on grounds o f p o l i c y i n d e c i d i n g some 5 m a t t e r such a s an a m b i g u i t y o r o b s c u r i t y i n t h e la n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e , o r where l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e powers have become merged. T h i s i n a b i l i t y t o p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e l e g i s l a t i v e , j u d i c i a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers has r a i s e d numerous problems not o n l y i n t e r m i n o l o g y , but a l s o i n t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f v a r i o u s a c t i o n s t a k e n by both p r o f e s s i o n a l and l e g a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s has had i n t h e p a s t a g r e a t d e a l t o do w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g t h e scope o f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w a v a i l a b l e and i s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d when d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e American and A n g l o -C a n a d i a n systems o f government a r e p r e s e n t e d l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s o f t h e t r i p a r t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d by an i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power. - 95 -T h i s i s caused when a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers must be e x e r c i s e d j u d i c i a l l y . In such c a s e s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power i s termed " q u a s i - j u d i c i a l " . While t h i s c o n t a i n s e l e m e n t s o f a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n i t d i f f e r s from j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: " t h e d e c i s i o n i s not based s o l e l y on a f i n d i n g of f a c t and a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o them as t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r must a l s o have r e g a r d t o t h e p o l i c i e s o f t h e scheme b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d . " 6 As T i t u s n o t e s , t h e use o f t h e term q u a s i - j u d i c i a l i s i m p l i c i t w i t h t h e c o n f e s s i o n t h a t a l l r e c o g n i z e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s have broken down.^ T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n i s i m p o r t a n t as i t e n a b l e s t h e powers o f government t o be kept s e p a r a t e from each o t h e r , t h e r e b y i n s u r i n g t h e c o n t i n u a n c e o f c i v i l l i b e r t y . The danger o f i n v e s t i n g more t h a n one t y p e o f power i n a s i n g l e b r a n c h o f government was f i r s t n o t e d by M o n t e s q u i e u i n t h e 18th c e n t u r y . To M o n t e s q u i e u , t h e a s s u r a n c e t h a t government remained s e r v a n t g and not m a s t e r depended on t h i s s e p a r a t i o n o f power. With t h e above u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e b a s i s of government, t h e t y p e s of powers and t h e t h e o r y of t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s e powers s e p a r a t e l y , i t i s now a p p r o p r i a t e t o d i s c u s s a few of t h e many d i f f e r -e nces between A n g l o - C a n a d i a n and American forms o f government. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o t h a t which i s most r e l e v a n t t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e p r o c e s s e s used t o c o n t r o l l a n d use i n each c o u n t r y . The d i s c u s s i o n commences w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e B r i t i s h p a r l i a m e n t a r y system as t h i s s e r v e s as t h e model upon which much o f Canada's p r e s e n t day system o f government i s b a s e d . The d i s c u s s i o n t h e n c o n c l u d e s w i t h a b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e American model. 3,.2.1 P a r l i a m e n t a r y Government - E n g l a n d The b a s i c t e n e t of B r i t i s h government i s t h e supremacy o f P a r l i a m e n t . - 96 -Supremacy has c e n t r a l i z e d t h e c o n t r o l o f government and means t h a t a l l laws p a s s e d by P a r l i a m e n t a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . T h i s c e n t r a l i z a t i o n has o c c u r r e d w i t h o u t t h e development o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s a g a i n s t t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f P a r l i a m e n t and has r e s u l t e d i n a system o f government where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e can i n t h e o r y change any law a t any t i m e m e r e l y by a m a j o r i t y , v o t e on t h e i s s u e . The p r o h i b i t i v e f a c t o r s i n d o i n g so a r e , o f c o u r s e , t h e dependency o f t h e members o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e on t h e e l e c t o r a t e ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r r e - e l e c t i o n and t h e n u l l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l e g a l forms o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i n f a v o u r o f l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d customs and c o n v e n t i o n s government a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r . A second c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e B r i t i s h form o f government i s t h e l a c k o f p r e c i s e s e p a r a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e powers. Over t h e y e a r s t h i s c o n v e n i e n c e has not been m a i n t a i n e d and a r e l i a n c e on t h e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f t h e e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t l y t o P a r l i a m e n t t h r o u g h t h e d o c t r i n e o f m i n i s t e r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has d e v e l o p e d . C e n t r a l t o t h i s d o c t r i n e i s t h e n o t i o n t h a t government must r e s i g n i f d e f e a t e d on a v o t e o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e House o f Commons. T h i s , i n t h e o r y a t l e a s t , g i v e s P a r l i a m e n t much more c o n t r o l o f t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h t h a n does t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h e U.S. In p r a c t i c e , however, d i r e c t m i n i s t e r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e d a y - t o - d a y o p e r a t i o n o f t h e department has proven u n r e a l i s t i c . A l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e l a c k o f s e p a r a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e power has been t h e a d o p t i o n o f a c a b i n e t form o f P a r l i a -ment. In Bagehot's words, t h e c a b i n e t i s "a b u c k l e , a hyphen, a combin-i n g committee, f o r e n s u r i n g harmony between t h e d e t a i l e d e x e c u t i o n o f t h e laws by t h e c i v i l s e r v i c e and t h e w i l l o f t h e m a j o r i t y i n P a r l i a m e n t " . 1 0 A l l o f t h i s i s not t o say t h e t h r e e b r a n c h e s o f government do not • a c t as a check on t h e o t h e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s , however i t must be remembered - 97 -t h e power o f P a r l i a m e n t i s u n f e t t e r e d . A t h i r d i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f B r i t i s h government i s i t s b a s i s on t h e r u l e o f law d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n C h a p t e r I I . Not o n l y do a c t i o n s o f t h e government have t o conform t o t h e e x i s t i n g l a w s , but j u s t i f i -c a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n s o f o f f i c i a l s may a l s o be c a l l e d f o r by t h e j u d i c i a r y on c o m p l a i n t from a c i t i z e n . W h i l e P a r l i a m e n t has more r e c e n t l y moved t o l i m i t t h i s j u d i c i a l a p p e a l , t h e r e has been no wide-s p r e a d a t tempt t o s h i e l d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from j u d i c i a l o b s e r v a t i o n . T h i s has meant t h a t i n o r d e r t o j u s t i f y a c t i o n s t a k e n , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r has had t o r e l y on s p e c i f i c a c t s and s t a t u t e s r a t h e r t h a n m e r e l y a s s e r t i n g some " e x u l t e d o f f i c i a l s t a t u s and i n s c r u t a b l e e x e c u t i v e e x p e d i e n c y " * * t o e x p l a i n what was done. The f o u r t h and f i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o be mentioned here r e l a t e s t o t h e r o l e o f t h e j u d i c i a r y i n t h e B r i t i s h model o f government. Thr e e n o t i c e a b l e t r e n d s p e r t a i n t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n : a) l i m i t e d l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n , b) l i m i t e d r e v i e w o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s , and c) t r u s t i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s o f laymen. i In r e f e r r i n g t o t h e l i m i t e d l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e o f t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e B r i t i s h r e g a r d j u d i c i a l l y made l e g i s l a t i o n o f an o v e r t l y p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e , as an u s u r p a t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p e r o g a t i v e , 12 j u s t i f i a b l e o n l y i n c a s e s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l emergency. There a r e , however, o t h e r l e s s s e n s i t i v e a r e a s , i n s e p a r a b l e from t h e system o f c a s e law, which r e q u i r e new l e g i s l a t i o n and i t i s t o t h e s e a r e a s t h e E n g l i s h j u d i c i a r y has p r i m a r i l y c o n f i n e d i t s e l f . W h ile i t i s common t o hear t h a t B r i t i s h j u d g e s "do not make law, t h e y o n l y a p p l y i t " ; o r t h a t j u d g e s 13 "have n o t h i n g t o do w i t h p o l i c y , but must t a k e i t as t h e y f i n d i t " , - 98 -t h i s i s somewhat m i s l e a d i n g . Even E n g l i s h j u d g e s must c o n t i n u a l l y d e c i d e between c o n f l i c t i n g p o l i c i e s and t h e r e f o r e c r e a t e new law. I t i s perhaps s u f f i c i e n t t o say t h a t t h e B r i t i s h model a s s i g n s d i s t i n c t p r o v i n c e s t o t h e j u d i c i a r y and t o P a r l i a m e n t and p r e f e r s not t o see one t r e s p a s s on t h e o t h e r ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s i s i n marked c o n t r a s t t o t h e American j u d i c i a r y , d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n . A second t r e n d t o n o t e i s t h e j u d i c i a r y ' s l i m i t e d scope f o r r e v i e w -i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s . As t h e r e i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l minimum r e q u i r e m e n t f o r r e v i e w , P a r l i a m e n t has o f t e n a t t e m p t e d t o e x c l u d e j u d i c i a l r e v i e w t h r o u g h l i m i t i n g language i n t h e s t a t u t e . F u r t h e r m o r e , as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s do not have t o be r e a s o n a b l e under B r i t i s h law, t h e power t o r e v i e w would seem t o be l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n p r a c t i c e t h a n comparable j u d i c i a l power i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . Complete j u d i c i a l r e v iew i s f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t e d because B r i t a i n has never a d o p t e d a g e n e r a l r u l e r e q u i r i n g r e a s o n s t o be g i v e n f o r a d m i n i s -t r a t i v e a c t s and d e c i s i o n s . T h e r e f o r e t h e c o u r t s , i n c o n s i d e r i n g c a s e s where no r e a s o n s f o r an a c t i o n a r e g i v e n , w i l l not draw a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e from t h e agency's f a i l u r e t o s u p p l y them. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y l i m i t i n g as i t p l a c e s t h e onus o f p r o o f on t h e a p p e l l a n t t o show t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y was not j u s t i f i e d by law, a c o u r s e which 14 may be p r e c l u d e d by t h e s i l e n c e o f t h e a u t h o r i t y . Such s i t u a t i o n s have somewhat improved s i n c e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e T r i b u n a l s and I n q u i r i e s A c t , 1958, which imposed an o b l i g a t i o n on t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g i v e r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s when r e q u e s t e d . The improvement however, has not s i g n a l l e d t h e B r i t i s h c o u r t s t o embark on wide r a n g i n g r e v i e w s o f l e g i s l a t i o n and i t i s s t i l l uncommon f o r government t r i b u n a l s and i n q u i r i e s t o e s t a b l i s h a c o m p l e t e w r i t t e n r e c o r d o f i t s p r o c e e d i n g s upon which a f u l l t r i b u n a l - 99 -r e v i e w c o u l d be l a u n c h e d . ± J In f a c t j u d i c i a l r e v i ew i s seldom i n v o k e d as n o n - s t a t u t o r y remedies a r e o n l y o b t a i n a b l e from t h e h i g h c o u r t s a t g r e a t expense and have not produced a good r e c o r d f o r s u c c e s s f u l a p p e a l s . * 6 In s e e k i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s i n r e v i e w i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y t h e supremacy o f P a r l i a m e n t and t h e d i r e c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f p o l i t i c a l heads o f departments t o a l e g i s l a t u r e t o which t h e y t h e m s e l v e s b e l o n g must be kept i n mind. These d o c t r i n e s p o i n t t o P a r l i a m e n t as t h e a p p r o p r i a t e body t o r e v i e w t h e u n f a i r e x e r c i s e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y which was g r a n t e d i n i t i a l l y by P a r l i a m e n t and may be withdrawn a t t h e p e r o g a t i v e o f t h a t same b o d y . * 7 The f i n a l t r e n d d i s c e r n i b l e i n t h e B r i t i s h j u d i c i a r y r e l e v a n t t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f government i s t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f t h e E n g l i s h t o t r u s t i n t r i b u n a l s o f laymen t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e law r a t h e r t h a n t o r e l y on. t h e c o u r t s o f law t h e m s e l v e s , as t h e Americans do. T h i s t r u s t i n t h e " o r d i n a r y man" as a d j u d i c a t o r has d e v e l o p e d i n E n g l a n d and not i n America because o f t h e d i f f e r i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l backgrounds and t h e l o n g t r a d -i t i o n o f l a y m a g i s t r a c y and l a y t r i b u n a l s . As D i p l o c k , L o r d o f Appeal i n O r d i n a r y , n o t e s , t h e Americans " t e n d t o t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s no problem t o which t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n cannot be found by t r a i n e d l e g a l minds u s i n g t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s and t h e a d v e r s a r y system" whereas an Englishman "tends t o t h i n k t h a t t h e r e a r e many problems which a r e b e s t s o l v e d by s u b m i t t i n g them t o t h e commonsense judgement o f f a i r - m i n d e d laymen u s i n g i n f o r m a l 18 p r o c e d u r e s " . To a l a r g e e x t e n t t h e Canadian system o f government r e f l e c t s t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e two c o u n t r i e s b e l i e f s , n o t o n l y i n r e g a r d s t o j u d i c i a l r e v i ew but i n t h e o t h e r a s p e c t s o f government d i s -c u s s e d above. A c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s p r e m i s e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . - 100 -3.2.2 P a r l i a m e n t a r y Government - Canada The C a n a d i a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l model r e f l e c t s much o f t h e B r i t i s h s y s t e m . T h i s , o f c o u r s e , comes as no s u r p r i s e as t h e Canadian system i s t h e r e s u l t o f an attempt t o adopt t h e B r i t i s h model t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a f e d e r a l s t a t e . N a t u r a l l y , t h e r e has been s e v e r a l changes, so an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e same f o u r p o i n t s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e B r i t i s h c o n t e x t i s u s e f u l i n h i g h - l i g h t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . F i r s t l y , i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a f e d e r a l c h a r a c t e r i n t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n has had t h e e f f e c t o f l i m i t i n g t h e l e g a l supremacy o f t h e f e d e r a l C a n a d i a n P a r l i a m e n t . T h i s l i m i t a t i o n o c c u r s as c e r t a i n j u r i s -d i c t i o n s have become t h e e x c l u s i v e p r e s e r v e o f t h e p r o v i n c e s , a c c o r d e d them by t h e BNA A c t d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I . However, t h e supremacy o f each l e g i s l a t u r e i s a s s u r r e d when each d e a l s w i t h i n i t s r e s p e c t i v e s p h e r e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , and s u b j e c t t o m i n o r i t y r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e s i n e d u c a t i o n and l a n g u a g e , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s may do a n y t h i n g by m a j o r i t y v o t e . The C a n a d i a n model a l s o f o l l o w s t h e E n g l i s h c o n v e n t i o n o f f o r e g o i n g t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f power d o c t r i n e i n f a v o u r o f c r e a t i n g a c a b i n e t s t y l e government which combines both l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e powers. There has, however, been some improvement i n t h e Canadian s y s t e m , as t h e i n a b i l i t y o f t h e C a n a d i a n l e g i s l a t u r e t o a l t e r t h e t e n u r e o f t h e j u d g e s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t i n some way removes p a r t o f t h e j u d i c i a r y ' s v u l n e r -a b i l i t y t o t h e whims o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e which have a dampening e f f e c t on t h e B r i t i s h j u d i c i a r y . A n o t h e r t e n e n t o f t h e B r i t i s h model which has undergone m o d i f i c a t i o n i n i t s a d o p t i o n t o t h e Canadian s e t t i n g i s t h e r u l e o f law, which has r e c o g n i t i o n i n t h e Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n . I t has been n o t e d : " t h i s - 101 -p r i n c i p l e has a w i d e r r e c o g n i t i o n i n Canada because a s u b s t a n t i a l , though 19 l i m i t e d , j u d i c i a l r e v i ew o f l e g i s l a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e . " Indeed, t h e Canadian r e v i e w f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y would seem t o f a l l between t h e B r i t i s h s i t u a t i o n o f v e r y l i m i t e d r e v i ew s t r i c t l y c o n d u c t e d , and t h e American j u d i c i a r y ' s r e v i e w which i s e x t e n s i v e i n scope and u n r e s e r v e d i n i t s c o n d u c t . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e may be b r o u g h t upon by t h e l i m i t e d number o f r i g h t s c u r r e n t l y g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C a n a d i a n c o n s t i t u t i o n and because o f t h e few l i m i t a t i o n s p l a c e d on l e g i s l a t i v e powers i n Canada. As a r e s u l t , t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n t h e c o u r t s can ask o f l e g i s l a t i o n i s whether o r not i t i s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e BNA A c t which i s b i n d i n g on both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t u r e s . As has o c c u r r e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e power o f j u d i c i a l r e v i ew has not been e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n - ( i . e . , BNA A c t o r U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n ) but i s something t h a t t h e c o u r t s have assumed t o be w i t h i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n and i n d e e d p a r t o f t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 3.2.3 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Government - U n i t e d S t a t e s The same f o u r p r i n c i p l e s o f government can a l s o be seen i n e x a m i n i n g t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e form o f government d e v e l o p e d i n t h a t c o u n t r y . Many o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t a r i s e a p p e a r d i r e c t l y from t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s o f E n g l a n d and America i n t h e 18th c e n t u r y and r e s u l t e d i n t h e American r e v o l u t i o n . In America no l e g i s l a t u r e e x i s t s w i t h o u t l i m i t s p l a c e d upon i t s powers. Indeed, u n l i k e t h e B r i t i s h and Canadian models where government may r e g u l a t e a l m o s t e v e r y a s p e c t o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e , t h e American C o n s t i t u t i o n p l a c e s c e r t a i n human " r i g h t s " beyond t h e r e a c h o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ( i . e . , C o n g r e s s ) . W h i l e not w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , t h e s e - 102 -r e s t r i c t i v e p r o v i s i o n s g e n e r a l l y a p p l y t o b o t h s t a t e and f e d e r a l g o v e r n -ments. The most famous o f t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e p r o b a b l y t h e F i f t h Amendment r e s t r i c t i n g t h e f e d e r a l government, and t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amend-ment r e s t r i c t i n g t h e s t a t e government from d e p r i v i n g any p e r s o n o f l i f e , l i b e r t y , o r p r o p e r t y , w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f law. The e l e v a t i o n o f t h e s e r i g h t s beyond t h e r e a c h o f any l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e i s s a i d t o have r e s u l t e d i n America becoming "a p e o p l e o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s t s who s u b s t i -t u t e l i t i g a t i o n f o r l e g i s l a t i o n and see c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s l u r k i n g 20 i n e v e r y c a s e " . T h i s a t t i t u d e i s encouraged because o f t h e American j u d i c i a r y ' s v i g o r o u s r o l e i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d i n C h a p t e r I I , t h e American system c r e a t e s a f e d e r a l c h a r a c t e r as does t h e Canadian system. However, t h e s i m i l a r i t y i s p erhaps b e s t ended t h e r e as not o n l y a r e t h e powers o f government d i v i d e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h e two c o u n t r i e s but a l s o t h e American f e d e r a l s ystem makes f o r a deep and r i g i d d i v i s i o n o f a u t h o r i t y between t h e n a t i o n a l and s t a t e governments. The i n t e n t o f t h i s d i v i s i o n i s t o p r o t e c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e ' s i n t e g r i t y and independence v i s - a - v i s t h e f e d e r a l e l e m e n t . The t h i r d p r i n c i p l e o f government i s a l s o t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h e American s e t t i n g . A d o p t i o n o f M o n t e s q u i e u ' s n o t i o n o f an overwhelming danger i n c o m b i n i n g t y p e s o f power i n any one b r a n c h o f government has r e s u l t e d i n t h e Americans d e v e l o p i n g a system o f government t h a t s t r i c t l y s e p a r a t e s a l l l e g i s l a t i v e power t o C o n g r e s s , a l l e x e c u t i v e power t o an i n d e p e n d e n t l y e l e c t e d p r e s i d e n t , and a l l j u d i c i a l power t o a supreme c o u r t . T h i s s e p a r a t i o n o f power i s m a i n t a i n e d by t h e system o f c h e c k s and b a l a n c e s f o r which t h e American model o f government i s so famous. - 103 -The r e s u l t i s e x e c u t i v e power i s not e x e r c i s e d by a committee of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h a t l e g i s l a t u r e as i n t h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y system, but r a t h e r by t h e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e o r P r e s i d e n t , a i d e d by such 21 a d v i s o r s s e l e c t e d o u t s i d e of C o n g r e s s as he sees f i t . The r o l e of t h e American j u d i c i a r y i n t h e a f f a i r s o f government i s a n o t h e r a r e a v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y s y s t e m . While t h e w i d e r scope of t h e American c o u r t ' s r e v i e w has a l r e a d y been n o t e d , i t s h o u l d be s t a t e d t h a t u n l i k e t h e i r B r i t i s h and, t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , C a n a d i a n c o u s i n s , t h e American c o u r t s show no r e l u c t a n c e a t a l l i n o v e r -r u l i n g t h e a c t s o f t h e i r government. Indeed, i t has been s a i d t h e American j u d g e i s l e s s s o l i c i t o u s of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between law and p o l i c y t h a n t h e j u d g e who i s s u b j e c t t o t h e d o c t r i n e of p a r l i a m e n t a r y 22 s o v e r e i g n i t y . The a b i l i t y of t h e j u d i c i a r y t o c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of any l e g i s l a t i o n coming b e f o r e i t has meant t h a t t h e r u l e of law must a l s o r e f l e c t t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e " h i g h e r law" o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a g a i n s t b o t h t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h e s of 23 government. The i n d e p e n d e n c e of t h e American j u d i c i a r y , and t h e s u c c e s s of t h e c h e c k s and b a l a n c e system of government makes c o n t r o v e r s i a l l e g i s l a -t i o n d i f f i c u l t t o e n a c t and g i v e s g r e a t powers of o b s t r u c t i o n t o m i n o r -i t i e s and v e s t e d i n t e r e s t g r o u p s . These f a c t o r s , combined w i t h t h e r i s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s p l a c e d on government t o c r e a t e l e g i s l a t i o n t o d e a l w i t h an i n c r e a s i n g v a r i e t y o f s o c i a l and economic s i t u a t i o n s , f o r c e s t h e A merican j u d i c i a r y t o t a k e on a l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e d e s p i t e t h e r a t h e r d e v i o u s c o n f l i c t t h i s c a u s e s w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f power. Under such c o n d i t i o n s , t h e U.S. c o u r t s have o f t e n been t h e 25 " s p e a r h e a d of s o c i a l change" , a r o l e which t h e c o u r t s o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y governments have been r e l u c t a n t t o t a k e up. - 104 -A f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between t h e A n g l o - C a n a d i a n and American models o f government n e c e s s a r y t o u n d e r s t a n d d i f f e r i n g a t t i t u d e s towards l a n d use c o n t r o l and government a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s t h e method by which p o l i c y i s f o r m u l a t e d . The fundamental d i f f e r e n c e here i s t h a t under t h e B r i t i s h system a p r o f e s s i o n a l permanent c i v i l s e r v i c e r e a c h e s up t h r o u g h t h e b u r e a u c r a c y t o c o v e r even t h e h i g h e s t d e p a r t m e n t a l p o s t s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o n l y o f t h e m i n i s t e r s t h e m s e l v e s , w h i l e under t h e American system much o f t h e c i v i l s e r v i c e i s r e p l a c e d o r s u p e r s e d e d by p o l i t i c a l a p p o i n t e e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n p o l i c y making p o s i t i o n s . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n two ways. F i r s t l y , i t means t h a t a t e v e r y e l e c t i o n many o f t h o s e f o r m u l a t i n g p o l i c y may l o s e p u b l i c o f f i c e and s e c o n d l y , t h i s l o s s means an i n t e r r u p t i o n i n c o n t i n u i t y and a .loss o f e x p e r t i s e not e x p e r i e n c e d under t h e B r i t i s h s y s t e m . In t h e U.S., p o l i c y i s g e n e r a l l y d e v e l o p e d by p u b l i c o f f i c e r s who a r e e i t h e r a p p o i n t e d o r e l e c t e d t o o f f i c e and t h e p o l i c y t h e y c r e a t e i s a d m i n i s t e r e d by a permanent c i v i l s e r v i c e . In B r i t a i n and Canada on t h e o t h e r hand, p o l i c y i s d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h a p o l i t i c a l system t h a t makes use o f t h e e x p e r t i s e o f a permanent, p r o f e s -s i o n a l c i v i l s e r v i c e and e x p e c t s t h e p e r s o n a l p o l i t i c a l b i a s e s o f i n d i -v i d u a l employees t o be s u b s e r v i e n t t o t h e w i l l o f t h e m i n i s t e r o f t h e d a y . 2 6 3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW At t h i s t i m e i t i s u s e f u l t o d e f i n e a few more terms such as a d m i n i -s t r a t i v e law, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s , n a t u r a l j u s t i c e and due p r o c e s s so t h a t we might b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n t r o l o f l a n d use. These d e f i n i t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d below. - 105 -F i r s t l y , a p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law i s d i f f i c u l t . However, t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n seems a p p r o p r i a t e : " t h a t p a r t o f our whole body o f law which c o n c e r n s t h e t r a n s f e r o f power from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s t o s u b o r d i n a t e a g e n c i e s , e x e r c i s e o f t h a t power by t h e a g e n c i e s and t h e r e v i e w o f t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t power by t h e c o u r t s . " 27 Of c o u r s e , by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency a government a u t h o r i t y o t h e r t h a n a l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l body i s i n f e r r e d , one which makes r u l e s and d e c i s i o n s which a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s o f p r i v a t e p a r t i e s e i t h e r as i n d i v i d -* u a l s o r as g r o u p s . The methods by which t h e s e a g e n c i e s c o n d u c t t h e i r r u l e making, a d j u d i c a t i o n and o t h e r f u n c t i o n s i s r e c o g n i z e d as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s . A g e n c i e s which combine such powers o f government t o g e t h e r a r e sometimes r e c o g n i z e d as d i s t i n c t organs o f government unique 28 from t h e o t h e r t h r e e b r a n c h e s . •• The c o m b i n a t i o n o f powers r a i s e s c e r t a i n p r o b l e m s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e a g e n c i e s which p o s s e s s them. As t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n o u t l i n e d , t h e i m p r a c t i c a l i t y o f e x p e c t i n g a m i n i s t e r t o be a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e day t o day o p e r a t i o n s o f h i s department has l e a d t o t h e p l a c i n g o f t h e agency i t s e l f under t h e i n d i r e c t s c r u t i n y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . In t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , however, t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has f a l l e n t o t h e j u d i c i a r y . Under such c o n d i t i o n s , where d e c i s i o n s t a k e n by p e r s o n s o r groups a c t i n g o u t s i d e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c u r t a i l o r change r i g h t s o r freedoms o f an i n d i v i d u a l , t h e r e i s an i m p o r t a n t need t o p r o t e c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l from a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n s o f t h e agency. