the letter sent to homeowners to advise them of public hearings contradicts what the BZA says at the start of the meeting. I know it’s a form letter (and it’s used in many townships) and the spiel at the start of the meeting is some fixed text … but seems like the instructions int he letter can deprive homeowners of their right to testify before the Board. In the form letter, you are advised that you can attend the public hearing at such-and-such a date or submit a letter to the Board.

Sounds great. Except the beginning spiel that’s read at every public hearing says that Board members are not to consider as testimony any written correspondence that is not under oath. Oh, you had to write special letter in order for it to be given any consideration.

The spiel goes on to say that, while properly constructed letters can be considered testimony they should be given lower weight because the submitter is not available for cross-examination. That part didn’t make it to any minutes I’ve seen, but I’ve heard the chairperson say it. She, in fact, got rather curt with me for conveying exactly what she said at the beginning of the meeting to an employee of the Metro Parks when they submitted an e-mail with their opinion on a variance request. I don’t know which is true — maybe they’re giving equal weight to a written correspondence as they are to in-person testimony [this is the claim the chairperson made to me, how dare I tell the Board what they did and did not consider!] in which case the spiel at the start of the meeting should be reworded. Maybe they’re only giving consideration to sworn letters — in which case the public notice should tell you to send a sworn (or whatever) letter. Maybe a letter is basically ignored, in which case it should not be offered as an equally valid path for presenting your beliefs to the BZA.