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e i s a need f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a system whereby t h e r e s t r a i n t s , p e n a l t i e s and p o l i c i e s p l a c e d on t h e i n d i v i d u a l a r e sound, u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , f a i r and as a r e s u l t , s u p p o r t e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l . Any r e g u l a t i o n t h a t has p o t e n t i a l t o r e d u c e o r r e s t r i c t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t s must e x i s t because o f t h e mutual t r u s t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency - 106 -and t h e p u b l i c . W hile i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i n many i n s t a n c e s an i n d i v i d u a l can t a k e t h e c a s e t o c o u r t , t h e r e s h o u l d a l s o be some t y p e o f system t h a t b r i d g e s t h e gap between t h o s e c o m p l a i n t s r o u t i n e l y h a n d l e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r , and c o m p l a i n t s w h i c h , because o f t h e i r magnitude o r p a r t i c u l a r n a t u r e , n e c e s s i t a t e c o u r t a c t i o n . F or t h e purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s such i n t e r m e d i a r y mechanisms a r e t h e board o f v a r i a n c e and t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r . The a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t h o s e b o d i e s d e c i s i o n s i s based on t h e f a i r n e s s w i t h which t h e y a r e r e a c h e d . T h i s f a i r n e s s i s e n s u r e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n o f adequate s a f e g u a r d s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t s t h r o u g h t h e d o c t r i n e o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e and due p r o c e s s . W hile t h e i n s i s t e n c e o f t h e s e d o c t r i n e s i n no way i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e s u b s t a n c e o f e x e c u t i v e d e c i s i o n s , i t i s e x a c t l y t h i s p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s which makes i n t e n s i v e government t o l e r a b l e and i n t h e j u d i c i a l r e a l m , p e r m i t s t h e j u d g e t o 29 a s s e r t h i s / h e r a u t h o r i t y w i t h c o n f i d e n c e . These d o c t r i n e s a r e more c l o s e l y examined i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 3.3.1 N a t u r a l J u s t i c e W h ile s e v e r a l e l e m e n t s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e were p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I , o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s u s e f u l i n g a i n i n g a f u l l u n d e r s t a n d -i n g o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s d o c t r i n e t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s . The entrenchment o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s has not been a c h i e v e d w i t h o u t numerous changes t o t h e d o c t r i n e i t s e l f . The development o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s r e c o g n i z e d t o d a y as t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e 19th c e n t u r y i n E n g l a n d , where an i n c r e a s i n g number o f n o n - j u d i c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s were b e i n g i n v e s t e d w i t h powers by s t a t u t e t o make d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h e i n d i v i d -u a l . The c o u r t s r e s p o n s e t o t h i s phenomenon was t o i n v o k e t h e i r common - 107 -law power t o d e t e r m i n e a l l q u e s t i o n s a f f e c t i n g l e g a l r i g h t s and t o en s u r e t h a t i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f such powers t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s conformed t o a minimum s t a n d a r d f o r j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s a t common law. T h i s was a c h i e v e d "by i n v o k i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e which can be t r a c e d t o t h e c o n c e p t of ' j u s n a t u r a l e ' and t h u s t o t h e p e r i o d o f 30 supremacy of t h e common law". L a t e r i n t h e 19th c e n t u r y , a f t e r t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s a c c e p t e d t h e s o v e r e i g n t y of p a r l i a m e n t , n a t u r a l j u s t i c e emerges as t h e t w i n r u l e s o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e , "nemo j u d e x i n sua c a u s a " and "audi a l t e r a m partem". T h i s a c t i o n s a t w e l l w i t h t h e l a i s s e z -f a i r e a t t i t u d e o f t h e day, t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e c o u r t b e i n g t h a t t h e 31 j u s t i c e o f t h e common law s h a l l s u p p l y t h e o m i s s i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o no t e t h a t even a t t h i s e a r l y s t a g e of a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n t h e c o u r t s were busy " a d j u s t i n g " t h e d o c t r i n e o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e and t h i s c o n c e p t of change i s i m p o r t a n t because by t h e t u r n of t h e c e n t u r y t h e n a t u r e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i t s e l f had changed so t h a t " i t c o u l d no l o n g e r be r e g a r d e d as o c c u p y i n g a p u r e l y i n s t r u m e n t a l p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e c l a s s i c a l t r i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n of power as r e q u i r e d under t h e t r a d -32 i t i o n a l model." The r e s u l t o f t h e c o u r t s i n a b i l i t y t o c l a s s i f y d e c i s i o n t y p e s s u c c i n c t l y was a g e n e r a l w i t h d r a w a l from t h e i n s i s t e n c e of p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Two t h i n g s were i n h e r e n t l y a d m i t t e d by t h e c o u r t s i n t h i s a c t i o n : 1) t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e a d j u d i c a t i v e model s h o u l d not a u t o m a t i c a l l y a p p l y t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s as i t may produce d e l a y s , expense and p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e i n j u r y , and 2) t h e c o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n under t h e t r a d i t i o n a l model was t o not become e n t a n g l e d i n i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g p o l i c y c h o i c e . - 108 -T h i s j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e p e r s e v e r e d u n t i l t h e c o n t i n u e d growth o f s o c i a l w e l f a r e l e g i s l a t i o n a g a i n c a u s e d t h e c o u r t s overwhelming d i f f i -c u l t y i n a s s i g n i n g d e c i s i o n s made by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o a p p r o p r i a t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The c o u r t s s o l v e d t h i s problem by r e q u i r i n g a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e p r o c e d u r e s t o conform t o minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e o n l y f o r t h o s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s p e c t s which most c l o s e l y resembled a d j u d i c a t i o n . Some f l e x i b i l i t y was a f f o r d e d t h e c o u r t s i n a d o p t i n g t h i s a p p r oach l a t e r as t h e c o n c e p t o f a " q u a s i - j u d i c i a l " f u n c t i o n was d e v e l -3 3 oped i n t h e 20th c e n t u r y . More r e c e n t l y t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h e c o u r t s now f e e l t h a t t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e s h o u l d a p p l y not o n l y t o j u d i c i a l and q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s , but a l s o t o some f u n c t i o n s 34 p r e v i o u s l y t h o u g h t o f as a d m i n i s t r a t i v e . T h i s b r i e f h i s t o r y o f t h e development and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s i t t o be m e r e l y a d o c t r i n e 3b o f t h e common law used f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u t e s . The d o c t r i n e i s a l s o r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e common 3fi law and t h e moral p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e s o c i e t y . The a d o p t i o n by t h e c o u r t s o f t h e two r u l e s has been c r i t i c a l t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an e n t i r e code o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s t o p r o t e c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l from abuse by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s . The p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d by t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i s , however, not u n l i m i t e d . D e c i s i o n s can s t i l l l e g a l l y be made by b i a s e d j u d g e s i n c a s e s where no one e l s e but t h a t j u d g e can a c t . In c e r t a i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s , h e a r i n g s do not have t o be c o n d u c t e d i n p u b l i c , s t a f f r e p o r t s do not have t o be d i s c l o s e d , s t r i c t r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e do not have t o be o b s e r v e d and w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e h e a r i n g need not be made a v a i l -a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . These d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, p a l e b e s i d e t h e l a s t l i m i t a t i o n , which i s t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e j u d i c i a r y t o r e q u i r e t h a t w r i t t e n - 109 -r e a s o n s f o r a d e c i s i o n be g i v e n by a t r i b u n a l . T h i s o c c u r r e n c e has been r e f e r r e d t o as " r e g r e t t a b l e s i n c e g i v i n g r e a s o n s i s now r e g a r d e d as one 37 o f t h e e s s e n t i a l s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e j u s t i c e . " 3.3.2 Due P r o c e s s Due p r o c e s s i s t h e American c o u n t e r p a r t o f B r i t a i n ' s r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e - w i t h some major d i f f e r e n c e s . Each, however, has been d e v e l o p e d p r i m a r i l y f o r t h e same r e a s o n , which i s t o p r o v i d e p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e abuse. One o f t h e f i r s t d i f f e r e n c e s between due p r o c e s s and n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i s t h a t b e c a u s e due p r o c e s s i s a f f o r d e d p r o t e c t i o n by t h e American C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e power o f t h e American j u d i c i a r y t o i n t e r v e n e i s not dependent on t h e wording o f t h e s t a t u t e . F u r t h e r m o r e , due p r o c e s s more or l e s s a u t o m a t i c a l l y imposes c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l demands on t h e American a d m i n i s t r a t o r whether o r not t h e y a r e made mandatory by s t a t u t e . A n o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e has been used by t h e U.S. c o u r t s t o e s t a b l i s h a v i r t u a l judge-made code o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e . T h i s i n c l u d e s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f a l l t h e l i m i t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e n o t e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n and i n f a c t i n c l u d e s t h e o n l y two p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e r e c o g n i z e d by t h e A n g l o -C a n a d i a n c o u r t s . The American c i t i z e n has t h e r i g h t t o an o r a l h e a r i n g which t e n d s t o f o l l o w c o u r t r o o m p r o c e d u r e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o be a p p r a i s e d o f t h e c a s e on t h e o t h e r s i d e ; t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e and argument; t o r e b u t by c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ; t o have r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n s as w e l l as a 38 t r a n s c r i b e d r e c o r d o f t h e h e a r i n g ; and t o a ppear w i t h c o u n s e l . The major s h o r t c o m i n g o f t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e has been, a t l e a s t u n t i l r e c e n t l y , i n i t s l i m i t e d a p p l i c a b i l i t y . In t h e p a s t i t has been - 110 -usual f o r t h e American j u d i c i a r y t o r e s t r i c t use o f t h e due p r o c e s s s a f e g u a r d s t o t h o s e d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g o n l y t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t s t h a t were p r o t e c t e d by C o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s . T h i s l i m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h o s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o a p e r s o n ' s l i f e , l i b e r t y o r p r o p e r t y . P r e s e n t l y t h i s s i t u a t i o n has changed and t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between " r i g h t " and " p r i v i l e d g e " i s no l o n g e r r e l e v a n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n 39 o f whether o r not f a i r p r o c e d u r e s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d . I t i s q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t t h i s change i n j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e , which r e q u i r e d t h e a p p l i -c a t i o n o f due p r o c e s s p r o c e d u r e s t o a l l s o r t s o f s o c i o - e c o n o m i c h e a r i n g s , has r e s u l t e d i n t h e major c r i t i c i s m o f due p r o c e s s b e i n g i t s untoward s l o w n e s s . Indeed, i t has been no t e d t h a t " t h e m i l l s o f American a d m i n i -40 s t r a t i v e j u s t i c e g r i n d e x t r e m e l y s l o w l y " , and even a t t h a t , t h e f u l l a d v e r s a r i a l h e a r i n g p r o v e s w o r k a b l e o n l y because i t i s not i n s i s t e d upon i n t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s . DELEGATION AND DISCRETION IN ADMINISTRATION In s o c i e t i e s d e t e r m i n e d t o r e t a i n i n d i v i d u a l v a l u e s and r i g h t s w h i l e p u r s u i n g common s o c i a l g o a l s o r o b j e c t i v e s , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t o adopt t h e m a c h i n e r y o f government t o new t a s k s which may a r i s e . As a r e s u l t , i t i s now commonplace w i t h i n t h e p a r l i a m e n t a r y model o f government f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o be d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i v e powers t o e n a c t g e n e r a l r u l e s o f c o n d u c t w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o o b s e r v e t h e p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i f i t were a c t i n g i t s e l f , would have t o f o l l o w . T h i s i s not t o s a y , however, d e l e g a t e d power i s u n c o n t r o l l e d . The e x e r c i s e o f d e l e g a t e d power must be d e r i v e d from t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a s t a t u t e o r by t h e r e l e v a n t R e g u l a t i o n s A c t , and must not exceed t h e l i m i t s o f t h e power g r a n t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . F u r t h e r , w h i l e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d e l e g a t e l e g i s l a t i v e power i s w i d e s p r e a d , - I l l -i t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o p a r t i c u l a r organs o f government and may not amount t o an a b d i c a t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The t y p e s o f powers d e l e g a t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t s o f some o r a l l o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : a) t o g r a n t l i c e n c e s t o c a r r y on a d e s i g n a t e d a c t i v i t y ; b) t o e x p r o p r i a t e and v e s t i n a l i c e n c e p r o p e r t y o r r i g h t s o f a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l ; c) t o r e g u l a t e t h e manner i n which a c t i v i t i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s a r e c a r r i e d on, and t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e y may be p u r s u e d ; d) t o c o n t r o l and r e g u l a t e a v a r i e t y o f f i n a n c i a l and economic r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; e) t o a d j u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l s , and between an i n d i v i d u a l and t h e Government; f ) t o d e c i d e d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g out o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l e g i s -l a t i o n o r t h e e x e r c i s e by t h e t r i b u n a l o f i t s powers; g) t o e s t a b l i s h i t s own p r o c e d u r e and t o a c c e p t and a c t on such e v i d e n c e as i t s e e s f i t ; h) t o e n a c t r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s powers; and i ) t o a d v i s e o r make recommendations t o a m i n i s t e r o r o t h e r l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . 41 Any o f t h e s e powers may be d e l e g a t e d t o t h e e x e c u t i v e , t h e j u d i c i a r y , l o c a l governments, o r numerous b o a r d s , p u b l i c o f f i c e h o l d e r s o r p r i v a t e g r o u p s . What i s o f p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e r n t o t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s , o f c o u r s e , t h e powers d e l e g a t e d t o t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e , H e a r i n g Examiner and, t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , t o t h e l o c a l p l a n n i n g department. These powers were d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n C h a p t e r I I . What i s a l s o o f i m p o r t a n c e i s t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t w h i l e r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c i e s d e v e l o p e d under t h e p a r l i a m e n t a r y model a r e e i t h e r government depa r t m e n t s s u b j e c t t o m i n i s t e r i a l c o n t r o l and p a r l i a m e n t a r y r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y , o r a r e i n d e p e n d e n t t r i b u n a l s which have no e x e c u t i v e f u n c t i o n . Such d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e not so s h a r p l y drawn i n t h e American model. T h e r e , e x e c u t i v e power i s found i n b o d i e s h a v i n g j u d i c i a l and l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n s a l s o . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e e x p l a i n s why C o n g r e s s i s not t h o u g h t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s c r u t i n y o v e r d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n i n A m e r i c a , as - 112 -P a r l i a m e n t i s i n B r i t a i n and Canada. T h i s a l s o e x p l a i n s why t h e r o l e o f t h e j u d i c i a r y i n t h e U.S. i s o f c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r scope and j u r i s -d i c t i o n i n m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o d e l e g a t e d a u t h o r i t y t h a n i n B r i t a i n and Canada. I t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t i n b o t h models r u l e making i s seen as a " p r o c e s s by which t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r l a y s down new p r e s c r i p t i o n s t o govern t h e f u t u r e c o n d u c t o f t h o s e s u b j e c t t o h i s a u t h o r i t y " and a d j u d i -c a t i o n i s seen as a " p r o c e s s by which t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r a p p l i e s e i t h e r 42 law o r p o l i c y , o r b o t h , t o t h e f a c t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . " J u s t as r u l e making i s g e n e r a l i n n a t u r e and p e r t a i n s e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e f u t u r e , a d j u d i c a t i o n r e l a t e s t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r and p e r t a i n s t o t h e p a s t . Under-s t a n d i n g t h e r u l e m a k i n g and a d j u d i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n s o f t h e two admin-i s t r a t i v e systems d i s c u s s e d i s fundamental t o any s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement t o be made l a t e r i n t h i s t h e s i s . 3.4.1 D e l e g a t i o n D e l e g a t i o n can be j u s t i f i e d as b o t h a l e g i t i m a t e and d e s i r a b l e a c t i v i t y o f government b e c a u s e : a) t h e p r e s s u r e on t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s t i m e i s g r e a t , b) t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f l e g i s l a t i o n i s o f t e n o f a t e c h n i c a l n a t u r e , c) o f t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f f o r e s e e i n g a l l c o n t i n g e n c i e s and c o n d i t i o n s f o r which p r o v i s i o n s must e v e n t u a l l y be made, d) i t a v o i d s t h e n e c e s s i t y t o c o n t i n u a l l y amend l e g i s l a t i o n i n s i t u a t i o n s o f change, e) i t p e r m i t s t h e use o f e x p e r i e n c e , and f ) i t p e r m i t s a r a p i d r e s p o n s e t o a sudden need f o r l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . - 113 -While t h e r e a r e s t r o n g r e a s o n s t o p e r m i t t h e d e l e g a t i o n o f power, t h e r e i s a l s o danger t h a t t h i s power may be abused by t h e r e c i p i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency. To t h a t end, s e v e r a l s a f e g u a r d s l i m i t i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y have been d e v e l o p e d and s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e c o n t e x t t h a t t h e s i m p l e remedy f o r t h e abuse of d e l e g a t i o n i s t h e r e p e a l o f t h e d e l e g a t i n g s t a t u t e . One e x p e r t s u g g e s t s f i v e c o n d i t i o n s s h o u l d e x i s t b e f o r e a d e l e g a t i o n i s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e : a) d e l e g a t i o n s h o u l d be t o a t r u s t w o r t h y a u t h o r i t y commanding n a t i o n a l c o n f i d e n c e , b) t h e l i m i t s w i t h i n which t h e d e l e g a t e d power i s t o be e x e r c i s e d i s t o be d e f i n i t e l y l a i d down, c ) t h e r e s h o u l d be p r i o r c o n s u l t a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s s p e c i f i c a l l y a f f e c t e d , d) r u l e s and o r d e r s made s h o u l d become p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n , and e) t h e r e s h o u l d be machinery f o r amending o r r e v o k i n g d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n as r e q u i r e d . D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y of s u b o r d i n a t e o r d e l e g a t e d l e g i s -l a t i o n i s p r o p e r l y t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e j u d i c i a r y and i n v a l i d i t y i s g e n e r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d on t h e grounds o f e i t h e r p r o c e d u r a l o r s u b s t a n t i v e d e f e c t . P r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t i n v o l v e s c l a i m s t h e agency f a i l e d t o o b s e r v e some s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n p r e s c r i b e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and i s o f p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In b o t h c a s e s t h e term " u l t r a v i r e s " may a p p l y , a l t h o u g h a l l e g a t i o n s o f d e f e c t may be made i n terms of "beyond t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n " , " i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e " , " u n r e a s o n a b l e " o r made i n "bad f a i t h " . I t can be seen t h e n t h a t q u e s t i o n s o f " v i r e s " a r e r e a l l y o n l y m a t t e r s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n which t h e j u d i c i a r y d e t e r m i n e s t h e l e g a l e x t e n t of t h e d e l e g a t e d p o w e r . 4 4 The c o u r t s have t a k e n t h e p o s i t i o - 114 -that delegated power was permissible provided that i t was properly restricted and the agency's discretion was not so wide as to make it impossible to discern limits to the power conveyed. While both models of government reflect a general agreement about the necessity of delegating power, the real problem is how this legisla-tion can be reconciled with the process of democratic consultation, 45 scrutiny and control of the resultant administrative actions. This problem is further complicated by the introduction of discretion into the sphere of the administrators jurisdiction. This is the next subject for discussion. 3.4.2 Discretion While the importance of limiting the abuse of power delegated to the administrative branch is not to be denied, i t is also not to be dealt with in detail in this thesis. What is thought to be of more importance to the case at hand is the treatment of the discretionary powers which are also evident in the abuses alleged to originate with the administra- > tors. It was recognized early, even in America, that "large powers and 46 unhampered discretion" were the essence of adminstration, but that every discretion was capable of unlawful abuse. As is the case with delegation, prevention of abuse of discretionary power is considered a fundamental 47 function of the courts. Discretion in the context of this research is taken to mean some-thing that is to be done according to rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion. It is considered to be an authorization to act in a manner which is not arbitrary, vague, or fanciful, but is legal and regular. 4 8 It may be seen as having the characteristic of a double-edged sword, in that "the exercise of discretion may mean either - 115 -beneficence or tyranny, either justice or injustice, either reasonable-49 ness or arbitrariness." It occurs whenever the effective limits of the power permit an official to make a choice among possible courses of . 50 action or inaction. The concept of discretion i s , however, varied in its treatment under Parliamentary and constitutional models of government. This has been described in the following manner: "...the British conception is that within its legal limits administrative discretion must be free and that the object of policy should be to produce the best solution as i t may appear at any particular time...the American conception is that discretion, whether judicial or administrative, should in all possible cases be exercised in accordance with rules and ascertainable in advance, and that the policy to be applied should somehow be fixed or standard-51 ized." The stricter American approach, in theory at least, can be traced to fears of abuse of power in a system where the executive is not directly accountable to the elected legislature, and where so much power is given to "independent" agencies responsible to themselves only. It is perhaps fortunate, then, that in practice each of these attitudes has been heavily qualified with the result that the courts in each country deal with discretionary power in much the same manner. The key to this treatment is the requirement that discretion be exercised reasonably. In America, reasonableness is reflected in the "arbitrary and capricious" clause of the Administrative Procedure Act, while in Britain the courts depend on the common law to determine i f the exercise was "unreasonable" or not. 5 2 The similar review of discretion undertaken by each judiciary is to some part enabled because the abuses of power are of a similar nature - 116 -r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c o u n t r y o f o r i g i n . An abuse i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o have o c c u r r e d when d i s c r e t i o n i s u s e d : 1) f o r an i mproper u s e , 2) i n a manner d i f f e r e n t from t h a t p r e v i o u s l y e x e r c i s e d , 3) i n an e x e r c i s e based on e r r o n e o u s and e x t r a n e o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , 4) i n an e x e r c i s e which r e s t s on e r r o n e o u s l e g a l f o u n d a t i o n s , o r 53 5) f a i l s t o c o n s i d e r r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The above d i s c u s s i o n c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s why v a r i o u s w r i t e r s have r e f e r r e d t o d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y as "more d e s t r u c t i v e o f freedom t h a n 54 55 any o f man's o t h e r i n v e n t i o n s " and "a weapon f o r mayhem o r murder". I t does n o t , however, e x p l a i n why t h e use o f d i s c r e t i o n , i f i t i s so -dangerous, c o n t i n u e s . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t c o u n t e r - b a l a n c i n g t h e d angers a r e some s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s . These b e n e f i t s a r e t i e d t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t j u s t as u n f e t t e r e d d i s c r e t i o n i s u n d e s i r a b l e , s-o t o o i s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system t h a t i s r i g i d l y f o r m a l i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i t s r u l e s , f i n d i n g s and d e c i s i o n s . The d e s i r a b i l i t y o f c r e a t i n g f l e x i b i l i t y i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s i s born from t h e b e l i e f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n a r y power i s t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e o f c r e a t i v i t y i n government, 56 as w e l l as s e r v i n g as a t o o l f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . The j u d i c i a r y i s w i l l i n g t o p e r m i t s o c i e t y t h e s e b e n e f i t s but o n l y where i t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d s have been p r o v i d e d by t h e l e g i s l a -t u r e and t h e agency e x e r c i s e d i t s power i n a r e a s o n a b l e manner. R e l a t i n g t h e above p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems t h a t a r e t h e main s u b j e c t s o f t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n i t can be seen t h a t a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y power i s n e c e s s a r y i f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r , whether t h a t i s a b o a r d member o r h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r , i s t o be e f f e c t i v e i n a l l o w -i n g a p p e a l s i n t h e s p e c i a l c a s e s p r e s e n t e d . However, i t can a l s o be seen - 117 -t h a t t h e more d i s c r e t i o n a r y power g i v e n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r , t h e more a c t i o n s become not o n l y f l e x i b l e but j u d i c i a l i n t h e i r n a t u r e . In t h e f i e l d o f z o n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h i s has sometimes o c c u r r e d w i t h o u t t h e s a f e g u a r d s a f f o r d e d by t h e j u d i c i a l s ystem. There a r e th e n t h r e e i s s u e s o f c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n a p p e l l a t e l a n d use d e c i s i o n s : 1) t h e c r i t e r i a used f o r r e n d e r i n g d e c i s i o n s - o b s t e n s i b l y t h e s e a r e t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t down by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ; 2) t h e r o l e o f p r e c e d e n c e - t h e d o c t r i n e r e q u i r i n g a j u d g e i n r e s o l v i n g an i s s u e t o f o l l o w a d e c i s i o n o f a p r e v i o u s c a s e ; and 3) t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r o r f a i l u r e t o r e q u i r e r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n t o be p r o v i d e d . W h ile each o f t h e s e i s s u e s i s examined i n C h a p t e r IV, a few comments o f a d e s c r i p t i v e n a t u r e w i l l p r e f a c e t h a t d i s c u s s i o n . R e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e o f s t a n d a r d s , t h e t r i b u n a l system can be seen as more r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e A n g l o - C a n a d i a n view o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n : t r u s t i n laymen and p u r s u i t o f i n d i v i d u a l s o l u t i o n s t o i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s . In t h e c a s e o f t h e Vancouver Board e s p e c i a l l y , t h e r e i s l i t t l e g u i d a n c e p r o v i d e d b7 by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o a s s i s t i n d e f i n i n g "undue h a r d s h i p " , which i s t h e p r e s c r i b e d s t a n d a r d t o be met b e f o r e a v a r i a n c e can be g r a n t e d . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e American view o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has been one o f c o n t i n u a l l y s h i f t i n g emphasis. T h i s s h i f t i n g has been t h e r e s u l t o f t h e A m e r i c a n s ' view t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s had become " h a r d l y more t h a n a c e r e m o n i a l 58 i n c a n t a t i o n handed down from an e a r l i e r C o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r a . " T h i s b e l i e f c a u s e d t h e emphasis t o s h i f t from t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f d e l e -g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n t o t h e p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e d t o make d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . T h i s s h i f t o c c u r r e d i n two s t a g e s , t h e f i r s t w i t h t h e - 118 -a d o p t i o n o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t o f 1946 and t h e s e c o n d , r e s u l t i n g from t h e more r e c e n t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s o f Fasano and F l e m i n g , w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g examiner system i n c e r t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s . These changes would seem t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s ' r e v u l s i o n o f a l l but v e r y l i m i t e d d i s c r e t i o n a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power and t h e i r embrace o f t h e b e l i e f t h a t a l l a d j u d i c a t i o n s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e e s s e n t i a l s 59 o f c o u r t r o o m p r o c e d u r e s . The second i s s u e o f c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y i s a l s o i l l u s t r a t i v e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e f u n c t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . In t h e U.S., c r i t i c s o f t h e t r i b u n a l model c l a i m t h a t w i t h o u t a t l e a s t some c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f p r e c e d e n t t h e p a t t e r n o f d e c i s i o n -making may become i n c o n s i s t e n t and r e s u l t i n a l o s s o f c o n f i d e n c e by t h e p u b l i c i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m . 6 0 T h i s argument runs a l m o s t e x a c t l y c o u n t e r t o t h e c u r r e n t E n g l i s h view which has t h e c o u r t s a d o p t i n g a v e r y s t r i c t a t t i t u d e i n f o r b i d d i n g " a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t r i b u n a l s from a t t e m p t -i n g t o p u r s u e c o n s i s t e n c y a t t h e expense o f t h e m e r i t s o f i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s " . 6 1 The r o l e o f p r e c e d e n c e a l s o r a i s e s t h e argument t h a t by r i g o r -o u s l y p u r s u i n g t h i s d o c t r i n e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e a p p e l l a t e body would s u f f e r . T h i s n o t i o n w i l l be f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r e d i n C h a p t e r V. The l a s t i s s u e , t h e need t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s i s a l s o i l l u s t r a t i v e o f d i f f e r i n g a t t i t u d e s between A n g l o - C a n a d i a n and American c o u n t e r p a r t s . The main o b j e c t i o n t o any r e q u i r e m e n t t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n s i n w r i t i n g has been because t o do so would r e q u i r e t h e t i m e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r and t h e r e f o r e hamper t h e e x p e d i e n c y f o r which t h e t r i b u n a l system has been so commended. I n c r e a s i n g l y t h i s argument has l o s t f a v o u r i n America and t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n d even i n Canada and E n g l a n d . 6 3 From t h e American v i e w p o i n t t h e a b s e n c e o f a r e q u i r e m e n t t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n s may l e a d t o ad-hoc d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and t h e r e f o r e r a i s e s - 119 -s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g equal p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d by t h e law t o an i n d i v i d u a l . In Canada, w h i l e r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n s a r e not mandatory i n most c a s e s , " t h e c o u r t s may be much more ready t o h o l d t h a t t h e r e has been an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n where t h e r e c o r d o f a h e a r i n g does not r e v e a l 64 any r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t has been r e a c h e d . " The t r a d e o f f between e x p e d i e n c y and w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n s i s a l s o d i s c u s s e d i n l a t e r c h a p t e r s . The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has a t t e m p t e d t o f a m i l i a r i z e t h e r e a d e r w i t h t h e t h e o r y and some o f t h e p r a c t i c a l i t i e s e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e use o f d e l e g a t i o n and d i s c r e t i o n i n v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m s . I t has , however, a v o i d e d d i s c u s s i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s t h a t modern a d m i n i -s t r a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e f i e l d of l a n d use, e n t a i l s . T h i s i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h e next s e c t i o n . POLITICS - THE FLY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OINTMENT D e l e g a t i o n and d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s have been p r e s e n t e d i n a s i m p l e manner much a k i n t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l models of 65 a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d e v e l o p e d by Freund and L a n d i s . Freund's model, r e f l e c t i v e of a l a i s s e z - f a i r e r o l e by government, encompassed t h e n o t i o n of t h e e x i s t e n c e of a r a t i o n a l b u r e a u c r a c y , i n s u l a t e d , n o n - p o l i t i c a l and h i e r a r c h i c a l i n n a t u r e , a c t i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a u t h o r i t a t i v e s t a t e -ments made by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . On t h e o t h e r hand, L a n d i s ' model d i s p l a y s a paradigm o f broad d e l e g a t i o n , a l l o w i n g a l l of government's d e c i s i o n -making powers t o be used i n a problem s o l v i n g e x e r c i s e . In some s e n s e s F reund's model r e f l e c t s much o f t h e American a t t i t u d e towards a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n , based as i t i s on t h e b e l i e f t h a t d e l e g a t e d a u t h o r i t y i s o n l y a p p r o p r i a t e where t h e r e a r e no c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s o f p o l i c y o r o p i n i o n -120 -t o be d e a l t w i t h and t h e r e d u c t i o n o f d i s c r e t i o n i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i n d e v e l o p i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law. C o n v e r s e l y , t h e L a n d i s model a p p e a r s more r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e B r i t i s h view whereby l e g i s l a t i v e o b j e c t i v e s a r e l o o s e l y d e f i n e d and s o l u t i o n s a r e e v o l v e d by presumed e x p e r t s . Both o f t h e s e models appear s i m p l i s t i c and f a i l t o a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y t h e a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g l a n d use c o n t r o l s . T h i s f a i l u r e r e l a t e s t o t h e models' e x c l u s i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n t b u r e a u c r a t i c i n p u t s such a t e x p e r t n e s s , t r a d i t i o n , s t a b i l i t y , and t h e r a t i o n a l e x e r c i s e o f power. I t a l s o r e l a t e s t o t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o a v o i d unduly c o n f i n i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s c o n d u c t by p r o v i d i n g adequate l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s t o be f o l l o w e d . In o m i t t i n g t h e s e f a c t o r s , t h e models f a i l t o r e c o g n i z e t h e v a l u e - r i d d e n and h i g h l y p o l i t i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t i n which t h e modern a d m i n i s t r a t o r must make many o f h i s d e c i s i o n s . 6 6 While t h e r e a r e e l e m e n t s o f a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n t h e d e s c r i p t i v e admin-i s t r a t i v e models d i s c u s s e d , g u i d a n c e o f human b e h a v i o u r i n t h e z o n i n g a c t i v i t y i s a c t u a l l y d e r i v e d from t h e same fundamental a s s u m p t i o n s which g u i d e us i n o t h e r a r e a s o f human a c t i v i t y . 6 7 These a s s u m p t i o n s r e c o g n i z e t h e p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s which p r o v i d e s t h e m i l i e u and d e f i n e s t h e o p e r a t i o n o f each agency. In o u r s o c i e t y t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s a r e found i n a l l our lawmaking a c t i v i t i e s , and i n d e e d , when t a k e n i n t o t a l , c o m p r i s e our d e m o c r a t i c p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . They a r e i n v o k e d by such p h r a s e s as " r i g h t s and freedoms", "equal p r o t e t i o n " , " r u l e o f law", " n a t u r a l j u s t i c e " and "due p r o c e s s " . The goal t h e n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n s i s not t o v a i n l y "attempt t o p r e d i c t change and e l i m i n a t e d i s c r e t i o n but [ t o j attempt t o a s s u r e t h a t , when t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r p r o p o s e s change, t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t o r deny i t w i l l be e x e r c i s e d o p e n l y , h o n e s t l y , and on - 121 -t h e b a s i s o f as t h o r o u g h an i n q u i r y and as f u l l a p a r t i c i p a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . " 6 8 I t i s w i t h t h i s t h o u g h t i n mind t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g norma-t i v e c r i t e r i a w i t h which t o measure t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems have been d e v e l o p e d . NORMATIVE CRITERIA Normative e v a l u a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e development o f a s e t o f c r i t e r i a upon which a c o m p a r i s o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems can be b a s e d . T h i s e x e r c i s e p r o v i d e s not o n l y a means f o r t h e o r d e r l y d i s c u s s i o n o f compar-a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems but a l s o p r o v i d e s a y a r d s t i c k f o r t h e measure-ment o f one system's a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h e o t h e r ' s e n v i r o n m e n t . I m p l i c i t i n t h e a s sessment i s t h e n o t i o n o f t h e o t h e r system's a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o t h e new e n v i r o n m e n t . P r o p e r a s sessment must t h e n become much b r o a d e r i n i t s scope and t h u s s h o u l d seek t o p l a c e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system w i t h i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t i n which i t i s e x p e c t e d t o f u n c t i o n . The most a p p r o p r i a t e method t o d e r i v e t h e s e measurement c r i t e r i a t h e n i s t h r o u g h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e b a s i c v a l u e s and p r i n c i p l e s o f Canada as a p l u r a l i s t democracy. Much has been w r i t t e n about b o t h t h e d e m o c r a t i c v a l u e s t h a t c o m p r i s e o u r p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s and t h e p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b e h a v i o r o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a g e n c i e s t h a t we have c r e a t e d t o c a r r y out our 69 c o l l e c t i v e w i l l . W h i l e t h e a p p r o a c h e s t a k e n and t h e s u b j e c t s d i s c u s s e d may v a r y , t h e r e e x i s t s s e v e r a l common p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d t o t h e i n d i v i d -ual 's e x p e c t a t i o n o f how an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system s h o u l d a c t . F o r exampl due t o t h e a d j u d i c i a r y n a t u r e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems used i n m a t t e r s o f l a n d u s e , i t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l s h o u l d be t r e a t e d i n a f a i r and j u s t manner i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s t h a t i s b o t h open, u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , and a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e - 122 -s o c i e t y . In a d d i t i o n , i t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h i s p r o c e s s s h o u l d be both e f f e c t i v e i n mee t i n g t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and e f f i c i e n t i n i t s use of t h e r e s o u r c e s a l l o c a t e d t o i t . C l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s ( o r v a l u e s ) s u g g e s t s t h e f o l l o w i n g as n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a w i t h which t o e v a l u a t e t h e s u i t a b i l i t y of comparable a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems t o t h e Vancouver e n v i r o n m e n t : 1. The c r i t e r i o n o f e q u i t a b l e t r e a t m e n t T h i s c o n c e p t has undergone a r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t e x p a n s i o n o f i t s d e f i n i t i o n . E q u i t y i n our s o c i e t y t o d a y i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o mean t h e f a i r and j u s t t r e a t m e n t of a l l i n t e r e s t s c o n c e r n e d i n a m a t t e r . P r e v i o u s l y t h i s c o n c e p t r e f e r r e d o n l y t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e g u l a t e d by t h e r e g u l a t o r / 0 The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r e n d of r e c e n t y e a r s a p p e a r s t o be one of e n c o u r a g i n g r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c i e s t o broaden t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and t o view t h e i r d e c i s i o n s l e s s i n terms of e f f i c i e n t r e g u l a t i o n . 2. The c r i t e r i o n of openness W i t h i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy t h e r e i s a pr e s u m p t i o n t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s which a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l o r p u b l i c r i g h t s must be made open t o a l l whose i n t e r e s t s may be a f f e c t e d . In t h i s c a s e openness can be d e f i n e d by t h e methods and p r o c e d u r e s of p r o v i d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a l l p a r t i e s of i n t e r e s t and of p e r m i t t i n g t h o s e p a r t i e s a c c e s s t o both s t a f f and i n f o r m a t i o n r e s o u r c e s i n advance o f a h e a r i n g t o d e c i d e a m a t t e r . The l e g i t i m a c y o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n i s g r e a t l y d e t e r m i n e d by t h e de g r e e t o which i t was made o p e n l y and w i t h t h e e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h o s e a f f e c t e d . - 123 -3. The c r i t e r i o n o f c l a r i t y What i s most r e l e v a n t i n d e f i n i n g t h i s c r i t e r i a i s t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e p r o c e s s d e t a i l s d i s c r e e t p r o c e d u r e s and a c t i o n s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t o r o t h e r p a r t i e s i n advance and w i t h c l a r i t y and p r e c i s i o n . Knowledge o f how t h e p r o c e s s works and why c e r t a i n a c t i o n s o r d e c i s i o n s f o l l o w (and a r e t h e m s e l v e s c l e a r l y s t a t e d and u n d e r s t a n d a b l e ) a l s o c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e a g ency's l e g i t i m a c y . 4. The c r i t e r i o n o f p r o p r i e t y P r o p r i e t y i n t h i s c o n t e x t i s t a k e n t o c o n n o t a t e a c c o u n t -a b i l i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , s t a b i l i t y and r e s p o n s i v e n e s s i n t h e u n d e r t a k i n g o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . A c c o u n t -a b i l i t y i m p l i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f some s o r t o f f o r m a l r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The b a s i s f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n -s h i p i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o be incumbent on t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . P r e d i c t a b i l i t y r e l a t e s t o t h e s e s t a n d a r d s and t o t h e c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o -c e d u r e s l a i d down i n f o l l o w i n g them. One o f t h e r e s u l t s o f f o l l o w i n g such a p a t t e r n s h o u l d be c o n s i s t e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and t h i s s h o u l d e n courage not o n l y a s t a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t but a l s o a s ense o f s e c u r i t y o r c o n f i d e n c e on t h e p a r t o f b o t h t h e r e g u l a t e d and t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . A f i n a l e lement t o c o n s i d e r under t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e p r o c e s s i s s e n s i t i v e t o a range o f i n t e r e s t s beyond t h e e x c l u s i v e needs and r e q u e s t s o f t h e r e g u l a t e d . I n c l u s i o n i n t o t h e p r o c e s s o f t h o s e a f f e c t e d both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y by t h e r e g u l a t i o n s has become a m a t t e r o f i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c c o n c e r n . - 124 -5. The c r i t e r i o n o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n t h i s c o n t e x t r e f e r s t o t h e degree o f s u c c e s s t h a t t h e p r o c e s s has i n a c h i e v i n g i t s r e g u l a t o r y o b j e c t i v e s . T h i s would seem t o e n t a i l an e v a l u a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e t r i b u n a l system. T h i s e v a l u a t i o n i s , however, c o n s t r a i n e d because o b j e c t i v e s a r e not always s t a t e d o v e r t l y and because t h e c r i t e r i o n i m p l i e s t h e p r o c e s s s h o u l d p roduce a m e a s u r a b l e r e s u l t . A s i d e from t h i s not always b e i n g t h e c a s e , t h i s s t u d y i s not a comprehensive one as i t does not seek t o a n a l y z e i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n outcomes. To t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e s t u d y i s dependent on t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f d e c i s i o n outcomes d a t a i s based on t h e s u b j e c t i v e views o f v a r i o u s a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s and t h e p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e a u t h o r . 6. The c r i t e r i o n o f f l e x i b i l i t y F l e x i b i l i t y i s t a k e n here t o mean t h e systems' a d a p t a -b i l i t y t o change, when change r e f e r s t o e i t h e r t h e f u n c t i o n , p r o c e d u r e o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a b i l i t y o f t h e r e l e v a n t p r o c e s s . 7. The c r i t e r i o n o f e f f i c i e n c y The e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system s h o u l d be a s s e s s a b l e from both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' and p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p e r s p e c t i v e . I t s h o u l d i n v o l v e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e use o f tim e and r e s o u r c e s i n a c h i e v i n g a f i n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n . - 125 -8. The c r i t e r i o n o f freedom from p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e I n c r e a s i n g l y t h e r e g u l a t o r y p r o c e s s i s p e r c e i v e d t o be a p o l i t i c a l one as i t c o n c e r n s t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n o f s o c i e t y ' s r e s o u r c e s . I t can be argued t h i s o c c u r r e n c e i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e , as i t i s commonly h e l d t h o s e making p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s must be a b l e t o be h e l d a c c o u n t -a b l e by v i r t u e o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n as e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s . T h i s b e l i e f i s t i e d t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t p o l i t i c a l c h o i c e s a r e more a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e f l e c t e d i n s t a t e m e n t s o f p o l i c y which a r e made by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . A l s o o f i n t e r e s t here i s t h e c l o s e l y h e l d n o t i o n t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r i n an a d j u d i c a t o r y p r o c e s s s h o u l d be f r e e from p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e by e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r any p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e p r o c e s s ( i . e . , t h e a p p e l l a n t , i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , o r c i v i c s t a f f ) . I t i s , o f c o u r s e , u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a d i s c u s s e d above must now be " t r a n s l a t e d " i n t o b o t h m e a s u r a b l e and comparable s t a t e m e n t s about t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s under s t u d y . T h i s o p e r a -t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s made p o s s i b l e by t h e development o f a number o f p r o c e s s i n d i c a t o r s t h r o u g h which t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems can be compar-a t i v e l y e v a l u a t e d . The development o f t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s i s t o a l a r g e d e g r e e based on t h e a u t h o r ' s judgement, and t h e r e f o r e may be o f l i m i t e d use i n p r e c i s e l y m easuring t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s . However, i t must be remembered t h a t o n l y by s u b j e c t i n g our d e c i s i o n -making b o d i e s t o such c o m p a r a t i v e q u e s t i o n i n g a r e t h e r e l a t i v e advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e p r o c e s s e s c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d . - 126 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER I I I 1. P. B l o o d o f f , "An Assessment of Lower M a i n l a n d Crown Land P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s " , ( V a n c o u v e r ; M a s t e r o f A r t s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1981). 2. F. Laux, The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s . T h i r d E d i t i o n ( U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a ; F a c u l t y of Law, 1975) p.2. 3. M. L a u g h l i n , " P r o c e d u r a l F a i r n e s s : A Study of t h e C r i s i s i n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law T h e o r y " , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o Law J o u r n a l , 28 v 1 9 7 8 ) . 4. F. Laux, 1975, p.3. 5. F. Laux, 1975. 6. M. L a u g h l i n , 1978, p.221. 7. R. T i t u s , "The H e a r i n g Examiner System o f Z o n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t e and Amendment - An E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e K i n g County E x p e r i e n c e " , ( S e a t t l e : M a s t e r of Urban P l a n n i n g t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1971). 8. W. Lane, e d i t o r , " S e l e c t e d Readings i n Law f o r L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s " , second e d i t i o n , ( V a n c o u v e r : SCARP, UBC, 1975) (mimeographed). 9. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, Le g a l C o n t r o l of Government: A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Law i n B r i t a i n and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1972). 10. W. Lane, 1975, C h a p t e r I I I , p.12. 11. W . L a n e , 1975, C h a p t e r I I I , p.13. 12. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. - 127 -13. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.16-17. 14. W. Lane, 1975. 15. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 16. W. Lane, 1975. 17. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 18. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p . x i i . 19. W. Lane, 1975, C h a p t e r I I I , p.18. 20. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.6. * 2 l . W. Lane, 1975. 22. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 23. W. Lane, 1975. 24. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 25. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.7. 26. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 27. F. Laux, 1975, p . l . 28. L a n d i s , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s (1938) 10-16 quoted i n F. Laux, 1975. 29. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 30. M. L a u g h l i n , 1978, p.217. - 128 -31. M. L a u g h l i n , 1978. 32. M. L a u g h l i n , 1978, p.218. 33. M. L a u g h l i n , 1978. 34. The l e a d i n g c a s e i s Ridge v . B a l d w i n , as c i t e d i n M. L a u g h l i n , 1978, p.222. 35. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 36. W. Lane, 1975. 37. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.244. .^8. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 39. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 40. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.112. 41. F. Laux, 1975. 42. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.93. 43. W. Lane, 1975. 44. W. Lane, 1975, C h a p t e r V I I I , p.22, f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on d e l e g a t i o n . 45. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 46. L. J a f f e , "The I l l u s i o n o f t h e I d e a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " from P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s , e d i t e d by R. Rabin ( B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1979). 47. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. - 129 -48. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 49. H. W i l s o n , " D i s c r e t i o n i n t h e A n a l y s i s o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s " , Osgood H a l l Law J o u r n a l , V o l . 10, (1) (1972) p.120. 50. H. W i l s o n , 1972. 51. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.106. 52. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 53. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 54. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.264. 55. H. W i l s o n , 1972, p.122. 56. H. W i l s o n , 1972. 57. Vancouver C h a r t e r , S e c t i o n 5 7 3 ( 1 ) b . The L e g i s l a t u r e was more h e l p f u l i n t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t , (R.S.B.C.), V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1961, See S e c t i o n 7 0 9 ( l ) c . 58. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.86. 59. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 60. M. Gram, "The Vancouver C i t y Board o f V a r i a n c e " , ( p a p e r s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f P l a n n i n g 525, UBC Sch o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g ) , ( V a n c o u v e r : March, 1981). 61. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.125. 62. W. Mur r a y , " Z o n i n g Boards o f A d j u s t m e n t s and V a r i a n c e s : C a l i f o r n i a Imposes a F i n d i n g s Requirement", Urban Law A n n u a l , V o l . 10: 349 (197 5 ) . - 130 -63. The I n q u i r i e s A c t (1938) p r o v i d e d t h a t r e a s o n s s h o u l d be g i v e n when r e q u e s t e d i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 64. M. Gram, 1981, p.19. 65. L. J a f f e , 1979. 66. H. W i l s o n , 1972. 67. L. J a f f e , 1979. 68. R. Babcock, The Z o n i n g Game, M u n i c i p a l P r a c t i c e s and P o l i c i e s , ( M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1966), p.133. 69. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, C i t y Z o n i n g : The Once and F u t u r e F r o n t i e r , ( C h i c a g o : American P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , P l a n n e r s P r e s s , 1979). 70. K. Kernaghan, " P o l i t i c a l C o n t r o l o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n : A c c o u n t a b i l i t y o r Window D r e s s i n g ? " , C a h i e r de D r o i t , v o l . 17 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . - 131 -CHAPTER IV SYSTEMS EVALUATION The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o draw some c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f t h e two t y p e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems examined i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r . I t w i l l t h e n examine t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f a h e a r i n g examiner system f o r Vancouver. A number o f p r o c e s s i n d i c a t o r s a r e d e v e l o p e d below t o a s s i s t i n t h e comparison o f t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems. I n d i -c a t o r s h a v i n g r e l e v a n c e t o more t h a n one o f t h e e i g h t n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a d e v e l o p e d have been a r b i t r a r i l y a s s i g n e d p l a c e s . 4.1 DEFINING PROCESS INDICATORS While any one o f a number o f ways c o u l d be chosen t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a d e v e l o p e d , t h e method used here i s t o s i m p l y t r a n s l a t e each c r i t e r i a i n t o a l i m i t e d number o f q u e s t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o both a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems. T h i s method o f e v a l u a t i o n p e r m i t s c u t t i n g t o t h e h e a r t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r , and a l s o t a b u l a t e s much o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l and p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o c o m p a r a t i v e t a b l e s . The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n , t h a t an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system o f l a n d use c o n t r o l s h o u l d be e q u i t a b l e i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , can be e v a l u a t e d as f o l 1 o w s : a) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g ? b) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e a l l c a s e s a r e heard i n a s i m i l a r manner? c) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y o f t h e a d j u d i c a t o r ( s ) ? - 132 -d) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o compare, i n open s e s s i o n , c a s e s o f s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? e) A r e r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s g i v e n i n w r i t i n g ? The second c r i t e r i o n , o penness, can be e v a l u a t e d as f o l l o w s : a) Is t h e h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d i n p u b l i c ? b) Is p r o v i s i o n made f o r a l l p a r t i e s t o have a c c e s s t o a l l i n f o r m a t i o n i n advance o f t h e h e a r i n g ? c) A r e p a r t i e s a d v i s e d o f subsequent avenues o f j u d i c i a l appeal and any p e r t i n e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s t h e r e o f ? d) A r e r e c o r d s o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s k e p t ? The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n , c l a r i t y , can s i m i l a r l y be e v a l u a t e d as f o l l o w s : a) Is i t c l e a r t o t h e a p p e l l a n t what has t o be proven and what e v i d e n c e i s needed b e f o r e a v a r i a n c e can be g r a n t e d ? b) Is t h e h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d i n an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e manner and w i t h o u t undue f o r m a l i t y ? The f o u r t h c r i t e r i o n , t h e p r o p r i e t y w i t h which t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made., can be examined as f o l l o w s : a) A r e m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and, i f p r o v i d e d , a r e t h e s e s t a n d a r d s a dhered t o ? b) What i s t h e e f f e c t o f n o t a d h e r i n g t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s ? c) Are t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d ? The f i f t h c r i t e r i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s , can be e v a l u a t e d as f o l l o w s : - 133 -a) To what degree does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system meet t h e o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i v e s o f z o n i n g t r i b u n a l s ? b) Does t h e c o s t o f an appeal d e t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t from u s i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system? c) Does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e d e t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t from p u r s u i n g an appeal on p r o c e d u r a l grounds t o a h i g h e r c o u r t ? d) A r e t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e appeal body r i g o r o u s l y e n f o r c e d ? The c r i t e r i o n o f f l e x i b i l i t y can be a s s e s s e d as f o l l o w s : a) Is t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system a d a p t a b l e t o o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ? b) Does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r have t h e a b i l i t y t o s e t p r o c e d u r e and v a r y i t s a p p l i c a t i o n as t h e s i t u a t i o n w a r r a n t s ? c) Can t h e d egree o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power be v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t y p e o f c a s e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? The s e v e n t h c r i t e r i o n , t h e d e g r e e o f e f f i c i e n c y promoted by t h e p r o c e s s , can be measured by: a) Is t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power d u p l i c a t e d e l s e w h e r e ? b) What i s t h e a v e r a g e l e n g t h o f time t a k e n t o p r o c e s s an a p p e a l ? L a s t l y , t h e c r i t e r i o n o f freedom from p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e can be measured as f o l l o w s : a) By what methods a r e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s a p p o i n t e d t o and removed from o f f i c e ? b) Are a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s r e v e r s i b l e by any body o t h e r t h a n t h e j u d i c i a r y ? c ) A r e a p p e a l s made d i r e c t l y t o d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s ? - 134 -d) Are p r o v i s i o n s made t o e l i m i n a t e ex p a r t e communications from t h e p r o c e e d i n g s ? 4.2 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION USING SELECTED INDICATORS EQUITABLE TREATMENT a) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e a l l i n t e r e s t e d  p a r t i e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g ? Under both systems o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n any i n t e r e s t e d o r a f f e c t e d p a r t y may appeal a z o n i n g q u e s t i o n . The Vancouver s y s t e m , however, does not f o r m a l l y p r o v i d e f o r s p e c i f i c c o n t a c t w i t h broad based community g r o u p s . F u r t h e r m o r e , even though t h e Board has t h e power t o c a n v a s s t h e a d j a c e n t n e i g h b o u r s t h i s power i s e x e r c i s e d w i t h d i s c r e t i o n b o t h i n terms o f i t s f r e q u e n c y and g e o g r a p h i c a l e x t e n t . The S e a t t l e system, on t h e o t h e r hand, has f o r m a l p r o v i s i o n s which r e q u i r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r n o t i f y a l l n e i g h b o u r s w i t h i n 300 f e e t , p o s t p l a c a r d s near t h e s i t e , and c o n t a c t a l l p a r t i e s o f r e c o r d , which i n c l u d e s community and o t h e r s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s . Both s y s t e m s , o f c o u r s e , r e q u i r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o n o t i f y t h e a p p e l -l a n t and r e l e v a n t c i t y s t a f f about t h e h e a r i n g . However, each d i f f e r s i n t h e i r r e q u i r e m e n t s t o a d v e r t i s e i n t h e newspaper a s p e c i f i c a p p e a l . In S e a t t l e , a l l c a s e s c o n s i d e r e d a r e a d v e r t i s e d , w h i l e i n Vancouver p u b l i c n o t i c e i s g i v e n o n l y " i f t h e appeal i s deemed by t h e Board o f s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a n c e . " * When t h e above i n f o r m a t i o n i s compared ( s e e T a b l e 1) i t becomes e v i d e n t t h e S e a t t l e system goes t o much g r e a t e r l e n g t h s t o i n v o l v e a l l i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups who may have an i n t e r e s t i n a p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r . Because o f such e f f o r t s , t h e S e a t t l e system comes c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e i d e a l o f r e p r e s e n t i n g a l l i n t e r e s t s a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a n does t h e Vancouver system. - 135 -TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE N o t i c e SHE VBV Key A d v e r t i s e m e n t i n p e r i o d i c a l M NA M = Mandatory A d v e r t i s e m e n t i n newspaper M D D = D i s c r e t i o n a r y Post s i t e M NR NR = Not R e q u i r e d N o t i f y a d j a c e n t n e i g h b o u r s M D NA = Not A p p l i c a b l e N o t i f y community groups M D b) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e a l l c a s e s  a r e h e a r d i n a s i m i l a r manner? O b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f both t h e VBV and t h e SHE i n d i c a t e each c o n s i s t e n t l y f o l l o w s a s i m i l a r format r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c a s e i n q u e s t i o n . The fundamental d i f f e r e n c e , however, i s f o u n d i n t h e degree t o which t h e American system c o d i f i e s ( i n g r e a t d e t a i l ) t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e Examiner's h e a r i n g . T h i s becomes e v i d e n t when t h e SHE wording t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g p u b l i c h e a r i n g s i s compared t o t h e VBV w o r d i n g , which m e r e l y r e q u i r e s " p r o c e e d i n g s a t t h e h e a r i n g s h a l l be i n f o r m a l " and p e r m i t s t h e Board 2 t o " d e t e r m i n e i t s own p r o c e d u r e " . To t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e l a c k o f f o r m a l p r o v i s i o n d e f i n i n g p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e a d j u d i c a t o r hampers t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s t h e " c o u r t " p l a c e s upon t h e a p p e l l a n t (and any o t h e r p a r t y ) , t h e Examiner system s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a o f p r o v i d i n g equal t r e a t m e n t t o a l l i n t e r e s t s . c) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e t h e  i m p a r t i a l i t y o f t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n ? Under t h e VBV system t h e l e g i s l a t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t no Board member s e r v e on an A d v i s o r y P l a n n i n g Commission o r as a m u n i c i p a l - 136 -o f f i c e r , e i t h e r e l e c t e d o r a p p o i n t e d , " a t t e m p t s t o e n s u r e impar-t i a l i t y . The l a c k o f o t h e r e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n g i v e n t h e VBV r e g a r d -i n g i t ' s d u t y t o c o n d u c t f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e B r i t i s h model o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s h o u l d not u n d e r s t o o d t a k e n t o mean t h e Board has l i c e n c e t o a c t i n any manner i t c h o o s e s . C l e a r l y , i t does n o t , as t h e c o u r t s would i n t e r c e d e i f t h e Board a c t e d w i t h p r o c e d u r a l i m p r o p r i e t y . T h i s d e t e r r e n t , however, has not p r e v e n t e d t h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Board from accompanying t h e members on t h e i r s i t e i n s p e c t i o n t o u r , even though he i s an employee o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n a c o n t e s t e d m a t t e r and t h e same op p o r -t u n i t y t o speak t o t h e Board a l o n e i s not a f f o r d e d t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s . W h i l e t h i s does not seem t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s e n s e o f i m p a r t i a l i t y t h e Board s h o u l d convey, what i s perhaps o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y i s t h e method by which Board member-s h i p i s a c t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . T h i s i s d i s c u s s e d f u l l y i n t h e s e c t i o n on " p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e " which f o l l o w s l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . R e g a r d i n g t h e SHE p r o c e d u r e s f o r i m p a r t i a l i t y , t h e s e appear t o d e r i v e from t h e b e l i e f i n t h e due p r o c e s s o f law and from t h e b a s i c s k e p t i c i s m Americans seem t o s h a r e t h a t government o f f i c i a l s w i l l use t h e i r powers i n an i n c o r r e c t manner w i t h o u t e x p l i c i t g u i d a n c e o r d i r e c t i o n . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t e x p l i c i t n o t a t i o n can d e t e r m i n e i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r i n advance and a v o i d o r p r e v e n t w r o n g f u l b e h a v i o r , whether i t be done u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r n o t , t h e more c l o s e l y t h e SHE system r e f l e c t s t h e n o r m a t i v e model. T h a t , however, does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean e i t h e r t h e n o r m a t i v e model o r t h e h e a r i n g examiner system a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e Vancouver s e t t i n g . T h i s i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h e c o n c l u d i n g s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r . - 137 - . d) What p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o compare, i n open s e s s i o n , c a s e s o f s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? Under t h e VBV system no p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t t o e n s u r e t h e Board a t l e a s t c o n s i d e r s c a s e s o f a s i m i l a r n a t u r e t h a t have gone b e f o r e i t . One a t t i t u d e seems t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e argument a g a i n s t h a v i n g t h e Board c o n s i d e r p r e c e d e n c e : "An amateur t r i b u n a l s u r e l y s h o u l d not be t h e v i c t i m o f i t ' s own m i s t a k e s t h r o u g h some N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y 4 f e t i s h f o r p r e c e d e n c e and supposed p r e d i c t a b i l i t y " . T h i s l a c k o f p r o v i s i o n i s f o u n d t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e main purpose o f t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e i s t o g r a n t e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e under c h a n g i n g c o n d i t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e s t r i c t a d h e r e n c e 5 t o p r e c e d e n c e r e n d e r s t h e Board i n e f f e c t i v e . I t was o b s e r v e d , however, t h a t p r e c e d e n c e p l a y s an i n f o r m a l r o l e i n t h e VBV system, as bot h t h e Chairman and S e c r e t a r y have l o n g e x p e r i e n c e w i t h which t o compare m a t t e r s coming b e f o r e t h e B o a r d . The SHE system p r e s e n t s , as might be e x p e c t e d , an o p p o s i t e view. P r o c e d u r e s t h e r e r e q u i r e t h e Examiner, i n t h e c o n t e n t o f h i s d e c i s i o n , t o r e a c h c o n c l u s i o n s o f law r e f e r e n c e d w i t h r e a s o n s and p r e c e d e n t s whenever p r a c t i c a l . 6 The p r e c e d e n t r e q u i r e m e n t c l e a r l y b e l i e s t h e b e l i e f t h a t w i t h o u t such c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e p a t t e r n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g may become i n c o n s i s t e n t , w i t h t h e r e s u l t a n t l o s s o f p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e . 7 I t has been n o t e d t h a t t h e use o f p r e c e d e n c e does not r u l e out f l e x i b i l i t y i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g b e c a u s e , as no two s i t u a t i o n s a r e e x a c t l y a l i k e , an a d j u d i c a t o r i s not unduely c o n f i n e d g by p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s . In o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e S e a t t l e Examiner system i t has been t h e a u t h o r ' s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a d h e r e n c e t o p r e c e d e n t i s l i t t l e used i n - 138 -s i m p l e v a r i a n c e c a s e s . The p r o v i s i o n however t o make r e f e r e n c e t o p a s t c a s e s a p p e a r s t o be a u s e f u l means o f e x a m i n i n g s i m i l a r c a s e s p r i o r t o r u l i n g on a c a s e - a t - h a n d . In view o f t h e i n a b i l i t y o r u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o p r o v i d e t h e a d j u d i c a t o r y body w i t h d e t a i l e d s t a n d a r d s t o j u d g e t h e m e r i t s o f a c a s e , i t seems t h a t some f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e t r e a t m e n t o f p a s t s i m i l a r c a s e s would be e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l i n m e e t i n g t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i o n o f e q u i t a b l e t r e a t m e n t and i n r e d u c i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l danger t h a t t h e r u l e o f man r e p l a c e s t h e r u l e o f law. e) Are r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s g i v e n i n w r i t i n g ? The methods f o l l o w e d i n composing and communicating an a d j u d i -c a t e d d e c i s i o n d i f f e r g r e a t l y as T a b l e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s . F o l l o w i n g t h e TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF COMPONENTS OF DECISION -SYSTEM D E C I S I O N C O M P O N E N T Statement o f F i n d i n g Statement o f Reason Statement o f D e c i s i o n VBV Not r e q u i r e d ^ - " — O r a l Di s c r e t i o n a r y ^ O r a l R e q u i r e d ^ ^ ^ ^ W r i t t e n SHE Requi red ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ ^ W r i t t e n R e q u i r e d ^ W r i t t e n R e q u i r e d ^ ^ ^ " ^ W r i t t e n VBV system i t becomes o b v i o u s t h a t g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s f o r t h e a d j u d i c a t o r t o abuse not o n l y t h e r i g h t s o f t h o s e who come b e f o r e him, but a l s o t o abuse t h e power g i v e n t h e Board and t o e r o d e p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e z o n i n g by-law. Perhaps i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f j u s t such problems i t has been o b s e r v e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l members o f - 139 -t h e Vancouver Board w i l l o f t e n g i v e a v e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n as t o t h e i r r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n . The member i s , however, under no o b l i g a t i o n t o do so and i n f a c t may be b e t t e r o f f s t a t i n g n o t h i n g a s , i f no r e a s o n s a r e o f f e r e d , no one can c h a l l e n g e them. T h i s p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by J u s t i c e Smith o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f M i c h i g a n i n Tireman-Joy-Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n v. C h e r n i c k : "What, i n t r u t h was t h e w a r r a n t f o r t h e Board's a c t i o n ? We a r e n o t t o l d . The Board s a y s we do not have t o be t o l d . "Thus, under t h e Board's argument, t h e c i t i z e n g e t s i t g o i n g and coming. Were t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s f o l l o w e d by t h e Board? There a r e no s p e c i f i c s t a n d a r d s t o be f o l l o w e d . What, t h e n , a r e t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e Board's f i n d i n g t h e broad s t a n d a r d o f 'unnecessary h a r d s h i p ' t o be s a t i s f i e d ? No one knows. No r e a s o n s a r e g i v e n . In o t h e r words i t b o i l s down t o t h i s : t h e r e i s u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p because t h e r e i s u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , and, because t h e r e i s u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , t h e s t a n d a r d ( o f u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p ) i s s a t i s f i e d . "Thus by mumbling an i n c a n t a t i o n t h e b u r e a u c r a t f o r e c l o s e s e f f e c t i v e j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . What i s t h e r e , f o r example, i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e us, t o r e v i e w ? A f t e r a l l , u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p o b v i o u s l y i s u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p . Such was t h e f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n . The l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s e q u a l l y s i m p l e : The s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s m e r e l y a c a s e o f u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p . We f o u n d i t , s a y s t h e B o a r d . Q.E.D." 9 I t becomes e v i d e n t t h a t such s i t u a t i o n s a r e t o l e r a t e d i n Canada because o f t h e l i m i t e d r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e and t h e l i m i t e d powers o f r e v i e w g i v e n our c o u r t system. The f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n s i n w r i t i n g f o r d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d be viewed as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i v e r g e n t from t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i o n . The f a c t t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n Vancouver may w e l l j u s t be an anomoly i n t h e z o n i n g w o r l d as many l o c a l boards i n o t h e r Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n s - 140 -r e q u i r e w r i t t e n r e a s o n s t o accompany d e c i s i o n s t a k e n . T h i s , however, cannot be v e r i f i e d as p a r t o f t h i s work. OPENNESS a) Is t h e h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d i n p u b l i c ? In b o t h systems a r e q u i r e d h e a r i n g i s c o n d u c t e d i n p u b l i c * 0 and, f o r most t y p e s o f a p p e a l s 1 1 any i n t e r e s t e d o r a f f e c t e d p a r t y may i n i t i a t e t h e a c t i o n . T h i s i s e n t i r e l y i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e n o r m a t i v e i d e a l . b) Do a l l p a r t i e s have a c c e s s t o a l l i n f o r m a t i o n i n advance? A g a i n , t h e i n f o r m a l n a t u r e o f t h e Board p r e c l u d e s p r o c e d u r a l s t e p s such as p r e - h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e s and i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e q u e s t s which a r e more n o r m a l l y f o u n d i n a l e g a l s e t t i n g and a r e w i t h i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e d f o r use by t h e SHE. I d e a l l y , e v e r y o n e s h o u l d have t h e same o p p o r t u n i t y t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n and t o know i n advance t h e c a s e t o be p r o v e n . The American system i s much c l o s e r t o t h e s e i d e a l s t h a n i s t h e Vancouver t r i b u n a l system, as T a b l e 3 i l l u s t r a t e s . What i s not e v i d e n t i n T a b l e 3, but what i s o b s e r v a b l e i n t h e Vancouver system, i s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s a t a d i s t i n c t d i s a d v a n t a g e i n knowing i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e c a s e i n advance. C o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e S e c r e t a r y and t h e Board w h i l e on s i t e i n s p e c t i o n s remains u n r e p o r t e d , as does t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n h e l d p r i o r t o t h e b i - w e e k l y m e e t i n g between t h e S e c r e t a r y and t h e C h a i r -man. In both i n s t a n c e s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s d i s c u s s t h e c a s e a t hand w i t h o u t a l l p a r t i e s p r e s e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , u n l e s s t h e a p p e l l a n t i s e x c e e d i n g l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e about t h e development p e r m i t p r o c e s s he i s u n l i k e l y t o know enough t o r e q u e s t c o p i e s o f m i n u t e s o f v a r i o u s - 141 -s t a f f m e e t i n g s i n which t h e p r o j e c t was d i s c u s s e d . These f a c t o r s a r e not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a . TABLE 3. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY I n f o r m a t i o n C r i t e r i a Vancouver Board o f V a r i a n c e S e a t t l e H e a r i n g Examiner * P r e - h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e No Yes * I n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t s ( d i s c o v e r y ) No Yes * A v a i l a b i l i t y o f s t a f f r e p o r t s , r e c o r d s P a r t i a l Yes c) Are p a r t i e s a d v i s e d o f subsequent avenues o f j u d i c i a l  appeal and any p e r t i n e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s t h e r e o f ? C u r r e n t VBV p r o c e d u r e does not a d v i s e a p p e l l a n t s o f f u r t h e r r e c o u r s e s h o u l d t h e i r appeal f a i l . In f a c t , t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e a d e t a i l e d w r i t t e n o r e l e c t r o n i c r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and t h e re a s o n s f o r a s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n n o r m a l l y p r e c l u d e s subsequent appeal t o t h e j u d i c i a r y . Under t h e e x i s t i n g system j u d i c i a l a ppeal i n f o r -m a t i o n i s not made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t and as a r e s u l t , even i f t h e Canadian c o u r t was w i l l i n g t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s o p i n i o n f o r t h a t o f t h e l o c a l b o a r d s ' , i t c o u l d n o t . Grounds f o r j u d i c i a l appeal remain c o n f i n e d a l m o s t e n t i r e l y t o p o i n t s o f law. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e SHE p r o c e d u r e s a r e such t h a t an e l e c t r o n i c r e c o r d i n g i s a v a i l a b l e f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n upon r e q u e s t and f u r t h e r l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s and a c t i o n s a r e d e t a i l e d as t h e l a s t i tems o f t h e Examiner's w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n which i s s e n t t o a l l p a r t i e s o f r e c o r d . d) Are r e c o r d s o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s k e p t ? In both systems permanent r e c o r d s o f a p p e a l s a r e k e p t , t h e - 142 -c o n t e n t o f which have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I . As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e SHE system e l e c t r o n i c a l l y r e c o r d s a l l h e a r i n g s and t h i s r e c o r d becomes p a r t o f t h e f i l e . As w e l l , t h e SHE system p r o v i d e s a more complete r e c o r d o f t h e h e a r i n g t h a n does t h e VBV system and i s t h e r e f o r e c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e model as i t i s b e t t e r a b l e t o r e c a l l t h e p r o c e d u r e and s u b s t a n c e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e and p r o v i d e a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e d e c i s i o n f o r r e f e r e n c e i n t h e f u t u r e . CLARITY a) Is i t c l e a r t o t h e a p p e l l a n t what has t o be proven and what e v i d e n c e i s needed b e f o r e a v a r i a n c e can be g r a n t e d ? The VBV system makes no s p e c i f i c mention o f where t h e burden o f p r o o f l i e s i n any p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e e d i n g ^ r a t h e r , i t i s incumbent upon t h e a p p e l l a n t t o r e a l i z e what has t o be proven and who has t o prove i t . A l t h o u g h i t may be a p p a r e n t t o most, i t has been t h e a u t h o r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t s e v e r a l p a r t i e s a p p e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Board were unaware o f what was e x p e c t e d o f them and o f t h e c a s e t h e y had t o p r o v e . The s i t u a t i o n i s e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g owners o f s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s who a p p e a r w i t h o u t l e g a l r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n a p p e a l i n g a r e f u s a l t o r e l a x a s p e c i f i c b u l k r e g u l a t i o n . Such c a s e s a r e numerous b e f o r e t h e Board and t h e a p p e l l a n t can o f t e n be r e c o g n i z e d as someone not e x c e e d i n g l y f a m i l i a r w i t h e i t h e r t h e l e g a l system o r t h e z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and can be f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g o f r e c e n t immigrant s t a t u s . In t h e above c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e o m i s s i o n o f t h e burden o f p r o o f i s u n f o r t u n a t e , as i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d how j u s t i c e can be met w i t h c o n s i s t e n c y and f a i r n e s s when d e c i s i o n s must be based on t h e c a s u a l and i l l i n f o r m e d comments o f an u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d a p p e l l a n t - 143 -who o f t e n seems not t o know t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f what has been s a i d o r a d m i t t e d t o . While t h e r o l e o f t h e Board i s not a d v e r s a r i a l towards t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h e c a n d o r o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s comments has t h e p o t e n t i a l t o e i t h e r i n f l u e n c e d e t r i m e n t a l l y t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n , o r t o encourage t h e Board t o assume t h e r o l e o f a c o u r t o f p e t i t e q u i t y and i g n o r e t h e r u l e s o f law p r o v i d e d i t . In a d d i t i o n , w h i l e both systems p r o v i d e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c l a r i f y t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a p p e a l upon s u b m i s s i o n , t h e S e a t t l e system p e r m i t s any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y t o seek t h i s c l a r i -f i c a t i o n . T h i s a p p r o a c h i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e American j u d i c i a l a p p r o a c h , w h i l e t h e Vancouver system o n l y p r o v i d e s f o r t h e S e c r e t a r y and t h e Board t o u n d e r t a k e t h i s t a s k . With r e g a r d t o t h e second p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g c l a r i t y , t h e e v i d e n c e needed i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d . Under t h e Vancouver system, t h e s e s t a n d a r d s do 12 not a p p e a r on t h e " N o t i c e o f A p p e a l " form, t h e r e f o r e i t i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t o seek them out o r l a y t h e b a s i s o f t h e c a s e w i t h o u t knowing t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e appeal might be g r a n t e d . In t h e S e a t t l e system, i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e appeal p r o c e d u r e i s much more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , a p p e a r i n g i n both t h e C i t y O r d i n a n c e and t h e w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d pamphlet " P r o c e d u r e s o f t h e H e a r i n g Examiner". C l e a r l y , t h e VBV system f a l l s s h o r t o f t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a by p r o m o t i n g c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e " c o u r t o f p e t i t e q u i t y " syndrome and t h e abuse o f t h e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d t o g u i d e t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o f t h e B o a r d . The Examiner s y s t e m , on t h e o t h e r hand, makes d i s c r e e t s t a t e -ments about where t h e burden o f p r o o f l i e s 1 3 and t h e grounds upon - 144 -which a v a r i a n c e can be g r a n t e d . T h i s e n a b l e s t h o s e a p p e a l i n g t o have p r i o r knowledge o f t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a t t h e h e a r i n g . I t may a l s o s e r v e t o i n c r e a s e t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e v a r i a n c e p r o c e s s by i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e p r o p e r grounds f o r , appeal and r e d u c i n g t h e e m o t i o n -a l i s m o f t e n i n h e r e n t i n t h e s e h e a r i n g s . To t h e e x t e n t t h e c l a r i t y o f t h e SHE system a c c o m p l i s h e s t h i s purpose i t s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d c l o s e r t o t h e i d e a l s i t u a t i o n t h a n i s e n a b l e d under t h e VBV system. Is t h e h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d i n an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e  manner and w i t h o u t undue f o r m a l i t y ? While both systems f o l l o w much t h e same h e a r i n g f o r m a t , t h e SHE system makes w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n o f i t s format and t h u s a d v i s e s t h e p a r t i e s more t h o r o u g h l y o f what i s f o r t h c o m i n g a t t h e h e a r i n g i n advance. In o b s e r v i n g both systems t h e main d i f f e r e n c e i n format c o n c e r n s t h e t a k i n g o f o a t h . While t h e VBV has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a d m i n i s t e r o a t h s but seldom e x e r c i s e s i t , a l l t e s t i m o n y b e f o r e t h e SHE i s t a k e n under o a t h . T h i s element o f t h e p r o c e s s seems t o c o n t r a d i c t o t h e r d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n t o t h e Examiner r e g a r d i n g c o n d u c t -i n g i n f o r m a l h e a r i n g s as w e l l as b e i n g i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e e s t a b l i s h e d n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a . The language used a t t h e h e a r i n g s i s g e n e r a l l y dependent on t h e use o f p r o f e s s i o n a l j a r g o n and t e c h n i c a l d e f i n i t i o n . Both systems s u f f e r t h i s , and t o a d e g r e e i t can be e x p e c t e d t h i s dependency c a u s e s a l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g not o n l y on t h e p a r t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t o r o t h e r p a r t y , but on t h e p a r t o f Board members t h e m s e l v e s who may not c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e s t a f f p o s i t i o n . Under t h e SHE system t h i s dependency i s perhaps even i n c r e a s e d because o f t h e more j u d i c i a l n a t u r e o f t h e h e a r i n g and t h e p o t e n t i a l t o i n t e r - m i x both - 145 -l e g a l and p l a n n i n g j a r g o n . To t h e e x t e n t t h e VBV p r o c e d u r e s and language p e r m i t t h e h e a r i n g t o be c o n d u c t e d i n an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and i n f o r m a l manner, t h i s system i s c o n s i d e r e d c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e model p r e s e n t e d h e r e . PROPRIETY a) Ar e m e a n i n g f u l s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ,  and i f p r o v i d e d , a r e t h e s e s t a n d a r d s adhered t o ? The s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d by S e c t i o n 573(2) o f t h e Vancouver C h a r t e r owe t h e i r o r i g i n s t o t h e p e r i o d of r i g i d E u c l i d e a n z o n i n g d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I . As s u c h , t h e s e s t a n d a r d s f a i l t o p r o v i d e a dynamic framework i n which t h e v a r i a n c e , always a t o o l of f l e x i -b i l i t y , would be a b l e t o m a i n t a i n a m e a n i n g f u l r o l e i n Vancouver's d i s c r e t i o n a r y system of z o n i n g . The r e s u l t has been t h e f a i l u r e of t h e v a r i a n c e mechanism t o a d e q u a t e l y r e f l e c t changes t h a t have o c c u r r e d i n b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s and t e c h n o l o g y and i n s o c i e t a l p r e f e r e n c e s i n g e n e r a l o v e r t h e p a s t 50 y e a r s . T h i s happenstance must be viewed w i t h more t h a n a r a i s e d eyebrow, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o g r a n t d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f . The end r e s u l t has been t o c r e a t e a s o p h i s t i c a t e d a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e system c o n t r o l l e d by an a p p o i n t e d board of laymen who have o n l y narrow a n t i q u a t e d s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d them w i t h which t o p r o v i d e r e l i e f t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . U n d e r s t a n d a b l y t h i s s i t u a t i o n tempts t h e Board i n many c a s e s t o i g n o r e t h e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d i t and t o r e l y on i t s own e x p e r i e n c e s i n r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n . In s h o r t , a t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l d i s c r e t i o n a r y power i s h a r n e s s e d by l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s d i r e c t i n g s t a f f t o t a k e s p e c i f i c a c t i o n s b e f o r e a r r i v i n g - 146 -a t a d e c i s i o n . Once t a k e n , t h i s d e c i s i o n i s t h e n s u b j e c t t o p o s s i b l e appeal t o a l a y board which may o p e r a t e on a s e t o f ad-hoc and u n s t a t e d s t a n d a r d s i t has d e v e l o p e d on i t s own. These s t a n d a r d s a r e d e r i v e d a c c o r d i n g o n l y t o i t s own p r e d i l e c t i o n s , as t h e s t a n d a r d s t h a t have been p r o v i d e d have proven t o be e i t h e r t o o c o n f i n i n g o r i r r e l e v a n t t o c u r r e n t a p p e a l s f o r v a r i a n c e . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s f o s t e r e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s f a i l u r e t o r e q u i r e t h e Board t o g i v e r e a s o n s i n w r i t i n g f o r i t s d e c i s i o n s . I t i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by s t a t e -ments made by P l a n n i n g Department s t a f f t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i f t h e VBV adhered t o t h e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d , i t would have t o r e f u s e 14 n e a r l y 90% o f t h e c a s e s coming b e f o r e i t . Under t h e S e a t t l e system t h e s i t u a t i o n i s g r e a t l y improved. As e x p l a i n e d e a r l i e r , j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p l a y s a much l a r g e r r o l e i n l a n d use m a t t e r s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Recent c o u r t r u l i n g s i n Washington have r e s u l t e d i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f more d e t a i l e d p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s and t h e r e f i n e m e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e h e a r i n g s and d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Examiner. The r e l e v a n c y o f and a d h e r e n c e t o t h e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d seems more a s s u r e d i n t h e American system. T h i s i s b e c a u s e i t depends on c o n t i n u a l r e v i e w by b o t h l e g i s l a t i v e and j u d i c i a l b o d i e s and because d e c i s i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d t o be r e a s o n e d and i n w r i t i n g . The S e a t t l e s i t u a t i o n t h e r e f o r e a p p e a r s t o be more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a t h a n does t h e Vancouver s y s t e m . What i s t h e e f f e c t o f not a d h e r i n g  t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d ? The s u b s t a n t i v e r e s u l t o f t h e VBV n o t a d h e r i n g t o t h e s t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d i s t h a t t h e VBV not o n l y d e c i d e s c a s e s i t has no b u s i n e s s - 147 -h e a r i n g ('use' c a s e s f o r e x a m p l e ) , but i t a l s o a d o p t s t h e r o l e o f a p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i n g body f o r z o n i n g m a t t e r . In t h i s r o l e t h e Board has p o t e n t i a l t o both g e n e r a t e new p o l i c i e s and damage t h e c o n f i d e n c e i n e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . A r e c e n t example w i l l c l a r i f y t h e p o i n t . In March 1980, C i t y C o u n c i l e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c y t o p e r m i t s i n g l e f a m i l y development on s o - c a l l e d " t h i n l o t s " ( l o t s l e s s t h a n 25 f e e t i n w i d t h ) l o c a t e d i n RS-1 zones but a t a reduced f l o o r space r a t i o and s i t e c o v e r a g e a l l o w a n c e . These l o t s a r e f o r t h e most p a r t 15 l o c a t e d on t h e upper m i d d l e - c l a s s , Targe l o t w e s t s i d e o f Vancouver. S u b s e q u e n t l y , a Development P e r m i t (No. 86254) was i s s u e d by t h e D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g f o r development o f a 17 f o o t l o t a t 4517 West 13th Avenue. T h i s d e c i s i o n was a p p e a l e d t o t h e VBV (Appeal No. 21935) by f o u r s e p a r a t e n e i g h b o u r i n g p r o p e r t y owners and a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e Board d e c i d e d t o a l l o w t h e ' a p p e a l , t h e r e b y quash-i n g t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e p e r m i t . The p e r m i t a p p l i c a n t s t h e n a p p e a l e d t h e Board's d e c i s i o n t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f B.C. (No. A802083; Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e Board's d e c i s i o n be s e t a s i d e . 1 6 The example s e r v e s t o i l l u s t r a t e two p o i n t s : ( i ) c o n v e n t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t and s e l e c t e d n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a d i c t a t e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e as t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o l i c y making body o f government as t h e y , u n l i k e t h e VBV, a r e d i r e c t l y a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e b a l l o t -box, and - 148 -( i i ) t h e VBV c a n , w i t h i m p u n i t y , o v e r r u l e p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d by C i t y C o u n c i l and can do so w i t h o u t e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e c o r d t o show l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s were even d i s c u s s e d o r p r o v i d i n g r e a s o n s why such an appeal was e v e r g r a n t e d . The d i s a d v a n t a g e of. i n v e s t i n g u n a c c o u n t a b l e b o d i e s w i t h t h e power t o o v e r - r u l e l e g i s l a t i v e d i c t a t e s i s compounded i n t h a t t h e VBV not o n l y damages t h e C o u n c i l ' s c r e d i b i l i t y ; i t a l s o undermines bo.th t h e p u b l i c ' s and t h e C o u n c i l ' s c o n f i d e n c e i n P l a n n i n g D e p a r t -ment s t a f f . T h i s i n t u r n b r i n g s i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e Z o n i n g and Development By-law t o c o n t r o l development. T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s l e s s l i k e l y t o be t o l e r a t e d i n t h e American system where t h e Examiner, because o f t h e n e c e s s i t y t o g i v e r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n s , would have t o f o l l o w e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c y u n l e s s c o n d i t i o n s were such t h a t t h e a p p e a l met t h e l e g i s l a t i v e s t a n d a r d s f o r a v a r i a n c e . In t h i s r e g a r d t h e SHE system i s c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e i d e a l as i t has l e s s p o t e n t i a l t o become a forum f o r t h e e x e r t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , b e t t e r a b l e t o s e r v e i t s t r u e purpose - t o p r o v i d e v a r i a n c e i n unique p h y s i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . R e l e g a t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l appeal from t h e v a r i a n c e p r o c e s s i s t h o u g h t e n t i r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e , as t h e l o c a l c o u n c i l chamber i s t h e c o r r e c t p l a c e f o r such an a p p e a l . c ) A r e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d ? Both f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t s a r e made i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e s e s y s t e m s . The e x t e n t t o which t h e s e r i g h t s a r e p r o t e c t e d and p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e two d i f f e r e n t forms o f government found i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o u n t r i e s . T a b l e 4 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s e - 149 -d i f f e r e n c e s and i n d i c a t e s t h e e x t e n t t o which c o d i f i c a t i o n i s used t o e n s u r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t s a r e o b s e r v e d i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t i v e m a t t e r s i n t h e SHE syst e m . Such c a r e i s not e v i d e n t , a t l e a s t TABLE 4. PROTECTION AFFORDED THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY SYSTEM I n d i v i d u a l s ' R i g h t VBV SHE * n o t i c e FP FP * know c a s e i n advance IP FP * p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e IP FP * o b t a i n postponement o r adjournment FP FP * c r o s s - e x a m i n e IP FP * o b j e c t i o n IP FP * motion NP FP * argument IP FP * r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l FP FP KEY FP = Formal P r o v i s i o n Made F o r R i g h t IP = I n f o r m a l P r o v i s i o n Made F o r R i g h t NO = No P r o v i s i o n Made For R i g h t upon f i r s t i n s p e c t i o n , w i t h t h e VBV syst e m . However, i t i t i s r e c a l l e d t h a t a l l t h e r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e need not be e x p l i c i t l y m entioned b e f o r e t h e y have a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c a s e , t h e n i t can be seen t h a t t h e Ca n a d i a n j u d i c i a r y a t t e m p t s t o g i v e t h e a p p e l l a n t t h e same p r o t e c t i o n as t h e SHE system. The Vancouver s y s t e m i s p e r h a p s l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n t h i s r e g a r d s i m p l y because a p p e l l a n t s b e f o r e t h e Vancouver Board a r e g e n e r a l l y l e s s knowledge-a b l e o f t h e i r r i g h t s p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g , and because t h e Board makes l e s s e f f o r t t o a d v i s e them o f t h e i r r i g h t s t h a n does t h e S e a t t l e Examiner. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t e x p l i c i t d e t a i l can e n s u r e t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e h e a r i n g t h e SHE system i s c o n s i d e r e d c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e model. 150 EFFECTIVENESS a) To what degree does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system meet  t h e s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s o f z o n i n g t r i b u n a l s ? T a b l e 5 a t t e m p t s t o r e c a l l from e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s t h e s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s i n p r o v i d i n g an a p p e a l mechanism f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a n d use d e c i s i o n s . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h e VBV system TABLE 5. STATED OBJECTIVES OF APPEAL MECHANISM COMPARED TO EXISTING SYSTEMS. S t a t e d O b j e c t i v e E x i s t i n g System VBV SHE 1. P r o v i d e e x p e r t i s e i n t e c h n i c a l m a t t e r . Poor F a i r 2. P r o v i d e i n f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s . Good Good 3. Render d e c i s i o n q u i c k l y . Good F a i r 4. P r o v i d e d e c i s i o n c h e a p l y . Good Good 5. A v o i d a r b i t r a r y use o f p o l i c e power. Good F a i r 6. S a f e g u a r d r i g h t s o f p r o p e r t y owner. F a i r Good 7. Reduce need f o r c o u r t r e v i e w i f z o n i n g m a t t e r s . F a i r Good 8. P r o v i d e d e t a i l e d r e c o r d f o r c o u r t r e v i e w . Poor Good 9. P r e s e r v e c o n f i d e n c e i n by-law. Poor Good 10. F o r e s t a l l c o n t i n u a l amendment o f by-law. Good F a i r i s more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e SHE system i n p r o v i d i n g d e c i s i o n s q u i c k l y , a v o i d i n g t h e a r b i t r a r y use o f p o l i c e power; and r e d u c i n g t h e need t o c o n t i n u a l l y amend t h e z o n i n g by-law. The SHE s y s t e m , on t h e o t h e r hand, a t t e m p t s t o p r o v i d e an a d j u d i c a t o r w i t h s p e c i f i c q u a l i f i c a -t i o n s f o r t h e p o s i t i o n and has f o r m a l p r o v i s i o n s f o r j u d i c i a l - 1 i k e p r o c e d u r e s d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . I t a l s o i n c l u d e s p r o c e d u r e s t o e n s u r e a c o m p l e t e r e c o r d i s p r o v i d e d , t h e r e b y p r o m o t i n g c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e d e c i s i o n i t s e l f and t h e by-law i n g e n e r a l . - 151 -I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t when a l l f a c t o r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d , both systems a r e c a p a b l e o f p r o v i d i n g a p p e a l d e c i s i o n s r e l a t i v e l y c h e a p l y . T h i s n o t i o n i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r as a s e p a r a t e i n d i c a t o r o f a d m i n i -s t r a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Does t h e c o s t o f an appeal d e t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t  from u s i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system? N e i t h e r system s h o u l d d e t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t from f i l i n g an appeal as t h e f e e c h a r g e d i s a minimal $ 2 5 1 7 i n t h e VBV c a s e and e i t h e r $12 o r $30, dependent on t h e t y p e o f a p p e a l , under t h e SHE system. These f i g u r e s , however, s h o u l d be viewed w i t h some c a u t i o n a s n e i t h e r r e p r e s e n t t h e u l t i m a t e c o s t o f ap p e a l t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . A c l o s e r a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f t h i s c o s t i n t h e Vancouver system can be d e r i v e d from a d d i n g t h e c o s t o f a development p e r m i t (minimum $ 4 0 ) , a p p e a l i n g t h e r e f u s e d DPA ( $ 2 5 ) ; and, i f d e s i r e d , h i r i n g l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Under t h e S e a t t l e system a t r u e r c o s t o f ap p e a l i s d e r i v e d by a d d i n g t h e c o s t o f l e g a l s e r v i c e s t o t h e f i l i n g f e e . However, i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t i n r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e v a r i a n c e c a s e s even i n S e a t t l e , a p p e l l a n t s s t i l l o f t e n a ppear w i t h o u t c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t them. S t a f f c o s t s i n each s y s t e m , w h i l e a component i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o s t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t , a r e f o r t h e pu r p o s e s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d equal a l l monetary f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d . Does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e p r e v e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t from  p u r s u i n g an appeal on p r o c e d u r a l grounds t o a h i g h e r c o u r t ? W h ile n e i t h e r system e f f e c t i v e l y p r e v e n t s appeal t o a s u p e r i o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g l e v e l , t h e VBV l i m i t s t h i s appeal by r e s t r i c t i n g t h a t r e v i e w t o an e x a m i n a t i o n f o r p r o c e d u r a l wrong-doing r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n between t h e - 152 -D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g o r Development P e r m i t Board and t h e Board o f V a r i a n c e . Appeal o f t h e VBV d e c i s i o n i s f u r t h e r hampered by t h e f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d e l e c t r o n i c a l l y t h e h e a r i n g and by t h e C a n adian c o u r t s ' t r a d i t i o n a l r e l u c t a n c e t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s o p i n i o n on a s u b s t a n t i v e m a t t e r f o r t h a t o f a s o - c a l l e d e x p e r t body. Under t h e SHE system such r e s t r i c t i o n s do not o c c u r . Subsequent appeal i s f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e e l e c t r o n i c r e c o r d i n g o f t h e h e a r i n g , t h e r e q u i r e -ment o f w r i t t e n r e a s o n s , and t h e more r e f o r m o r i e n t e d n a t u r e o f t h e American j u d i c i a r y . d) Are t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e appeal body r i g o r o u s l y e n f o r c e d ? Enforcement o f t h e d e c i s i o n s t a k e n by e i t h e r appeal body f a l l s t o p e r s o n n e l i n o t h e r c i v i c d e p a r t m e n t s . In Vancouver, enf o r c e m e n t i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e P e r m i t s and L i c e n c e Department, w h i l e i n S e a t t l e t h i s i s t h e B u i l d i n g Department's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In n e i t h e r system d i d i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n was any more o f a problem t h a n e n f o r c i n g any o t h e r k i n d o f c i v i c r e g u l a t o r y d e c i s i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n n e i t h e r c a s e was e n f o r c e m e n t so l a x as t o t h r e a t e n t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y . F L EXIBILITY a) Is t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system a d a p t a b l e t o o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ? C u r r e n t l e g i s l a t i o n l i m i t s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e VBV t o t h o s e 18 f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . T h e r e seems, however, l i t t l e t o p r e v e n t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e from d e l e g a t i n g o t h e r a r e a s o f i t ' s r e g u -l a t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o t h e Board i n much t h e same manner as t h e S e a t t l e C o u n c i l has done w i t h t h e examiner s y s t e m . - 153 -As membership q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e Board a r e not s p e c i f i e d t h e r e i s presumably l i t t l e t o p r e v e n t C o u n c i l from a d d i n g t o t h e Board's z o n i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and c o n v e r t i n g t h e VBV t o a w i d e r h e a r i n g body f o r many o f i t s numerous r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s . In t a k i n g such a c t i o n some c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s may be e n a b l e d . The m u l t i - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l n a t u r e o f t h e SHE system has a l r e a d y been d e t a i l e d e l s e w h e r e . Does t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r have t h e a b i l i t y t o s e t p r o c e d u r e  and v a r y i t s a p p l i c a t i o n as t h e s i t u a t i o n w a r r a n t s ? The f l e x i b i l i t y i n terms o f each system's a b i l i t y t o s e t and v a r y p r o c e d u r e i s i n d i c a t e d i n T a b l e 6. I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t w h i l e t h e S e a t t l e C o u n c i l p r o v i d e s d i s c r e e t s t e p s t o t h e f l e x i b i l i t y g i v e n t h e Examiner, Vancouver's C o u n c i l g i v e s t h e Board v i r t u a l l y f r e e r e i g n i n d e t e r m i n i n g i t ' s own p r o c e d u r e s a t t h e h e a r i n g . While t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t l y i n c o r r e c t w i t h t h e Vancouver method, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s f a i l u r e t o d e t a i l d i s c r e e t p r o c e d u r a l s t e p s p e r m i t s l e g a l o r moral abuse i n t h e Board's d e l i b e r a t i o n s . The Examiner's method i s more l i k e l y t o p r e v e n t s u c h abuse and i s t h e r e f o r e c l o s e r t o t h e n o r m a t i v e i d e a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h i n r e a s o n , t h e VBV system has t h e a b i l i t y t o m o d i f y i t ' s p r o c e d u r e s i t s e l f and may do so a t i t ' s c o n v e n i e n c e . T a b l e 6 does not a c c o u n t f o r t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y . - 154 -TABLE 6. COMPARATIVE POWERS TO SET AND VARY PROCEDURES P r o c e d u r a l Step A d m i n i s t r a t i v e System VBV SHE - Seek c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f c a s e Yes Yes - P e r m i t t e s t i m o n y from n o n - p a r t i e s Yes Yes - A d m i n i s t e r o a t h s Yes* Yes** - I s s u e subpoena No Yes - Rule on r e l a v e n c y o f p r o o f o f f e r e d No Yes - R e c e i v e e v i d e n c e Yes Yes - R e g u l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s / c o n d u c t • Yes Yes - Hold s e t t l e m e n t c o n f e r e n c e No Yes - Set t i m e l i m i t s No Yes - Render d e c i s i o n a t h e a r i n g o r a d j o u r n Yes No A v a i l a b l e but seldom u s e d . A l l t e s t i m o n y must be t a k e n under o a t h . c ) Can t h e degree o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power be v a r i e d  a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t y p e o f c a s e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? Under t h e Vancouver system t h e Board's o n l y r o l e i s t o a c t as t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k e r f o r a l l c a s e s which come b e f o r e i t , r e g a r d -l e s s o f c a s e t y p e . The S e a t t l e s y s t e m , however, has added a n o t h e r f u n c t i o n t o i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p e a l mechanism w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e Examiner has become t h e i n s t r u m e n t t h r o u g h which C o u n c i l h o l d s t h e m a j o r i t y o f i t s p u b l i c h e a r i n g s - even on l e g i s l a t i v e m a t t e r s . T a b l e 6 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s d u a l r o l e q u i t e c l e a r l y , w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e Examiner h e a r s a much w i d e r range o f c a s e s t h a n does t h e Bo a r d . - 155 -TABLE 7. SPECTRUM OF POWER BY CASE TYPE Comprehensive Plan Zoning District Change Comprehensive Development/ Planned Unit Development Single Property Reclassification Council Conditional Use Administrative Conditional Use Variance P 0 VBV n/a n/a n/a n/a F F F w E R SHE R R R R R F F Key: F = F i n a l D e c i s i o n R = Recommendation t o D e c i s i o n - M a k e r n/a = Not A p p l i c a b l e In comparing t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power o f t h e two systems i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t each has t h e power t o d i r e c t l y g r a n t , g r a n t under c o n d i t i o n , o r deny a p p e a l s o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e n a t u r e . In c a s e s o f a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l o r l e g i s l a t i v e n a t u r e t h e Board has no a u t h o r i t y , w h i l e t h e Examiner i s a u t h o r i z e d o n l y t o c o n d u c t t h e h e a r i n g and make a recommendation t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e body i n such c a s e s . EFFICIENCY a) Is t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power d u p l i c a t e d e l s e w h e r e ? The power o f VBV i s not d u p l i c a t e d e l s e w h e r e . Any appeal o f a VBV d e c i s i o n i s made t o t h e p r o v i n c i a l supreme c o u r t , based on grounds o f p r o c e d u r a l r a t h e r t h a n s u b s t a n t i v e d e f e c t and t h e r e f o r e cannot t r u l y be c o n s i d e r e d as a t r i a l "de novo". - 156 -T h i s i s i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e SHE system where c o n t r o v e r s i a l d e c i s i o n s a r e i n e f f e c t a p p e a l e d "de novo" t o a board o f v a r i a n c e ( a d j u s t m e n t ) and s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t o a c o u r t o f law a f t e r t h a t . T h i s s i t u a t i o n a p p e a r s t o be an anomoly o f t h e S e a t t l e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and does not r e f l e c t t h e s i t u a t i o n i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s u s i n g t h e exami n e r system where a p p e a l s o f h i s d e c i s i o n s may be made t o c o u n c i l o r t h e c o u r t s d i r e c t l y . The S e a t t l e s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , f a l l s s h o r t o f t h e n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a o f e f f i c i e n c y and e q u i t y as d o u b l e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and abuse o f t h e system by t h e a p p e l l a n t s , t h e i r 19 l a w y e r s and even t h e board members t h e m s e l v e s , i s e n a b l e d . A somewhat s i m i l a r t y p e o f abuse i s e v i d e n t i n t h e VBV system where t h e P l a n n i n g Department has been o b s e r v e d t o a c t q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y towards an appeal i t i s f a v o u r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o but has l a c k e d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o approve w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e Board, t h a n i t w i l l towards an appeal i t has s u b s t a n t i a l o b j e c t i o n s t o . While t h i s i s perhaps u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , i t do e s , however, encourage t h e Board t o t r e a t d i f f e r e n t a p p e l l a n t s d i f f e r e n t l y and t h u s c o u n t e r v e n e s t h e b e h a v i o u r promoted by t h e n o r m a t i v e model p r e s e n t e d . What i s t h e aver a g e l e n g t h o f t i m e t a k e n  t o p r o c e s s a s i m p l e v a r i a n c e a p p e a l ? T a b l e 8 compares r e l a t i v e l e n g t h s o f t i m e t a k e n t o o b t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s f o r v a r i a n c e a p p e a l s . F o r i l l u s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s a system o f p r o c e s s i n g v a r i a n c e s u s i n g t h e examiner system but e l i m i n a t i n g t h e f u r t h e r a p p e a l t o a b o a r d o f ad j u s t m e n t ( v a r i a n c e ) i s a l s o p r e s e n t e d . In both examiner systems a v a r i a n c e a p p l i c a t i o n may be made d i r e c t l y t o t h e a p p e l l a t e body w i t h o u t f i r s t h a v i n g t o o b t a i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f d e c i s i o n . T h i s i s i n - 157 -TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF OPTIMUM TIMES FOR SYSTEMS TO PROCESS VARIANCES VANCOUVER SEATTLE EXAMINER SYSTEM Department decision, Appeal to Board Notice of application H.E.decision Appeal to Board Notice of application, Dept.decision Appeal to H.E. Days Days Days 1. Application received 0 0 0 2. Time to verify, screen application, publish and mail notice. X 14 14 3. Notification/comment period. X1 30 14 4. Recommendation available X Yes X 5. Hearing held X Yes X 6. Decision making period X 14 10 7. Initial decision rendered SUB TOTAL: 28 (Dept. decision) 58 (Examiner decision) 38 (Dept. decision) 8. Appeal period 15 17 14 9. Final decision if not appealed SUBTOTAL: 43 75 52 10. Appeal hearing scheduled, notice mailed 21 21 5 11. Notification period X 14 14 12. Appeal hearing SUB TOTAL: 64 110 71 13. Notification X2 X X 14. Decision-making period X3 X3 14 15. Final administrative decision if appealed TOTAL: 64 days 110 days 85 days KEY: Dept. decision - Planning Department decision H.E. - Hearing Examiner Board - Board of Variance (Adjustment) 0 .Notice - Public notice mailed to properties, published in newspapers, etc. X1 - In conditional use Development Permit Applications notification may add 14 days minimum to the process. X - The Board may decide to notify and this may add an additional 14 days minimum to the process. X3 - Neither the Vancouver or Seattle Board is required to make decisions at the hearing, a decision may be laid over to a subsequent meeting thereby adding minimum 14 days to process. -158-contrast to the Vancouver system where a variance cannot be applied for until a decision is taken on a development permit by the Director of Planning or the DP Board. As can be seen in Table 8, the VBV is the most efficient of the three systems compared in terms of time required to reach a decision. The comparative example, however, uses the simplest of variance cases and assumes only a minimum of staff time in processing the application or appeal. In more complex cases where both the Planning Department and the Board wish to notify and the appeal decision is laid over, the actual processing time for a variance can be stretched to 106 days or longer. This is comparable to Seattle's existing Examiner-Board combination which really provides two separate hearing opportunities. FREEDOM FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE a) By what methods are decision-makers appointed to and removed from office? Membership to the VBV is determined by the provincial cabinet, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and the Council. Each legislature appoints two members and the chairman is appointed by a majority of the other members. Each member holds office for a three year term, with re-appointment for an unlimited number of successive terms a possibility. Removal from office is provided for but only to the extent of specifying the replacement be selected in the same manner as was his predecessor. The failure of the legislature to establish in writing the reasons or conditions under which a member could be replaced results in the inability of the Board to establish its independence from either legislature. This is perhaps done - 159 -purposefully as a reminder to the Board of its vulnerability to the displeasure of the local Council or the provincial Cabinet. The SHE system, on the other hand, is completely independent of either the local or state legislatures with the exception that appointment of the examiner is the responsibility of the Council. However, once appointed the examiner enjoys a degree of independence much akin to that of a true judicial appointment. Given that arms length independence is considered desirable, the SHE system then seems better able to meet the normative criteria than does the VBV system. Are administrative decisions reversible by bodies other than the judiciary? Matters which come before the VBV are the subject of limited judicial review, however no other body, either legislative or administrative, may alter or set aside its decisions. This differs from the SHE system quite significantly. Under that system final decisions of the Examiner are appealable to the Board of Variance. In cases where the Examiner only recommends a course of action to the legislature, the recommendation need not be followed as long as reasons for the divergence are explained in writing. Table 9 indicates the frequency with which the Seattle Board of Adjustment (Variance) overturned the decisions of the Hearing Examiner. Uf particular interest is the increase in the number of cases in which the Board overturned the recommendation of the Department and the decision of-the Examiner in the two year period. In addition, other decisions were also reversed, as two of the four Board decisions appealed to the Washington Superior Court were quashed during the same period. Table 9 also indicates that of those cases appealing - 160 -TABLE 9. SEATTLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISIONS Board of Adjustment Decision 1977 (%) 114 = 100% 1978 (%) 115 = 100% Agreed with DCD and Examiner Agreed with Examiner only Agreed with DCD only Did not agree with DCD or Examiner Action dismissed, withdrawn, etc. 64 (56%) 17 (15%) 16 (14%) 12 (10%) 5 (4%) 46 (40%) 17 (15%) 21 (18%) 27 (23%) 4 (3%) the decision of the Examiner (approximately 20% of the total cases heard by the examiner) the Board overturned between 29-37% of them. This duality of decision-making is not representative of the norma-tive criteria and seems to indicate either the Seattle Board's unwillingness to remain within the legislative standards provided i t , or of the manipulative advantage some participants take of a system encorporating two quasi-judicial hearings. c) Are appeals made directly to the decision-makers? In both systems i t is the decision-maker who holds the hearing and makes the decision about the appeal. However, under the Seattle system the Examiner also has the responsibility of conducting hearings of a legislative nature in which the final decision is taken by the Council. This decision is based on the record establi-shed at the Examiner's hearing, and only after consideration of the Examiner's recommendation. This arrangement has caused some concern that the Examiner system provides the politicians a shield behind which to hide when making contentious land use decisions. - 161 -Are provisions made to eliminate ex parte communications from the proceedings? Procedures established for or by the VBV make no explicit attempt to limit ex parte communication. Failure to limit this communication has not meant approval for one party to discuss the merits of a case without all other parties present, as this action would be subject to judicial review under the rules of natural justice. On the face of this matter such protection may seem entirely adequate to ensure all parties are treated equally. This in fact has been found not to be so as the Board system permits ex parte communication between the Secretary and the Board as already noted. On the other hand, the SHE makes a specific attempt to discour-age ex parte communication with the Examiner concerning the merits of a case and directs him to disclose for the record any prohibited communication should i t occur. 2 0 Provision is also made for the Examiner to disqualify himself, and for any party to fi l e an a f f i -davit stating that a fair and impartial hearing is not possible should the personal bias or prejudices of the Examiner be felt to 21 interfere with his judgment. While i t is realized that the mere inclusion of appropriate wording in the by-law cannot guarantee the elimination of ex parte communications taking place, to the extent that such wording would assist in this elimination, the closer the SHE system is to the normative model. This concludes the comparative analysis of the procedures established by the two administrative models. The next section - 162 -discusses the types of cases each system decides upon. 4.3 DECISIONAL PROBLEM INDICATORS Throughout the previous two chapters many of the traditional short-comings of the board of variance and the hearing examiner have been discussed but without making specific reference to the types of cases each contends with. Such an examination is now appropriate in order to become familiar with both the types of cases and the degree of decision deviation indicated when comparing final administrative and departmental decisions or recommendations. This study will not enable the assessment of the quality of the decisions taken, however i t should provide some explanation for the concerns expressed elsewhere about the operation of these systems. 4.3.1 Limitations Certain factors operate to reduce the opportunity to provide compatible information with which to directly compare the two administra-tive systems. These limitations stem from the different operating procedures and statistical data gathering techniques employed by each system. Both time and cost constraints have precluded the establishment of a directly compatible data base for this part of the investigation, however sufficient common information is available to enable some prelim-inary conclusions to be drawn about the problems the appeal bodies decisions may cause. Wherever appropriate the limitations of the data have been noted. - 163 -4.3.2 Decisions Considered Table 10 illustrates both the type and number of appeals to come before the Vancouver Board in the period 1977-80. During this time the VBV considered 11 appeals from decisions of the Development Permit Board. Although final decisions were not researched for this thesis, it may be speculated that i f all these appeals were granted, upwards of 3 million square feet of development deemed inappropriate or of unacceptable quality would have been permitted. This would occur even after a complex series of negotiations involving the City's highest level of profession-als including the Director of Planning, the City Engineer, and the Director of Social Planning. Decisions over developments at this scale and with all the attendant physical and environmental impacts do not appropriately f i t the intent of the legislated standards which the Board purports to follow. As well, such cases most certainly appear to exceed the scale originally deemed appropriate for consideration by similar boards comprised of members without specific related qualifications. Other types of significant decisions accorded the Board include relaxation of floor space ratio provisions and permitting development contrary to the permitted uses of a district schedule. These appear in rows 3 and 6 in Table 10. In the first instance many cases can be cited where a relaxation could properly be allowed without causing discomfort to a neighbouring property owner or damage to the by-law. Small relaxa-tions in single family residential zones are an example of where such power might be appropriate. However, with the advent of sophisticated methods of calculating, negotiating, and transferring buildable floor 77 areas on one site and to and from others, any decision made by the Board and involving such techniques would appear increasingly to be - 164 -TABLE 10. YEARLY COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF APPEALS CONSIDERED BY THE VANCOUVER BOARD OF VARIANCE 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total 1. Appeals concerning Director of Planning decisions: 117 127 106 105 455 2 . Appeals concerning Development Permit Board decisions: 5 1 3 2 11 3. Relaxation of floor space ratio provisions: 66 56 47 55 224 4. Renewal of previous appeals: 44 37 37 33 151 5. Relaxation of required yards, site area and site frontage requi rements: 56 48 34 43 181 6. Development contrary to the permitted uses of a District Schedule: 7 12 20 20 59 7. Non-conforming uses: 17 17 18 14 66 8. Height regulations: 7 4 11 15 37 9. Additional living accommo-dation in RS-1 Districts: 15 14 7 4 40 10. Additions to Multiple Conversion Dwellings: 13 5 6 14 38 11. Development contrary to parking and loading regulations: 12 28 5 8 53 12. Second principal building on an "R" site: 6 11 3 8 28 13. Building lines: 6 6 1 1 14 14. Miscellaneous Appeals: 10 7 6 6 29 TOTALS: 381 373 304 328 1,386 Source: After the Secretary to the Board of Variance, Annual Report 1980. - 165 -inappropriate in a professional sense as well as inequitable in a legal sense. As noted earlier, increasingly the Board will continue to fall short of what the professional planner might accomplish while at the same time, increasing the Board's capacity to do a disservice to the appellant, as DPB appeals generally cause the top officials to attend the hearing in person'. This demonstrates to the Board, in a not overly subtle way, the importance of the particular appeal. However, i t is impossible to calculate whether this "display of brass" influences the ultimate decision of the Board. Despite such difficulty i t is only realistic to recognize this possibility and to note the inequity which this may cause the appellant. The propensity of the Board to compound this inequity is also evident, as the broad standards provided and the failure to require reasoned decisions only invites abuse of either the individual's rights or the community's will. The other types of cases of interest in this discussion are those concerning the actual use the land or building. These uses take on three forms: a) conditional uses, b) development contrary to permitted uses, and c) legal uses which do not conform to the zoning by-law. While the total number of conditional use cases heard by the Board during the study period is not available because of missing data, i t is relevant that these type of applications, when combined with relaxations, comprised 20% of the cases heard by the Board in 1979 and 1980. This is significant given recognition that, even when settled on a case by case basis, the decisions themselves have the effect of either establishing new policy or destroying confidence in the existing policy. - 166 -The number of cases where the development contemplated is contrary to the permitted uses totalled 59 during the four year period. While this sum is perhaps not significant by itself, the ability to permit uses not otherwise allowed in a zone gives the Board the ability to interfere with established Council policy and thus to damage the integrity of the district schedule or by-law. It seems likely that possession of such power may also encourage appellants to approach the Board members in ex parte discussion. The total number of cases of non-conforming use to come before the Board was 66 during the period under consideration. This is not a significant portion of the total number of appeals heard. However, the appropriateness of even considering permitting the extension of the l i f e time of non-conforming uses must be called into querstion, especially given the VBV's tendency to extend these uses. In many other juris-dictions non-conforming uses are forced to convert to conforming ones after allowing the property-owner a minimum period of time in which to amortize his investment. In this manner actual land use is brought into harmony with the official plan or zoning map. Table 11 illustrates the type and number of appeals handled by the Seattle Hearing Examiner for 1979. Data compatible to that presented in Table 10 is not possible because of the different zoning procedures each jurisdiction follows. To a certain degree this difficulty has been overcome but only at a gross level of information. For example, during 1979 the VBV decided 304 cases (the lowest number of cases of the four year period), while the SHE decided 451 cases and heard but only made recommendations on 55 others. This figure represents the number of cases heard related to zoning matters; the Examiner actually heard some 617 cases in total during 1979. - 167 -TABLE 11. NUMBER OF APPEALS CONSIDERED BY THE SEATTLE HEARING EXAMINER 1979 Zoning and Land Use Proceedings 1. Variances 327 2. Administrative Conditional Uses 23 3. Variances and Administrative Conditional Uses 36 4. Special Exceptions 7 5. Withdrawals 5 6. Dismissals 10 Sub-Total: 408 Administrative Determinations (No Public Hearing) 7. Variance Extensions 32 Sub-Total: 440 Pike Place Market Historical Commission Appeals 8. Appeals heard ' 5 9. Dismissals 1 Sub-Total: 446 Landmark Preservation 10. Cases heard 1 11. Pending 6 TOTAL: 506 Source: After the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Annual Report, 1979. - 168 -Table 12 illustrates the type of decision (allow or deny appeal) made by the VBV. The relative consistency of decision-making between planning staff and the Board over the two years illustrated appears to be high i f measured in terms of cases allowed or disallowed. Overall, however, the VBV disagrees with the Director of Planning's decision in approximately 57% of the cases heard, while only agreeing with his decisions in 37.3% of the cases heard. Given such a wide discrepancy in the agreement between the Board and the Director i t is unclear how the Board makes its decisions. Furthermore, i t may be preferable for Council to either adopt policy more in line with the Board's views or provide the Board with more stringent standards and procedures to follow in reaching "their decisions. Evidence of the effect on the type of decision made after establishing more stringent standards and procedures is illustrated in Table 14. Here it is evident that decisions of the Examiner agreed with planning staff in 72% of the cases heard. This percentage of agree-ment becomes even greater (81%) i f the cases where the Examiner agreed with the staff decision but altered the conditions is considered. Other results of this Table are discussed after the VBV's 1979 to 1980 decisions (Table 13) are examined in detail. Firstly, in considering the overall distribution of cases shown in Table 13 i t is apparent that approximately one of every three appeals concerns a decision of the Director of Planning. Furthermore, approxi-mately the same proportion of cases involve the actual use of a particu-lar site or building, and appeals of bulk regulations comprise the last one-third of the appeals decided. It is also apparent that the greater proportion (20%) of Director of Planning appeals are related to relax-ations and conditional uses. These appeals generally stem from the - 169 -TABLE 12. TYPE OF DECISION GIVEN BY THE VANCOUVER BOARD OF VARIANCE DURING 1979 AND 1980 Allowed — No Conditions Allowed — Subject to Conditions Allowed — Limited in time but without prejudice to the filing of a further appeal Allowed -- Limited in time - Final Allowed — Subject to a bond, agreement or undertaking Disallowed Withdrawn or no action taken GRAND TOTAL: 1979 % of Grand Total Total 1979 69 22.7% 51 16.8% 47 15.4% 7 2.3% 1 0-3%_ 109 35.9% 20 6.6% 304 100.0% 1980 % of Grand Total Total 1980 84 25.6% 47 14.3% 46 14.1% 3 0.9% 5 1.5%_ 127 38.7% 16 4.9% 328 100.0% Source: After the Secretary to the Board of Variance, Vancouver. TABLE 13. CLASSIFICATION OF APPEALS CONSIDERED IN 1979 AND 1980 - VANCOUVER BOARD OF VARIANCE NATURE UF APPEAL Withdrawn or no a c t i o n taken A L L O W E D U i s -Al lowed l o t a Is % of Grand Total No Subject t o L i m i t e d C o n d i t i o n s C o n d i t i o n s i n Time Sub-Total l . Appeals c o n c e r n i n g D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s : a) R e l a x a t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n a l uses. 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980 19/9 1980 1979 1980 5 2 9 6 5 11 5 4 19 21 37 44 61 67 20.1 20.4 b) Board of Varia n c e approval r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o t he issu a n c e of a Development Permit. 0 0 17 10 1 1 1 4 19 15 0 1 19 16 6.2 4.9 c) l - i led by adjacent p r o p e r t y owners. 4 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 a 14 17 19 5.6- 5.8 d j Conversions 2 d 2 1 1 0 1 6 4 1 3 2 9 3 3.0 0.9 Sub-lota 1s 2. Appeals c o n c e r n i n g Development Permit Board d e c i s i o n s : i. R e l a x a t i o n of f l o o r space r a t i o and s i t e coverage p r o v i s i o n s : 4. Renewal of p r e v i o u s appeals - 1979 1980 L i v i n g Accomm. 17 14 Others 20 19 Total "37 "33 t>. R e l a x a t i o n of r e q u i r e d y a r d s , setbacks and s i t e a r e a s : t). Development c o n t r a r y t o the pe r m i t t e d uses of a D i s t r i c t Schedule: 7. Non-conforming uses: a. Height R e g u l a t i o n s : 9. A d d i t i o n a l L i v i n g Accomm. i n RS-1 D i s t r i c t s : i u . A d d i t i o n s t o M u l t i p l e Conversion D w e l l i n g s : 11. Development c o n t r a r y t o p a r k i n g and l o a d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s : 12. Second p r i n c i p a l b u i l d i n g on an "R" s i t e : 13. M i s c e l l a n e o u s Appeals: TOTALS: 11 5 28 19 9 12 7 8 44 39 51 61 106 10b 34.9 32.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 1.0 0.6 0 2 12 18 13 10 1 1 26 29 21 24 47 55 15.4 16.8 0 0 0 0 U 1 37 32 37 33 0 0 37 33 12.2 10.1 2 1 11 18 14 14 0 1 25 33 7 10 34 44 11.2 13.4 1 1 3 3 6 2 4 4 13 9 6 10 20 20 6.6 6.1 0 1 4 9 4 1 5 2 13 12 5 1 18 14 5.9 4.3 1 1 3 7 1 0 0 0 4 7 6 7 11 15 3.6 4.6 2 0 2 0 1 ' 0 0 1 3 1 2 3 7 4 2.3 1.2 1 2 3 5 0 2 0 0 3 7 2 5 6 14 2.0 4.3 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 4 2 3 5 8 1.6 2.4 0 1 0 U 2 6 0 0 2 6 1 1 3 8 1.0 2.4 0 1 2 3 1 2: 0 0 3 5 4 0 7 6 2.3 1.8 20 16 69 84 52 52 54 49 209 185 109 127 304 328 100.0 100.0 discretionary powers accorded to the Director and for which no special guidelines have been provided to assist the VBV in their decision-making. Regarding appeals from the decision of the Director, the Board is disposed to grant, on average, approximately one-third of the relaxation and conditional use cases i t hears. These cases are often the subject of discreet Council policy, the validity of which becomes questionable when the Board, on a case by case basis, is undermining the policy with its decisions. Such has been the case with the City's policy to allow residential development on thin lots subject to reduced bulk requirements and consideration of the design on the existing neighbourhood. Since Council adopted this policy, every permit issued by the Director has been appealed by neighbouring property-owners to the'VBV, which has quashed the approval, thereby rendering Council's policy wholely ineffective. The same section of Table 13 also shows that while the Board heard an average of 18 appeals filed by adjacent neighbours i t only allowed appeals in 2 cases. This certainly seems to deny the generally held fear that a board of variance acts for the most part as the purveyor of the neighbourhood's wishes. It may instead indicate a strong belief by this Board that a land-owner should be able to do as he pleases with his property regardles of what effect that may have on his neighbours. The second point to be made is that both the percentage of appeals originating from the Development Permit Board and the percentage of Development Permit Board appeals granted has been very small in the past. In fact, during the 1979-80 term no Development Permit Board appeals were granted at a l l . These figures, however, belie the important fact that when the VBV is considering such an appeal i t may be to permit construc-- 172 -tion of a 600,000 square foot office tower which according to the best qualified city officials does not meet the established regulations or discretionary guidelines of development. Again, the legislation provides no special guidelines for the Board and it's members have no special qualifications to help in the decision-making. On the other hand, the legislature insists the professional staff have both the qualifications and guidelines placed upon their discretionary authority to act as controls in their decision-making. The third observation is that the VBV approves more than 50% of the appeals to relax allowable FSR and site coverage requirements. Such behaviour permits one builder to construct a larger square footage than another builder similarly situated unless adequate standards are provided for guidance. The impact in such cases cannot be estimated as figures detailing the zone in which the relaxation took place and the extent of the relaxation granted (i.e., was the FSR allowed to double?) have not been collected for this study. Overall, between 20-28% of all cases heard by the Board concern relaxations of bulk regulations and the Board grants approximately 60% of these appeals. 2 3 A fourth observation relates to the Board's performance in consider-ing the renewal of previous appeals. The Board,, in 80% of those cases granted the appeal thereby permitting not only the continuation of illegal living accommodations but also perpetuation of various other types of limited time cases which presumably include contrary and non-conforming use appeals as well. It is apparent that when the Board says "appeal allowed for a limited period of time", i t is really saying "appeal allowed indefinitely". - 173 -A fifth observation to be made relates to the column of "uses contrary to those normally permitted". Of this category the VBV denied or did not take action on 45% of the appeals filed. This means an average of 11 contrary uses have been permitted to establish each year by the Board. It also means the Board follows its own conscience in deciding these cases, as neither the Charter nor the Board's by-law provide guidance for such cases. It can also be noted that the Board is favourably disposed towards granting appeals concerning non-conforming uses. During the two year period 32 non-conforming cases were heard and only 6 were denied. This information must also be considered with the fact that of the 25 appeals granted only 7 were for a limited period of time. In granting these appeals the Board passed up the opportunity to increase the uniformity and certainty of the by-law, and in fact allowed 18 new non-conforming uses without providing the opportunity to review the suitability of those uses at some future time. Both of these actions appear to run contrary to good planning principles and to the intent of the zoning by-law. While direct comparisons of the types of appeals each jurisdiction considers is made difficult because of differing administrative proced-ures, i t is, however, possible to compare in a limited fashion the decisions made by the Board and the Examiner. This data is presented in Table 14. - 174 -TABLE 14. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPEAL BODY DECISION AND DEPARTMENTAL DECISION/RECOMMENDATIONS APPEAL BODY DECISIONS Vancouver Board Seattle Examiner For 1978 Number of Cases Percent of Total Number of Cases Percent of Total Upheld DoP/DCD Decision/ Recommendations 107 40 416 72 Upheld by altered conditions N/A - 51 9 Reversed DOP/DCD Decision/ Recommendation 69 26 91 16 Reversed subject to conditions 69 26 N/A -Withdrawn, dismissed or missing data 20 8 21 3 TOTAL: 269 100% 579 100% KEY: DoP = Director of Planning (Vancouver) DCD = Department of Community Development (Seattle) N/A = Information Not Available Source: (After LUATF Report No.2.) Examination of this table indicates there is a large difference in the frequency with which staff decisions are upheld by the respective appeal bodies. In Vancouver, the VBV only upheld the staff decision in 40% of the cases, while in Seattle the SHE agreed with the staff in 72% of the cases. As the types of cases considered by these bodies (compare Tables 10 and 11) and the purposes of administration are similar, the procedures established to guide the appeal process must then account for a large part of the deviation. This suggests that within the Seattle jurisdiction policy development is more advanced and comprehensive than in Vancouver and that the finding and reason requirements imposed on the Examiner by the judiciary has forced a change in the unstated purpose of the hearing. Whereas appeals were often based on emotional pleas stem-ming from situations having l i t t l e to do with the standards provided for the granting of a variance, the new procedures tend to remove this - 175 -emotional component. Under the new procedures, decision-making is confined to the established standards by requiring reasons for decisions to be given in writing, thereby making emotional pleas inappropriate to a quasi-administrative hearing. This does not necessarily preclude emotional appeals in land use decisions entirely, but it does attempt to remove it from the administrative level and confine it to the legislature where perceived inequalities and personal preferences can be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Correspondingly, i t is also observed that the Examiner reverses the planning staff's recommendations much less frequently (16%) than does the Board (52%). This may be attributed to the wealth of policy and the exactitude of procedure inherent in the Seattle system or the lack of the same in the Vancouver jurisdiction. Regardless, this difference allows the Board to follow it's own conscience freely, often to the detriment of policy or the individual who is expecting to be treated in the same manner as others similarly situated, or both. It is necessary now to draw some conclusions about the two systems based on the observations presented in sections 4.2 and 4.3. This discussion is followed by a brief assessment of each system's applica-bility to the Vancouver jurisdiction. 4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS From the comparison of each administration's procedures it can be concluded that: - 176 -the formal procedures established in the Examiner system are more likely to ensure the involvement of all interested parties as well as increase the awareness of legal rights and obliga-tions to be met at the hearing i f a variance is to be properly granted; the Board needs stricter rules of impartiality i f hearings are to meet the requirement they not only be fair but have the appearance of fairness; precedence as a tool to ensure consistency and equity in decision-making does not unduly constrain decision-making flexibility; failure to require reasons for decisions be given in writing and to make an adequate record of the hearing are major sources of encouragement for the Board to ignore the legislative standards provided it and to overturn over 50% of the Planning Department's decisions when appealed; the tolerant attitude of the Canadian public regarding the operation of government and the conservative attitude of the Canadian judiciary has encouraged local legislators to perpetuate the use of standards and procedures which neither best serve modern zoning techniques, recent technological change in the construction industry nor the rights of the individual; it is inappropriate for the Board to contravene existing policy without having to divulge reasons for doing so, or for the Board to establish new policy through consideration of a specific circumstance on a case by case basis; and - 177 -g) the Board is too open to the vulgarities of political influence both in the method of determining membership and in limiting ex parte communications. Additionally, it may be concluded from the examination of the types of cases.considered by the appellate bodies that: h) as the Board lacks a direct accountability to the legislature, it should not hear cases concerning the use of the land or building but should be confined to cases concerning appeals of bulk regulations; i) the substitution of unqualified opinion for that of qualified opinion is neither the best way to serve the individual's rights or the public's interest and therefore the Board should not hear appeals from the Development Permit Board; j) the Board hears cases i t need not hear as they could more easily and quickly be disposed of at the staff level; k) the Board's role, as reflected in the frequency of disagreement with staff decisions, is primarily to protect the individual property-owner's rights and therefore only poorly represents a wider range of the public interest; and_ 1) under the Examiner system emotional appeals are seen more properly as part of the legislative rather than administrative process. From the conclusions, i t is apparent that even without presenting substantive evidence of wrongdoing by the Board, procedurally there are many grounds for concern that this form of administration does not meet the demands generated by an increasingly complex, sophisticated and - 178 -discretionary system of zoning. It is also evident from the investigation that the examiner system adequately meets the American judiciary's newly imposed requirements for administrative hearings, and therefore has improved the system of zoning administration used in Seattle. It is, however, evident the Seattle system would not easily be transferable to the Vancouver setting. Transfer is prevented because of several factors, including: a) a system of zoning based on discretionary authority and development permission rather than regulation; b) a lack of a sufficient policy base from which an examiner could justify his decisions; c) a conservative judiciary which does not easily substitute its opinion on substantive planning matters for that of the administrative tribunal's; d) a strong sense of public trust that lay tribunals and public servants will not misuse the powers given them; and conversely that e) a lack of belief that adherence to strict legal procedure will prevent the misuse of administrative powers. The inability to transfer the Seattle Examiner system to the Vancouver setting despite its apparent appropriateness for solving identified administrative problems there, creates a situation where the existing tribunal system itself must be altered to more closely reflect the normative administrative model. This is the subject of discussion in the next chapter. - 179 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER IV 1. City of Vancouver, Board of Variance By-law, No. 3844, Vancouver: May 1960, Section 9(3). 2. City of Vancouver, 1960. 3. Province of British Columbia, Vancouver Charter, R.S.C., Victoria: September 1976, section 572(4). 4. M. Gram, "The Vancouver City Board of Variance" (paper submitted for the requirements of Planning 500, UBC, School of Community and Regional Planning), (Vancouver: March, 1981), p.38. 5. M. Gram, 1981. 6. City of Seattle, "Hearing Examiner Appeal Rules", 1979. 7. J. Dukeminier, Jr., and C. Stapleton, "The Zoning Board of Adjustment: A Case Study in Misrule, Kentucky Law Journal, vol. 50 (1961-62). 8. M. Gram, 1981. 9. R. Babcock, "Mr. Commissioner, Are You Prepared for Cross-Examination", Institute on Planning and Zoning, (Dallas: S. W. Legal Foundation, 1962), p.160. 10. Under the Municipal Act the hearing need not be public. 11. Some appeals pertaining to special districts in Seattle have differing requirements. 12. The appeal form is contained in Appendix II. 13. City of Seattle, "Hearing Examiner Appeal Rules", 1979. - 180 -14. Confidential personal communication. 15. This refers to lot sizes of 4,800 square feet or larger. 16. Bird and Oliver v. Board of Variance, City of Vancouver. (Vancouver S.C. #A802083). Unreported. 17. All figures are given in Canadian funds calculated at $1.20 = $1.00 (U.S.) 18. See Chapter II, section 2.3.1. 19. Both R. Titus (1971) and the Secretary to Seattle's Board of Adjust-ment recognize that lawyers sometimes withhold information from the Examiner to present to the Board and that the Board, with Council's approval, ignores its standards in order to act as a Court of Petit Equity. 20. City of Seattle, "Hearing Examiner Appeal Rules", (Seattle, Office of the Hearing Examiner: February, 1979) (mimeographed) p.4. 21. City of Seattle, "Zoning Rules", (Seattle, Office of the Hearing Examiner: July, 1979) (mimeographed) p.7. 22. L. Richards, "Transfer of Development Potential in the City of Vancouver", (Vancouver: Daon Development Corporation, September 1981) (mimeographed). 23. This includes height, yards, setbacks, floor space ratio and site coverage categories. - 181 -CHAPTER V IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF ZONING Previous discussion identified two important findings regarding the administrative systems examined. These findings were, 1) as a system of zoning administration the Vancouver Board of Variance exhibits several major shortcomings in its current operation, and, 2) fundamental differences in the theoretical socio-political framework of the two countries has resulted in development of divergent systems of land use administration and prevents the importation of the Seattle Examiner system to the Vancouver setting as a means to resolve identified shortcomings. The inability to resolve these problems in this manner supports Weaver and Babcock's suggestion there is l i t t l e hope for the adoption of radical change in land use decision-making and, therefore, more attention should be paid to analyzing and correcting specific known problems of the administrative system already in place.1 Past attempts to reform zoning administration have been generally aimed in one of two directions - either to "de-politicize" zoning, so professional bureaucrats administer in an objective manner, or to "democratize" the admini-strative system so it becomes understandable, fair, and open to all legitimate interests. While many of the problems inherent in administration could be resolved by pursuing solutions along either of these paths, each is not without its own difficulties. Reform has been held up despite a concensus that guidance in land use decision-making ought to be from someone more knowledgeable than an elected politician and more accountable than a political appointee but more sensitive than a hired bureaucrat. This hold-up has resulted in the contin-uation of zoning on the basis of influence and politics, a situation noted to - 182 -suit everyone involved. The inability of reformers to decide whether zoning should be a political or a professional process has also resulted in continued 2 reliance on the lay board. The delay in reform, accompanied by the increasing complexity of the zoning process and the ever changing demands of a dynamic society have contri-buted to the inability to derive the maximum benefits from modern zoning. Any suggestion that the development of stricter or more precise legislative standards or the removal of discretionary authority will solve once and for all the administrative problems discussed in this thesis should be discounted. The problems, as illustrated previously, are no longer so simple as to be solved with solutions which only address single issues or elements of the zoning process. An effective solution to these i l l s must involve elements from each of the problem areas. Adjustments must be made to the zoning process, to procedures used by the Board, and to the way in which the Board's decisions relate to adopted plans and policies. One solution which adopts this wide ranging approach to the reform of zoning administration as currently practiced in the City of Vancouver is presented below. Following a discussion in which recommendations for change are made, several conclusions are drawn from the study undertaken. The chapter then concludes with a brief discussion on possible directions further investigations in the field of zoning admini-stration could take. 5.1 Administrative Process Reform The purpose of recommendations made pertaining to the administra-tive process are to ensure the Board only considers those cases for which appropriate standards have been provided, to ensure provision for adequate - 183 -review of the Board's decisions, and to promote expeditious decision-making on the part of the Board. The following recommendations are made with the intention of accomplishing these purposes. RECOMMENDATION 1: Eliminate from the Board of Variance's jurisdiction those appeals concerning the use of either land or structures. This recommendation is considered essential to the improved operation of the Board and may not be as drastic as it first seems. This contention is made because after the faithful application of the legislative standards of hardship, unique circumstance, and preservation of the official plan, i t is only the rarest of use cases which can be justified. In order to maintain the sense of equity necessary to a quasi-judicial process, appeal on questions of use should be directed to 3 the legislative branch thereby forcing the property owner or developer to seek amendments to the by-law (rezone) through the local council. This adjustment has the benefit of retaining the policy formulation function for the legislature. Additionally, it relieves the Board of the temptation to embark upon policy setting voyages, grounding it instead to a' role of issuing bulk variances in cases where physical or topographical conditions restrict the development of a property to a level comparable to other properties similarly situated. Implementation of this recommend-ation would require amendment to the Vancouver Charter. RECOMMENDATION 2: Reduce the types of cases the Board of Variance hears. Currently the Board hears several types of cases from appellants who have been required to go through two lengthy administrative processes - 184 -(the DP process, then the variance process) to obtain permission to do something which is virtually never denied by the Board or to do something which, as a matter of City policy, is considered highly desirable and other wise encouraged (e.g., rehabilitation of existing housing stock). Variance appeals in these cases are required because the Zoning and Development By-law has not made specific provision for them and does not have the flexibility to handle the proposal in a discretionary fashion. It is recommended that appeals for variances to permit development such as over-height fences and over-size decks, where the variance sought is less than 10% in excess of the height or area permitted under the by-law, or relaxation of yard requirements for existing buildings be approved at the department level. This would permit the applicant a variance without requiring the formality of a hearing before the Board. The procedure would thus permit the Planning Department to administer one set of regulations to which an individual is entitled as a right, another set entitled as a priviledge, and a third set entitled astan exception. Implementation of this recommendation would be through amendment to the City's Zoning and Development By-law, and would s t i l l require that the case be made before the variance was, granted. RECOffOTENDATIOH 3: Change the public hearing requirement from required to discretionary in certain circumstances. Variance proceedings are of such similarity, regardless of the nature of the appeal, that the Board is required to expend inordinate amounts of time on cases having l i t t l e or no significance. While i t is commendable to treat appeals for a minor variance in the same manner as appeals for a conditional use, i t would be possible to forego the - 185 -public hearing requirement for certain types of uncontested appeals as long as effective legislative standards are adopted and adhered to. Changes to the present notification procedures used by the Board would also be required so that neighbourhood notification was a condition of every appeal. This is further discussed later in the chapter. Examples of types of appeals that might not require a public hearing (in all cases) are: a) relaxations of required yards, site area or site frontage requirements, b) renewals of previous appeals, c) non-conforming uses, d) second principal building on a residential site, and e) additional living accommodation in a single family (RS-1) district. While such a discretionary system is open to abuse, i t is felt this could be controlled simply by restricting such discretionary hearings to those cases located in single family residential districts should this become a problem. A proper determination of the feasibility of this recommendation, however, cannot be made with the information available from this thesis. Prior to implementing any such modification, it is suggested that research be conducted to determine exactly what proportion of appeals in the suggested categories eminate from the RS-1 district and what, i f any, time and/or cost savings would be engendered by such a change. To some observers, this recommendation may seem excessive in its pursuit of administrative efficiency. Increased efficiency however, is not the only benefit to be derived. It will also be instrumental in - 186 -diverting many of the unfounded and highly emotional appeals that currently tempt the Board to step beyond the rule of law to the political legislative arena where they can be more properly be dealt with as a matter of policy. In this manner Council will be able to decide for itself whether or not, and under what condition, a suite may be added to a single family dwelling for example. And once this policy was esta-blished there would be no need for the Board to hear such cases, thus circumventing the detrimental situation of having the Board's decision contravening Council policy. Amendments to both the City Charter and the Board of Variance By-law would be required to implement this recommend-ation. RECOWHEMDATION 4: Establish a citizens' advisory committee to provide a policy overview of variance decisions for City Council. Increasingly, the appropriate role of citizen boards in the Vancouver jurisdiction has been perceived by Council to be of an advisory rather than decision-making capacity. To carry this trend further i t is recommended later in the chapter that qualifications of Board membership be substantially altered and, concomitant to that change, a citizen advisory group be established to report directly to Council on the policy implications of decisions taken in variance cases. The creation of such a watchdog committee has, i t appears, several benefits. Not only could such a committee identify gaps in the City's existing policy framework, it could also provide a sense of accountability currently missing in the relationship between the Council and the Board. At the same time it would permit a revised Board to maintain its arms length independence from the legislative branch. - 187 -While i t is no longer thought appropriate to use a purely politi-cally appointed and potentially unqualified citizen board as an appeal mechanism for administrative decisions, i t is recognized that a citizen overview of variance decisions is needed to review decisions of the administration for consistency with City policy. Presently this function is only informally carried out by Planning Department staff. The exact nature of the activities of this type of committee have been suggested elsewhere . Membership on this advisory committee could be derived from a selection of chairmen of local area planning committees and representa-tives from the Vancouver Real Estate Board, the local chapters of the Urban Land Institute and Apartment Owners' Association, and the Vancouver Board of Trade. Further adjustments to the composition of this body "could be left to the discretion of Council. Implementation would require terms of reference to be drawn up for the new group and adopted by Council. The committee should report directly to Council's Standing Committee on Planning and Development not less than once a year. RECOMMENDATION 5: Permit wider judicial review of individual variance appeal cases. Discretionary power, whether in the hands of the contemporary admini-strator or the caliph of the Arabian Nights, tends by its very nature to be arbitrary unless stringent control is exercised to ensure the discre-tion conforms with the general tenor and policy established by the Statute 5 and is used for a proper purpose. Various means of increasing control of administrative tribunals have been suggested and include: a) creating a state (or province) wide agency to which appeals of local variance decisions could be made,6 - 188 -b) detailing more judicial -1 ike procedures and requiring written decisions be given by the board7, and c) developing criteria for recurrent types of variance cases to g replace the traditional standards provided by the legislature. Each one of these suggestions represents a different type of poss-ible control mechanism - administrative, judicial, and legislative, and while each has perhaps some merit for other jurisdictions, closer examin-ation will show their difficulties in being adapted to Vancouver. For * example, the first suggestion does not account for the uniqueness of the zoning system in Vancouver when compared to the level of sophistication of zoning found in the rest of the province. As well, other provincial boards of variance already cannot consider use cases and therefore generate l i t t l e demand for a provincial administrative appeal agency. The second suggestion, while having merit for the particular situation, can only control procedural abuses, and does not address abuses stemming from discretionary policy. In fact, there is even disagreement about how g best to obtain this control, with some observers believing the judiciary should replace the doctrine of natural justice with the doctrine of procedural fairness. It appears, however, the Canadian courts have been slow to break away from the traditional approach. One possible reason for this is the fear that adoption of the new doctrine will lead to ad hoc decision-making and the loss of certainty that adherence to the rule of law presently encourages.10 The problem then remains, how might the judiciary be encouraged to control administrative discretionary power when to do so appears to undermine the very theoretical basis of our administrative law? One way, - 189 -which avoids this problem and may prove effective i f implemented, is to incorporate discretionary policy statements into the official development plan, thereby constraining the decision flexibility of the Board by opening up appeal to the judiciary on grounds the Board exceeded its jurisdiction. This change would not permit such a searching review of policy as is available to the American judiciary. It would, however, restrict the decisions of the Board in cases where specific policy is protected by the official plan, by permitting the courts a wider range of review than is currently possible. An additional advantage afforded this type of judicial review is that i t does not require the courts to rule on the merits of a case. It thus avoids the problem of having one unqualified body substituting its opinion for that of another. It also affords the legislature (i.e., the local council) the opportunity to determine which of its policies it does not want exceptions made. Implementation of this recommendation would require Council initiative in determining what existing policy should be protected and where new policy needs to be developed. Additionally, the City Charter may have to be amended to redefine the meaning of "official development plan". ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD REFORM The purpose of the recommendations made pertaining to the composi-tion of the Board and qualifications of its members is to ensure the Board has some concept of its jurisdiction and some claim to relevant expertise so that its decisions are accorded the respect necessary to gain the acceptability of the individual appellant and ultimately of the wider community. For the Board of Variance to accomplish this the following reforms are suggested. - 190 -RECOMMENDATION 6: As a basic consideration of appointment to the Board of Variance, a person possess special knowledge or experience in at least one of the following fields: construction, business and commercial needs, architecture and urban design, urban engineering, or urban planning. Inherent in this recommendation is the notion that the board of variance, as a kind of "dusty boots" court in which common sense justice is dispensed by one's friends and neighbours, is no longer attainable in a system of zoning administration which is continually increasing in its complexity and sophistication. The recommendation also follows from the premise that it is undesirable to compel a group of non-experts to substitute subjective opinion for that of highly qualified professional planning staff. Primarily this situation occurs where appeals stem from professional disagreements between appellants and staff caused by the flexibility of the zoning controls used in several of the higher zoned districts in Vancouver (e.g., False Creek Comprehensive Development District, Downtown District and West End District). The intent of the recommendation is to recognize that the current method of Board appointment is a failure as a means to provide the Board with the impartiality an adjudicatory body requires. 1 1 This occurs despite the fact membership is supposed to represent the majority view or the majority interest of a community. The recommendation is also intended to allow the Board to use its own knowledge of particular circumstance in deciding an appeal. If a board has qualifications or expertise and can demonstrate those qualities, the decisions i t reaches might be acceptable to the appellant without the provision of reasons of - 191 -explanation. However, where the board merely presumes on its own to have expertise, decisions are more likely to require explanation. Further, the imposition of a qualification requirement should not be considered as unusual. It was most certainly the intent of the earliest zoning administrators that the appeal board be comprised of members with specific knowledge or expertise and this is amply demonstrated in New 13 York City's first Board of Standards. The expertise qualification was lost as zoning controls moved out into the smaller cities and towns of North America where such experts were not so readily available to serve on the local board. One difficulty of imposing a qualification requirement is the Board could then be criticized for becoming so professional as to become singleminded in its pursuit of regulation. Presumably this criticism would occur at the expense of sacrificing decisional flexibility, procedural fairness, and the possibility of making an emotional appeal available under the current system. The elimination of emotional appeal from administrative hearings i s , however, not viewed as undesirable as long as another outlet for this expression is provided. This is the subject of further discussion in these recommendations. Regarding the potential for singlemindedness inherent in any proposal for professionalization, this possibility is unlikely i f the administrative process is open to judicial review. The means of encouraging just such a review has been discussed as part of the first section in this chapter. Another means of reducing the potential for the Board to reflect only one point of view would be to limit appointments to the Board by type of qualification. In this manner the presence of a diversity of qualifications on the Board could at all - 192 -times be assured and the possibility of a Board comprised of all planners or all engineers permanently avoided. To implement this recommendation specific qualification details would have to be added to the Vancouver Charter. RECOWEHMTIOM 7: Members of the Board of Variance should be appointed for a limited number of years and re-appointment should not be permitted. Members should also have the responsibility of attending meetings. The purpose of this recommendation is to reduce the potential of the Member to establish personal relationships with the regulated parties or *the administrative staff. Limiting the term of membership not only reduces the likelihood of political interference and ex parte behaviour interfering with matters before the Board, it also increases the appear-ance of fairness with which the Board is viewed. This change could be brought about through Charter amendment and i t is suggested membership be limited to six years. It should go without saying that once Board appointment is accepted, the Member should attend the meetings unless there is good reason. While it is not intended to make membership onerous, some provision is necessary to encourage this attendance even i f it is only requiring the Member to seek formal permission of the Chairman for absence. A condition of membership could be attendance unless so excused. A Charter amendment would be required to implement this condition. - 193 -RECOMMENDATION 8 : The Chairman of the Board of Variance must have a legal background, demonstrate possession of a judicial temperament, and be appointed jointly by the Province and the City. To burden the legally unskilled Board members with requirements concerning the strict rules of judicial procedure or the technical rules of evidence would be both cumbersome and impractical. Yet, observation of the Board on numerous occasions indicate the need to take some measure to ensure the rights of the appellant are protected at the hearing. One expert perceives this is a problem with the tribunal system in general and suggests: "To require adherence to some basic rules of evidence would not seem to inhibit or interfere with the board's discretion. In fact, i t would appear that this might better aid the board in reaching valid and fair determinations...." 14 The failure to require that at least one member of the tribunal have legal training is one of the reasons preventing the introduction of procedural reforms to address the identified shortcomings. Requiring legal qualification of the Chairman would seem to be a logical step, as he is the one responsible for conducting the hearing and ensuring justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. The recommendation that the Chairman have a demonstrated judicial temperament is made in the belief that this quality will improve the degree of impartiality with which the Board is regarded by those before i t . The chairman, like a judge, must "stand apart from the tensions of the immediate case and mitigate the enthusiasm of the expert with the 15 community's sense of justice". Several qualities thought to contribute - 194 -to the development of this temperament were outlined in an examination of local boards of appeal and bear repeating here: "1. Fact consciousness - an insistence upon getting the facts, checking their accuracy, and sloughing off the element of conclusion and opinion, 2. A sense of relevance - the capacity to recognize what is relevant to the issue at hand and to cut away irrelevant facts, opinion, and emotions which can cloud the issue, 3. Comprehensiveness - the capacity to see all sides of a problem, all factors that bear upon i t , and all possible ways of approaching i t , 4. Foresight - the capacity to take the long view, to anticipate remote and collateral consequences, 5. Lingual sophistication - an immunity to being fooled by words and catch phrases; a refusal to accept verbal solutions which merely conceal the problem, 6. Precision and persuasiveness of speech - that mastery of language that involves a) the ability to state exactly what one means... and b) the ability to reach other men with one's own thoughts... and 7. pervading all the rest, and possibly the only one that is really basic, self-disci piine in habits and thoroughness, an abhorrence of superficiality and approximation."16 The current method by which the Chairman is appointed usurps the authority of both local and provincial legislatures. Appointment to this most important position should not be left to personal preferences of the other appointees and it is therefore recommended the Chairman be appointed jointly by Council's Standing Committee of Planning and Develop-- 195 -ment and by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Through this joint appointment better acceptance of the Board's decisions should be enabled. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL REFORM The reluctance of the Canadian courts to replace the rules of natural justice with a procedural doctrine akin to that of either due process or the recently developed concept of procedural fairness has left a gap in the judicial control of the administrative process. It seems evident that with the increasing potential for serious consequence to either the individual or the general public stemming from Board decisions, that the activities occurring there should be guided by a set of procedural steps ensuring the fair treatment of a l l . However, defining what constitutes fairness is difficult: "like defining an elephant, i t is not easy to do although fairness in practice has the elephantile quality of being easy to recognize." 1 7 The purpose of recommendations made in this section is to assist the Board of Variance in that recog-nition. RECOMMENDATION 9: Modify the procedures and operation of the Board of Variance so that: a) the appeal form used to f i l e an appeal indicates the standards or'grounds upon which decision-making is to take place and the requirements and limitations of any further appeal, b) i t is required to give public notice for the hearings of all appeals and to all registered local groups when specific cases having relevance to their interest or jurisdiction are considered, - 196 -a pamphlet detailing the procedures of the Board of Variance, the format of the hearing and the rights of individual in dealing with the Board is provided, prior to the hearing a party may have the opportunity to examine any information to be presented for the record, the Chairman has the power to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid unnecessary delay and take all necessary action, and to maintain order. These powers should include, but not be limited to: (i (ii ( i i i (iv (v (vi (vi i (viii seek clarification of the case at hand, permit testimony from non-parties, administer oaths, issue subpeonas, rule on the relevancy of proof offered, receive evidence, set time 1imits, and render decisions at the hearing or a subsequent meeting. rules setting out and limiting ex parte communications between Board members and any interested party are made in writing, and upon the timely request of any party, a decision of the Board of Variance be required to be given in writing and include the following elements: (i) findings of fact as based on the evidence presented and the points raised at the hearing, (ii) conclusions of law where relevant and the reasons and precedents relied upon, and - 197 -( i i i ) a determination as based on consideration of the record as a whole and supported by the evidence. Each of these elements is discussed in some detail below. Appeal Form This form should be designed to discourage the filing of frivolous appeals. This can be accomplished by directing the appellant to cite not only the section under which the appeal is based, but also the grounds under which relief is sought. Both the jurisdiction of the Board and grounds upon which variances may be granted should be printed clearly on the form. This form should also include information regarding the requirements and limitations stemming from a request for judicial review of the Board of Variance hearing. In this manner the variance appellant clearly knows in advance both the case to be met and the factors limiting subsequent judicial review (i.e., appeal on points of law and rules of natural justice). This enables preparation of the case and the oppor-tunity to request the decision in writing i f this is thought to be of assistance should subsequent judicial appeal be contemplated. Notice The purpose of procedural reform should not be to limit the role of the decision-maker nor to eliminate political influence from the admini-strative process for this will prove as elusive as "trying to hold quick-i e silver in a ski glove". The most effective procedural reforms therefore, are ones which maximize the opportunity for legitimate, informed partici-pation in the process. To that end i t is recommended the Board of Variance change its present practice of discretionary notification so that notification is served on all appeals made to the Board. In moving to this mandatory system it should be kept in mind that previous recom-- 198 -mendations, i f followed, would substantially reduce the number of appeals the Board would receive and therefore allow more time for the notifica-tion process. It is recommended that notice be given to all registered property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the site and that a minimum of two placards be placed at or nearby the site. Additionally, the address, nature of all appeals, time, date and location of the hearing, and the name of the person to contact for further information, should be published in a daily newspaper in advance of the hearing. Some or all of these procedures need not, however, apply to appeals in single family residential areas. In these cases notification could be reduced to a smaller number of adjacent properties, a single placard and advertisement in the daily newspaper. These reduced requirements are justifiable because of the relatively confined impacts those variances have when taken individually. A second change to the notification procedure currently practiced involves making formal provision for the notification of any local community or resident group or organization of appeals located in their area of interest or jurisdiction. A l i s t of such groups should be kept by the Secretary to the Board and the qualification requirements of groups seeking registration should not be so prohibitive as to discourage their participation in the variance process. The intent of this involve-ment is to publicize the administrative power by exposing its process to as wide a range of the public as possible, thereby ensuring all people with an interest are heard, and that decisions are made with all inform-ation available and the full understanding of those involved. Openness, however, has drawbacks and is certain to cause delay in the development process. With regard to this consideration, it may be - 199 -virtually impossible to gain approval of those types of development necessary for the community as a whole, but undesired by any particular 19 neighbourhood. While these are most certainly valid concerns, i t is not felt that involvement of these groups would significantly increase processing times, as time savings resulting from other recommended changes would more than compensate for increases here. Furthermore, wider community involvement may lend a more balanced point of view to these hearings as at least some groups do not speak from a special interest point of view but from a broader community perspective. Local area planning committees are an example of such groups that can supply this wider perspective to the neighbour versus neighbour controversy which is often central to the issuance of a variance. Information Pamphlet While most Canadians are law abiding citizens, it is thought that they, unlike their American counterparts, are painfully unaware of the exact nature of the rights and priviledges afforded them under admini-strative law. Under such circumstance, and with the recognition that most appellants before the Board appear without legal representation, i t seems advisable to publish in a single widely distributed pamphlet the powers and procedures of the Board, the general format the hearing follows, and the rights of an individual before the tribunal. These last two components are especially important to the unrepresented appellant as ignorance of the first may cause uncertainty and discomfort to the appellant when the case is heard and ignorance of the latter may cause the appellant the appeal. For these reasons i t is suggested that the Board of Variance produce a pamphlet containing the above information and modelled after the "Hearing Examiner Appeal Rules" referred to in Chapter II. - 200 -Information Disclosure Improvement in the disclosure of information relevant to an appeal is needed in two areas .of the Vancouver system. Firstly, i t is noted that the Planning Department lacks any policy direction in making public information contained in the Development Permit f i l e . In the absence of any explicit policy, an informal system of permitting viewing of the plans and various sets of staff meeting minutes has evolved in an ad hoc fashion. Inter-office or inter-departmental memos and other documents of a controversial nature in which professional opinion, personal objections, or confidential financial matters are discussed are generally not released to the public. While security of these latter types of docu-ments may, in some instances, be warranted, the uninitiated appellant or other interested party would generally be unaware of what information is available upon which to base a case, and how or where to obtain i t . To state that without access to relevant f i l e information the preparation of an adequate case is made difficult, i f not impossible is a moot point. Policy is therefore required to first advise the interested parties of the availability of information, then to determine the exact composition of that information, and to limit reference at the hearing to only that information available to the public. Other improvements which facilitate the exchange of information between contesting parties in advance of the hearing should also be required as a means of providing for the effective participation of all parties at the hearing. This improvement could be accomplished by requiring contesting parties to submit in advance, papers outlining grounds on which the case will be made, the evidence to be used, and any other materials to be presented at the hearing for the Board's consider-- 201 -ation. In this manner, not only does participation become more effective but better decisions are encouraged as more information is presented to the Board. Powers of the Chairman Changes to the composition of the Board recommended earlier lend even more weight to the observation that the quality of the Chairman is the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of the 20 tribunal. It has also been noted that where the rights of an individual are at issue, the character or form of the proceedings should not be 21 permitted to subjugate the search for the truth. Under such conditions, the Chairman must not only be qualified but also afforded sufficient powers to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, take all necessary actions and maintain order at the hearing. While it is realized this increased judicialization of power may cause rigidity in the proceedings, it is desirable in that i t also improves fairness and equity. It is therefore suggested the l i s t of recommended powers of the Chairman be set out in the Board of Variance By-law and in the informa-tion pamphlet. Ex Parte Communications Current procedures of the Board have been found inadequate in this regard, as they fail to outline reasons why a member may be disqualified from partaking in a Board decision, or from the Board entirely. They also allow the Secretary to the Board at least two opportunities to speak to Board members about the merits of a particular appeal without the presence of the other parties. As previously stated, in the Vancouver case, the Secretary is a member of the Planning Department staff and therefore should not be presumed to be without bias. Under this condition, - 202 -it hardly seems appropriate for the Secretary to accompany the Board on its site inspection tour, or to meet with the Chairman at an informal pre-hearing conference without the presence of all other interested parties. To remedy these situations i t is recommended that conditions for the disqualification of a board member be established and that such rules be based on the "nemo judex in causa sua" rule of natural justice. These rules should form part of the by-law establishing the Board. Regarding ex parte communications with the Board, i t is recommended the Secretary's position be made more independent from the department. This could be accomplished by making the Secretary accountable to the Office of the City Manager or to the City Clerk rather than the Director of Planning, or by changing procedures so that a less biased official, such as the secretary to the Planning Commission, accompanies the Board on'its inspections. Limitations on the pre-hearing conference between the Secretary and the Chairman should restrict discussion to procedural matters related exclusively to the hearing. Ex parte communication may also originate from parties other than staff who have an interest in a case. For this reason i t is also recommended that rules barring such discussion be included in both the By-law and the information pamphlet described above. Reasoned Decisions in Writing Without doubt the major fault of Vancouver's present tribunal system is the failure of the enabling legislation to require reasons be given in writing for the decisions made. The benefits of requiring such a condition are covered elsewhere and range from exposing the priorities and values utilized in solving complex problems to affording better - 203 -protection to the public interest and forcing the tribunal to obey the rule of law. A reasons requirement would also permit wider judicial review and thus is thought to promote decisions which are more reasonable and processes which are less arbitrary than would otherwise be likely from an administration not so supervised. The problems of imposing a reasons requirement should, however, also be of concern. This requirement may well exceed the capabilities of the ordinary Board i f membership requirements are not simultaneously upgraded so as to require certain expertise and knowledge of each of its members. In the past, concern over the expected length of time an untrained board would require to reach a reasoned decision acted to hinder introduction of this reform. Another concern has been the question of the board's credibility and whether or not the reasons requirement would lead to the tribunal being viewed merely as a rubber stamp of the administrative staff decisions. The reform is, however, introduced here for several reasons. Firstly, reasoned decisions are now required of many other boards of variance on both sides of the international boundary and thus makes the Vancouver Board's existing procedure an anomoly amongst other tribunals. Secondly, and more importantly, reasoned decisions should be required because it affords the appellant the opportunity, i f desired, to appeal to the judiciary to examine the case for any abuse of the discretionary powers of the administrative branch. The growth of this power has been especially prevalent in the Vancouver jurisdiction and with this require^ ment it "becomes easier to identify those cases in which the decision 23 must have been based on other considerations". The third reason is because with the newly required recommendations regarding member quali-- 204 -fication and the reduction in the types of appeals heard, the Board should be able to find the time necessary to write down reasons when so requested, which presumably would not be in every case. If the Board is unable to comply with its new duties, consideration should be given to making the Chairman's position a paid full time one. This suggestion was not included in the recommendations in deference to the current spending restraints in the public sector, and because i t is likely that after an initial period of "awkwardness", a Board revised in the manner recommended will have no difficulty in making its decisions reasonable without incurring undue delay to the appellant. A fourth reason for the introduction of this requirement is that while i t may not be the purpose of the Board to rubber stamp the admini-strative decisions of staff, neither is its purpose to kowtow to the tears or cajoling of a personally made emotional appeal without offering proper grounds for the granting of a variance. As previously mentioned, the proper purpose of a tribunal is to decide the cases by applying rules 24 of law to the facts which they find. It would, however, be naive to assume this type of apeal would simply disappear, for most certainly it would not. They would, almost of their own accord, seek another outlet for expression and this would be City Council, the nearest legislative body. While most would agree this is the appropriate forum for emotional appeal, consideration also has to be given to the possibility Council would be deluged with hundreds of appeals of various and rather minor matters, leaving it no time to deal with its other responsibilities. Should this indeed become the case, concern would certainly be warranted, but not for occupying Council's time with minor matters, but with - 205 -Council's failure to deal with such matters in a comprehensive manner within a policy framework. It would be expected that under such conditions Council would establish more policy in areas previously ignored. This would result in fewer and fewer appeals being made directly to Council and thus resolve the potential problem. A findings requirement has also been recommended as part of the new administrative procedure to give reasons. Its introduction will have numerous benefits for the administrative system and is necessary i f the reviewing court is to keep in check abuse of discretionary power. One expert refers to findings as assuring "substantive uniformity of decisions" and encouraging "members to critically consider the evidence 25 before them" . Other experts are only slightly less enthusiastic about the benefits, stating the findings requirement "was severe enough to Of eliminate some of the emotionalism" of variance hearings. Once again, these benefits are only available at a cost; the increased amount of time taken to reach a decision. While this may raise difficulties with some reformers, it has been noted that to not overcome this problem is to permit the Board of Variance to rule with no practical 27 limits on its discretion. Such a situation seems undesirable given the potential dangers identified earlier as arising from the decisions of the Board. A finding requirement not only facilitates judicial review of a particular case but it also encourages the public to officially adopt and 28 protect a plan for the community. It should be noted that without the findings requirement the courts can only speculate about the reasons for a board's decision, something the Canadian courts have been reluctant to do in the past. - 206 -It is also recommended that as part of the reasons requirement every decision be based exclusively on points raised at the hearing. The intent of this condition is not so much to restrict the decision-making power of the Board, but rather to provide the appellant better protection in law than the present procedures offer. This argument is an extension of the belief that decisions ought to be made with information available to all the participants. By imposing this condition, the appellant will know a decision will be arrived at without consideration of uncontested information. Fears that such a condition would limit the Board when it came to using its own personal knowledge are unfounded. The Board could s t i l l use this knowledge, however, i t would have to advise the appellant of its nature in advance and provide the same opportunity to dispute that point as it had all others. Such consideration should not prove too onerous to the Board and would certainly go far towards ensuring that the appellant felt a fair hearing had been conducted. Lastly, i t is recommended that a reasoned decision requirement incorporate the use of precedence to further assist in the development of consistency in the decision-making process. This recommendation is made in the belief that democratic principles are the proper tools for evalu-ating any action involving the rights of the individual. Equal protec-tion of the law is one such principle, and it cannot be afforded the appellant without either the development of a reliable body of precedents or the adherence to the standards laid down for the Board by the legisla-ture. Unfortunately, as we have observed, the Vancouver Board, like many others, does neither. The result is very similar to some conclusions made regarding a Kentucky board where: - 207 -"After thirty years of Board of Adjustment decisions property owners are as much in the dark about what moves the Board as they were when the Board was organized in 1931." 29 The situation is, of course, perpetuated by the failure to require the Board provide findings of fact or statements of reasons for its decision. Reasoned decisions then, are needed not only so as to permit a somewhat wider judicial review but also to enable the development of that reliable body of precedent upon which the Board may draw to assist in explaining its decisions. There are numerous arguments against introducing precedence into the variance process. None of them however, would bear much relevance to a Board of Variance revised in the manner recommended here. The prime objection to precedence is to the time i t would require for the Board to research materials, even i f i t had the legal ability to undertake the task. These arguments do not find validity in the recommended system, where the Chairman would have the legal qualifications necessary and could be paid an annual stipend should attention to Board matters be required full time. Other suggested changes would likely result in fewer cases being appealed to the Board and should provide it more time to consider the difficult cases. As well, the Board would only have to give full consideration to cases where the appellant had made such a request in advance. Others have noted that not all judicial cases require the judge to state his findings, conclusions, or opinions and have used this to excuse the tribunal from similar behaviour. Such argument, however, assumes the Board shares the same independence as the bench, and its members share the same judicial temperament and legal training as a judge. Clearly, such is not the case and, in fact, the two bodies do not even share the - 208 -same atmosphere which surrounds the decision-making process. A board of variance only infrequently has before it a case capable of attracting the public's interest and the law profession's scrutiny. These pressures are continual on the bench and serve to reduce any temptation a judge might have to abrogate his duties or the defendant's rights. Little of this 30 pressure is ever felt by the Board or its members. Implementation of this recommendation requires amendment of the Vancouver Charter and explanation in the recommended information pamphlet. CONCLUDING REMARKS The foregoing recommendations have been designed to reflect the Vancouver Board of Variance's increasingly strategic importance in the administration of the local zoning by-law. A failure to rationalize either the process or the procedures under which the Board is to operate has accompanied this rise in importance. The result has been the perpetuation of a board of non-experts, who have been given flexible decision-making powers without any corresponding responsibilities, in an administrative system which fails to articulate the true rules of the zoning game. Under such conditions a set of recommended reforms have been provided which, i f followed, would result in: a) the return of all policy decisions to the City Council or the legislature, b) the expeditious handling of certain types of appeals by administrative staff, c) increased accountability of the Board to the legislature through an advisory committee, and to the judiciary through wider powers of review afforded the courts, d) a qualified Board sitting on appeals, and - 209 -e) an appeal procedure which is equitable, open, and understandable to all who participate and free from political interference. While not solving all the problems, the recommendations made here certainly move the operation of the Board in a far more responsible direction and may even promote the credibility the Board will need to operate for another fifty years. FUTURE DIRECTIONS While the field of zoning administration may hold interest for only a few planners and lawyers, i t is an area of growing concern and importance. This is especially true in ageing central cities, where the competition for land,and pressures for its use are often intense. Investigation of the following aspects of the Board of Variance would be helpful in assuring the Board retains its relevancy in the ever changing administrative setting: a) an analysis of how Canada's new Constitution might effect both the substantive and procedural matters coming before the board of variance, b) an examination of other regulatory bodies to discover i f their procedures have relevance or applicability to the board of variance, c) a feasibility study to discover i f a set of special exception criteria could replace the hardship standard as the basis for issuance of a variance in the City of Vancouver, - 210 -d) the need to institute a provincial variance appeal body to replace the judicial appeal currently available in variance cases, and e) the need to revise board of variance procedures on a province-wide scale and examine the applicability of the recommendations of this thesis to those jurisdictions. SUMMARY It was hypothesized the board of variance is the most appropriate administrative system to maximize public benefits through the exercise of discretionary zoning techniques while adequately meeting the equity requirements of an'increasingly meaningful quasi-judicial hearing. To test this hypothesis the study reviewed the evolution of zoning in Canada and the United States, and introduced two case study models of current zoning administration; the Vancouver Board of Variance, and the Seattle Hearing Examiner. Through examination of the history and operation of these models several administrative problems were identified. In this context,eight characteristics of a normative model of administration were established using selected elements of the socio-political and judicial basis of our society. The two administrative systems were then comparatively evaluated against the theoretical model and the hypothesis, when applied to the Vancouver Board, disproven. Reaons for the failure to prove the hypothesis were discussed and three major conclusions reached: a) the shortcomings of the Vancouver Board resulted from the established zoning process, the lack of required qualifications of Board members, and the informal procedures of the Board, - 211 -b) the Seattle Hearing Examiner system is not adaptive to the Vancouver administrative setting, and c) identified shortcomings could be rectified through reform of the Vancouver Board. Thereafter, a set of recommendations pertaining to the identified shortcomings was presented along with a rationale and suggested method of implementation. It was concluded that significant improvement to the Vancouver Board of Variance would result from the changes recommended which included: a) the return of policy decisions to the legislature, b) the expeditious handling of variance appeals, c) the increased accountability of the Board to the legislature and judiciary, d) re-establishment of membership qualifications for the Board, and e) procedures to ensure the Board conducted its deliberations with fairness, clarity and openness, free from political inter-ference. It was concluded these improvements are likely to promote enough credibility for the Board to survive another fifty years in zoning administration. - 212 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER V 1. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, C i t y Z o n i n g : The Once and F u t u r e F r o n t i e r , ( C h i c a g o : P l a n n e r s P r e s s , American P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 1979), p . x i . 2. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979. 3. R. A n d e r s o n , "The Board o f Zo n i n g A p p e a l s - V i l l a i n o r V i c t i m ? " , S y r a c u s e Law Review, v o l . 13, No. 3 ( S p r i n g , 1962). 4. S. C o l e , "Land Use A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Task F o r c e Recommendations f o r S t r e a m l i n i n g t h e Requirements f o r V a r i a n c e s and o t h e r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D e t e r m i n a t i o n s A u t h o r i z e d by t h e Zo n i n g O r d i n a n c e and an E v a l u a t i o n o f A l t e r n a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s f o r P e r m i t t i n g V a r i a n c e s from t h e Zo n i n g O r d i n a n c e R e q u i r e m e n t s " , ( S e a t t l e : Land Use A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Task F o r c e , September 14, 1979) (mimeographed) 5. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, Legal C o n t r o l o f Government A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Law i n B r i t a i n and The U n i t e d S t a t e s ( O x f o r d : 1972) 6. D. Br y d e n , "The Impact o f V a r i a n c e s : A Study o f S t a t e w i d e Z o n i n g " , M i n n e s o t a Law Review, v o l . 61:2 (1977) 7. J . D u k e m i n i e r , J r . , and C. S t a p l e t o n , "The Zo n i n g Board o f Ad j u s t m e n t : A Case Study i n M i s r u l e " , Kentucky Law J o u r n a l , v o l . 50 (1961-62) 8. J . Wexler, " V a r i a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n I n d i a n a - Problems and Remedies", I n d i a n a Law J o u r n a l , 48 (280) (1973) 9. D. M u l l e n s , " F a i r n e s s : The New N a t u r a l J u s t i c e " , U n i v e r s i t y o f  T o r o n t o Law J o u r n a l , (1975) - 213 -10. M. Laughlin, "Procedural Fairness: A Study of the Crisis in Admini-strative Law Theory", University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 28 (1978). 11. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 12. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 13. F. Blair, Jr., "Boards of Adjustment and How They Got That Way", Planning Cities, (Chicago: ASPO, 1970) 14. L. Dembeck, "Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure - Informality Breeds Contempt", Syracuse Law Review, vol. 16 (1964-65), p.580. 15. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972, p.270. 16. J. Dhillion, "Zoning Board of Appeals: A Study of Its Role in Implementation of Planning Policy in B.C.", (Vancouver: Master of Arts Thesis, University of B.C., 1966), pp.148-149. 17. M. Laughlin, 1978, p.238. 18. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979. 19. S. Makuch, "Zoning: Avenues of Reform", Dalhousie Law Journal, vol. 1 (December, 1973) 20. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 21. L. Dembeck, 1964-65. 22. S. Makuch, 1973. 23. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979, p.272. - 214 -24. B. Schwartz and H. Wade, 1972. 25. W. Murray, "Zoning Boards of Adjustment and Variances: California Imposes a Findings Requirement", Urban Law Annual, vol. 10:349 (1975) p.359. 26. C. Weaver and R. Babcock, 1979, p.135. 27. J. Dukeminier, Jr., and C. Stapleton, 1961-62. 28. W. Murray, 1975. 29. J. Dukeminier, Jr., and C. Stapleton, 1961-62, p.331. J. Dukeminier, Jr., and C. Stapleton, 1961-62. - 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY A.S.P.O., "Problems of Zoning and Land Usae Regulation". Research Report No. 2, Seattle: 1968. (Mimeographed) Adler, G., Land Planning by Administrative Regulation: The Policies of  the Ontario Municipal Board, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. American Law Institute, "A Model Land Development Code". Philadelphia, Proposed Official Draft, n.p., April, 1975. Anderson, R. "The Board of Zoning Appeals - Villain or Victim?". Syracuse Law Review, vol. 13, No. 3, Spring, 1962. Arnesbergh, R., "The Functions and Duties of a Board of Zoning Adjust-ment", Institute on Planning and Zoning, vol. 1, 1960. Babcock, R., "Mr. Commissioner, Are You Prepared for Cross-Examination?", Institute on Planning and Zoning, S.W. Legal Foundation, vol. 3, 1962. Babcock, R., The Zoning Game, Municipal Practices and Policies. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1966. Bassett, Edward M., Zoning: The Laws, Administration and Court Decisions. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 1936. Blair, F., Jr., "Boards of Adjustment and How They Got That Way". Planning Cities, Chicago: ASPO, 1970. Bloodoff, P., "An Assessment of Lower Mainland Crown Land Planning Process". Vancouver: Master of Arts Thesis, SCARP, University of B.C., 1981. Blucher, W., "Is Zoning Wagging the Dog?". Planning, vol. 96, 1955. Bryden, D., "The Impact of Variances: A Study of Statewide Zoning", Minnesota Law Review, vol. 61:2, 1977. Chapman, P., "By-law No. 3844: A By-law to Establish Vancouver's Board of Variance". Paper submitted for the requirements of Planning 522, SCARP, University of B.C., Vancouver, 1980. City of Seattle, "Hearing Examiner Annual Report, 1979". Seattle: Office of the Hearing Examiner, 1979. City of Seattle, "State Environment Protection Act". Seattle: Shoreline Management, 1979 (mimeographed). City of Seattle, "Zoning Rules". Seattle: Office of the Hearing Examiner, 1979. (Mimeographed) City of Vancouver, Board of Variance By-law, No. 3844, Vancouver: May, 1960. - 216 -City of Vancouver, The Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law, No. 3575, Vancouver: 1956. Cole, S., "Land Use Administration Task Force Recommendations for Stream-, lining the Requirements for Variances and Other Administrative Determinations Authorized by the Zoning Ordinance and an Evaluation of Alternative Procedures for Permitting Variances from the Zoning Ordinance Requirements". Seattle: Land Use Administration Task Force, September 14, 1979. (Mimeographed) Crane, S., "The Hearing Examiner System in the State of Washington". Olympia, Washington: Department of Housing and Urban Development, April, 1977. (Mimeographed) Dembeck, L., "Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure - Informality Breeds Contempt". Syracuse Law Review, vol. 16, 1964-65. Dhillion, J., "Zoning Board of Appeal: A Study of its Role in Implement-ation of Planning Policy in B.C.". Vancouver: Master of Arts Thesis, SCARP, University of B.C., 1966. Dukeminier, J. Jr., and Stapleton, C, "The Zoning Board of Adjustment: A Case Study in Misrule". Kentucky Law Journal, vol. 50, 1961-62. Gall ion, A., and Eisner, S., The Urban Patter, City Planning and Design. New York: Van Nostrand, 1975. Goldberg, Michael, and Horwood, P., Zoning in the 1980's. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1980. Goldschmidt, D, Supervision of Local Land Use Control: The Ontario  Municipal Board. Toronto: 1970. Gram, M., "The Vancouver City Board of Variance". Paper submitted for the requirements of Planning 500, SCARP, University of B.C., Vancouver, March, 1981. Harris, M., "Critical Analysis of the Composition, Hearing Procedures, Appellate Structure and Powers of South Australian Administrative Tribunals". Adelaide Law Review, vol. 4, 1971-72. Ince, J., "Land Use Law - A Study of Legislation Governing Land Use in B.C.". Vancouver: Centre for Continuing Education, University of B.C., 1977. (Mimeographed) Jaffe, L., "The Illusion of the Ideal Administration", reprint in Rabin, R.L., Perspectives on the Administrative Process. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown & Co., 1979. Kernaghan, K., "Political Control of Administrative Action: Account-ability or Window Dressing?" Cahiers de Droit, vol. 17, 1976. Lane, W., editor, "Selected Readings in Law for Local Public Administrators". Second edition, Vancouver: SCARP, University of B.C., 1975. (Mimeographed) - 217 -Lauber, D., "The Hearing Examiner in Zoning Administration". Planning Advisory Service Report No. 312, Seattle: ASPO, 1975. (Mimeographed) Laughlin, M., "Procedural Fairness: A Study of the Crisis in Administra-tive Law Theory". University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 28, 1978. Laux, F., The Administrative Process. Third edition, Calgary: University of Alberta, Faculty of Law, 1975. Makuch, S., "Zoning: Avenue of Reform". Dal house Law Journal. vol. 1, December, 1973. Mandelker, P., The Zoning Dilemma. Washington: Bobbs Merrill Co., 1971. Mullens, D., "Fairness: The New Natural Justice". University of Toronto  Law Journal, 1975. Municipal Act, (R.S.B.C.), Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1961. Murray, W., "Zoning Boards of Adjustment and Variances: California Imposes Findings Requirement". Urban Law Journal, vol. 10:349, 1975. Nelson, R., Zoning and Property Rights. Boston: MIT Press, 1977. Ontario Department of Planning and Development, "Principles to Assist Committees of Adjustment", Ontario Planning, vol. 3, No. 6, July, 1956. Reps, J., "Discretionary Powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals". Law and Contemporary Problems, vol.20, 1955. Revised Code of Washington State. Olympia: Government Printing Office, 1975. Richards L., "Transfer of Development Potential in the City of Vancouver". Vancouver: Daon Development Corporation, September, 1981. (Mimeographed) Ried, R., Administrative Law and Practice. Toronto: Butterworths, 1971. Roberts, J. and Bush, L., "Managed Growth: Overview and Analysis". Environmental Comment, March, 1975. Vancouver Charter, (R.S.B.C.), Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1956. Interviews Beatty, R. E., Deputy Zoning and Subdivision Examiner, King County, Washington. Interview, June 12, 1980. Floyd, A.R., Development Permit Group Leader, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, B.C. - 218 -Gell, L., Secretary, Vancouver Board of Variance, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, B.C. Hollander, A., Program Co-ordinator, Seattle Building Department, City of Seattle, Washington. Interview June 13, 1980. Klockars, M. M., Deputy Hearing Examiner, Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Seattle, Washington. Interview, June 12, 1980. Laing, B., Councilman, King County, Washington. Interview June 12, 1980. Somers, E., Secretary to Board of Adjustment, Department of Community Development, City of Seattle. Interview June 13, 1980. Titus, S., Kramer, Chin and Mayo Inc., Planning Consultants, Seattle, Washington. Interview June 13, 1980. - 219 -APPENDIX I Board of Variance By-Law No. 3844 A By-law to establish a Board, to be known as the Board of Variance and to set out the procedure to be followed by the same. W H E R E A S by Sections 572 and 573 of the Vancouver Charter the Council of the City of Vancouver is empowered to establish a Board of Variance and to set out the pro-cedure to be followed by the Board; A N D WHEREAS the said Council deems it expedient to establish such a Board and to set out the procedure to be followed by it; NOW T H E R E F O R E T H E COUNCIL O F T H E CITY O F V A N C O U V E R in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: 1. A Board, to be known as the Board of Variance is hereby established. 2. In this by-law: "Board" means • Board of Variance; "Chairman" means ' the Chairman of the Board of Variance; "Charter" means the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953 as amended; "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Board of Variance. \ 3. The Secretary appointed by the Board shall be an employee of the City Planning Department and, in addition to recording the decisions of the Board at its meetings, shall: ( (a) Receive notices of appeal and present them to the Board; (b) Cause such notices of appeal or of meetings of the Board to be published or served as directed by the Board or its Chairman; (c) Notify applicants in writing of the decisions of the Board; (d) Have custody of the records of the Board; (e) Perform such other duties as are customary to the office of Secretary. 4. An appeal shall be filed with the Secretary in writing on a form approved by the Board, to be obtained from the Secretary, and shall state in a simple manner the grounds of the appeal. .-• - 220 -5. The Secretary shall examine the notices of appeal as submitted and may request applicants to furnish such further information including building or site plans as the Secretary may deem necessary for the proper understanding of the nature of the appeal. 6. Any person appealing a decision of an official pursuant to Section 573(1) (a) of the Charter shall file a notice of appeal within fifteen days of the date on which the official's decision was made; provided however that the Board may extend the time for filing such notice of appeal in any given case for cause on the written request of the applicant. For the purposes only of an appeal under this section, the Develop-ment Permit Board shall be deemed to be an official charged with the enforcement of a Zoning By-law. 7. Any person appealing a decision of the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board, as the case may be, which: (a) grants or refuses an application for a development permit, or (b) grants or refuses an application for the relaxation of the provisions of the Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 shall file a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days of the date on which the Director of Planning issues a development permit or gives notification of the refusal of the application, as the case may be; provided that the Board may extend the time for filing such Notice of Appeal in any given case for cause on the written request of the applicant. . 8. The Chairman shall fix a convenient time and place for the hearing of an appeal of which the Secretary has received notice but the Chairman need not convene the Board more often than once in any two-week period. 9. (1) Notice of the time and place of the hearing of the appeal shall be mailed to the applicant by the Secretary at least five days prior to the hearing by the Board. (2) The Secretary shall also give notice of the hearing to the Director of Planning and to such other officials of the City as the Chairman deems proper. (3) Public notice of a hearing shall be given if the appeal is deemed by the Board of sufficient importance and such public notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper circulating in the City in not less than two consecutive issues and at a time not more than ten days nor less than three days before the hearing. 10. (1) The Board on being convened at the appointed time and place shall hear appli-cants and any witnesses or other persons whose evidence may assist the Board in reaching a decision provided however, that where the appeal is from the decision of an official charged with the enforcement of the Zoning By-law the official concerned or his representative shall be afforded anopportunity to be heard. (2) Proceedings at the hearing shall be informal and evidence need not be given under oath unless the Chairman so requires. - 221 -11. Before reaching a decision on the appeal before it, the Board may require further information, either in corroboration of the statements made by the applicant or or other witnesses or in explanation of the wording or intent of the Zoning and Development By-law, or to determine more fully the effect upon neighbouring properties affected by the appeal and may adjourn the hearing from time to time as the Board may deem advisable and may cause notice of the hearing so adjourned to be mailed to such owners of real property as the Board deem to be affected by the appeal, and may view the site either before or after the hearing, provided how-ever that the decision of the Board when given shall be based upon the evidence submitted and in accordance with the limitations imposed upon the Board by Sub-section (2) of Section 573 of the Charter. 12. (1) The applicant may request an adjournment of the hearing if he notifies the Secretary of such request prior to the hearing and the Board may grant such adjournment (2) In the event of an applicant or his representative failing to appear at the hearing of his appeal and no adjournment having been requested by him, or in the event of the applicant or his representative being present at the hearing and failing to proceed with his appeal when called upon by the Secretary to do so, the appeal may be adjourned by the Board. (3) The applicant may withdraw his appeal by a written request from him filed with the Secretary at any time prior to the hearing or may withdraw his appeal • orally at the hearing at any time prior to the Chairman polling the members of the Board for trjeir decision on the appeal. (4) The applicant may request the Secretary in writing at any time prior to the hearing to have his appeal proceeded with in his absence and the Board may grant the request and may then conduct the hearing of the appeal without the applicant being present and may hear other interested persons and may decide the appeal. 13. (1) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board may thereupon render its decision or may adjourn the appeal and render its decision at a subsequent meeting. (2) The Board may grant or deny the appeal and may reverse or uphold the deci-sion of the Director of Planning or other official charged with the enforce-ment of the Zoning By-law being appealed against either in whole or in part or may modify such decision as appears warranted by the facts disclosed at the hearing. 14. The Board shall not re-hear an appeal covering the identical grounds or principles upon which the Board liad already rendered a decision. > 15. Members of the Board shall be entitled to receive payment for their expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of their official duties on the Board including their transportation to and from their home or office to meetings of the Board or on inspection trips to view sites involved in appeals. 16. Subject to the provisions of this By-law, the Board shall determine its own pro-cedure. - 222 -This By-law shall come into force and take effect on and after the date of the final passing hereof. DONE A N D PASSED in open Council this 17th day of May, 1960. (Sgd) A .T . Alsbury, Mayor (Sgd) D.H. Little, Deputy City Clerk - 223--APPENDIX II PL 10-BLH-70 To the Secretary, Board of Variance, City Hall, Vancouver, B.C. Original to fa* ivtamed to Appellant CITY OF VANCOUVER VANCOUVER CHARTER NOTICE OF APPEAL DISTRICT ZONE: 1. Pursuant to: SITE SIZE: 'Section 573 (1) (b), 'Section 573 (1) (c), 'Section 573 (1)(e) of The Vancouver Charter •Section 573 (1) (o), •Section 573 (1) (d), ) (  o (See Overleof) •Delete which is not applicable. I/We hereby enter an Appeal relative to the following Section(s) of the Zoning and Development By-law of the City of Voncouver: {State Ssction(s), Sub-Sectioru{>) and Ciouse(s) of the Zoning ond Development By-law which is/are the subject of this Appeal.) 2. Statement of the points upon which this appeal is based: 3. Attached hereto and made port of this Appeal are the following documents and Sketch Plans: 4. This appeal relates to: (a) Application for Development Permit No...._ Dated 19 (b) Location - ... Lot , Sub-division Block. D.L (c) Type of Development 5. I/We hereby declare that all the above statements and the statements as contained in all of the exhibits transmitted herewith are to the best of my/our belief true and correct in all respects. Signature of Applicant(s) _ Date Appeal Filed 19 ... Postal Address , __ Tel. No NOTE: Notice of Appeol must be filed within 15 cloys of the granting or refusal of o Development Permit or within 15 days of a decision of on official charged with the enforcement of a zoning by-law. 6. This Appeal was given a hearing by the Board of Variance on 19 and was tDeiete os required t ALLOWED t ALLOWED subject to the tD I SALLOWED following conditions: _J z o CIAL CIAL LZ u. O When an oppeal is granted, a Development Permit MUST BE OBTAINED by the appellant. If the appeol is granted subject to conditions, they must be complied with before the Development Permit will be issued. The decision of the Board to gront on appeal becomes void unless the Development Permit has been obtained within days from the date hereof. APPEAL No. Secretary, Board of Variance -12k-Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y - L A W B O A R D O F V A R I A N C E P R O C E D U R E RIGHT OF APPEAL: SECTION 573, SUBSECTION 1, C L O S E S (a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) OF THE VANCOUVER CHARTER 573. (1) The Board shall hear and determine appeals: (a) By any person aggrieved by a decision on a question of zoning by any official charged with the enforcement of a zoning by-law; (b) By any person who alleges that the enforcement of a zoning by-law with regard to siting, size, shape or design of a build-ing would cause him undue or unnecessary hardship arising out of peculiarities in the site or special circumstances con-nected with the development. In any such case the Board may, to the extent necessary to give effect to its determi-nation, exempt the applicant from the applicable provisions of the zoning by-law; (c) By any person who alleges that due to special circumstances or conditions the provisions of subsection (3) of section 568 will result in undue or unnecessary hardship,to him; (see below) (d) With respect to matters arising under subsections (4) and (5) of section 568; (see below) (e) By any person aggrieved by a decision by any Board or Tribunal to whom Council has delegated power to relax the provisions of a zoning by-law. SECTION 568, SUBSECTIONS (3), (4) AND (5) OF THE VANCOUVER CHARTER 568. (3) A lawful use of premises existing at the time of coming into force of a zoning by-law, although such use is not in accordance with the provisions of the by-law, may be continued; but, if such non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of ninety days, any future use of those premises shall be in conformity with the provisions of the by-law. The Board of Variance shall have power to allow relaxation of this provision. (4) No additions or structural alterations shall be made to a non-conforming building without (a) the approval of the Board of Variance, if the non-. conformity is in respect of use. (5) Where a non-conforming building is damaged or destroyed by fire to the extent of sixty percent (60%) or more of its value above its foundations as determined by the City Building In-spector whose decision shall be subject to review by the Board of Variance, it shall not be repaired or reconstructed without the approval of (a) the Board of Variance if the non-conformity is in respect of use. FILING OF APPEAL PROCEDURE The Notice of Appeal Form must be completed by the appellant and filed with the Secretary, eight clear days prior to the meet-ing of the Board. The appellant must state clearly on the application form the clause or clauses of the Vancouver Charter under which the appeal is submitted. The appellant must also state clearly and precisely the Section(s), Subsection (s) or Clause(s) of the Zoning and Development By-law which he wants relaxed, and further state the amount and/or type or relaxation. Sketch plans showing the relaxation requested must accompany appeals. - 2 2 5 -ro Jurisdiction and Method of Appointment Anne Arundel County, Md. Zoning Hearing Officer ap-pointed by County Exe-cutive: established 1965 Montgomery County, Md. Hearing Examiner appointed by District Council; estab-lished 1967 Prince George's County, Md. Zoning Hearing Examiner appointed by District Coun-cil: established 1971 Harford County, Md. Zoning Hearing Examiner appointed by County Coun-cil: established 1973 Xenia, Ohio Hearing Examiner appointed by City Manager: estab-lished 1974 Tucson, Ariz. Zoning and Subdivision Ex-aminer appointed by City Manager: established 1975 King County, Wash. Zoning and Subdivision Ex-aminer appointed by County Council: established 1970 D U T I E S A N D P O W E R S O F S E L E C T E D Z O N I N G H E A R I N G E X A M I N E R S Variances Conducts mandatory public ' hearings; enters written findings; decides all vari ances Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recom mendation to District Coun-cil Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides all va ances Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written * findings; decides all vari ances Done by Board of Adjust-ment Special Use Permits (Conditional Uses) Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides all special exceptions Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to District Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to County Council Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings; decides all condi-tional uses in traditional zones and special overlay zone Done by Board of Adjust-ment Parcel Rezonings Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides all re-zonings Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to District Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to District Council Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to County Council Hearings conducted by City Planning Commission; de-cision voted by City Com-mission (council) Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to Mayor and City Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to County Council Additional Responsibilities Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters findings; makes recommendation to District Council on applica-tions for variances under the sign ordinance, validation of permits issued in error, parking waivers Conducts mandatory public hearing; enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to County Council on all other appeals of zoning decisions Conducts public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommendation to Planning Commission on applications for planned unit developments Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to Mayor and City Council on applications for creation of historic districts, tentative subdivision plat approval Conducts mandatory public hearings, enters written findings: makes recommen-dation to County Council on applications for planned unit development, preliminary Appeal of Examiner's Ruling Directed To : County Board of Appeals County Council District Council Final decisions of County Council can be appealed directly to circuit court Review commission or board with appellate power -rj i — i X City Council Variances and special use permits: Board of Appeals Parcel rezonings: County Council ro ro Seattle, Wash. Hearing Examiner appointed by City Council : established 1974 Tacoma, Wash. Hearing Examiner appointed by City Manager: estab-lished 1975 Portland, Oreg. Hearings Officer appointed by City Commissioner with jurisdiction over land-use planning functions; ordi-nance adopted 1974 3 Eugene, Oreg. Hearings Official appointed by Ci ty Counci l ; draft ordi-nance 1975 4 Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides area and sign variances, petitions to revoke sign variances, appli-cations for extension of non-conforming signs Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings: decides variances Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings: decides all vari-ances Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides all vari-ance applications filed in conjunction with application for conditional use Conducts mandatory public hearings: enters written findings; decides special ex-ceptions and conditional uses Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides special and temporary uses and condi-tional uses Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides all condi-tional uses Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings: decides all condi-tional uses 1- The Zoning Adjuster conducts mandatory hearings, enters written findings and decides vanances and conditional uses. The Zoning and Subdivision Examiner can be and has been, appointed Zoning Adjuster. 2 The Planning Commiss ions decision may be appealed to the City CouncU. When the City C o u n c i | m m , S S ' 0 n d 6 C U n e S * a C C e P t * * " P P e a i B l " y m a d e d i r e C t l y to t h e Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen dation to City Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to Ci ty Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to City Council Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; decides rezonings plat approval. Hears and decides appeals from de-cisions of administrative officer on short plats M a y authorize revocable per-mit for temporary uses; use of property in any zone for excavation of stone, sand, gravel, clay, or other natural deposits; platted lots se-parated by alley Conducts mandatory public hearings', enters written findings', makes recommen-dation to Ci ty Council on preliminary plat approval; decides applications for ser-vice station permits, shore-line management permits, waivers of zoning standards, site approvals, and appeals from building inspector's interpretations of city's land-use regulatory codes Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings; makes recommen-dation to Ci ty Council on applications for revocable permits Conducts mandatory public hearings; enters written findings: decides sign district boundary changes Board of Adjustment City Council Two-tiered: first appeal is to City Planning Commission, which has discretion to accept or reject appeal; second appeal is to Ci ty C o u n c i l 2 City Council 3. No appointment has been made. 4. A n ordinance is being considered. < 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics