The County Council voted Monday to table a controversial bill that would have streamlined the county zoning appeals process.

The proposal, which was submitted by County Executive Ken Ulman's administration, would have allowed the Board of Appeals to hear zoning cases appealed from the hearing examiner "on the record," meaning neither side would be allowed to present new evidence.

The board, comprised of five volunteers, now hears cases as "de novo," or from scratch, as requested by the appellants. Less than one-fifth of hearing examiner decisions are appealed to the board, officials said, but most are requested to be heard as de novo cases.

The administration argued that the bill would make the Board of Appeals process more efficient. Many cases before the board require several hearings, usually spread over several weeks, or even months. In some cases, it has taken the board more than a year to reach a decision.

During a public hearing Oct. 17, most residents agreed that the Board of Appeals process needs to be more efficient. But some criticized Ulman's approach, saying the proposed change contradicts the point of having a citizens board listen to appeals before they reach the courts. (The hearing examiner is a paid legal professional hired by the County Council.)

Council members said tabling the bill will allow more time to study the process and come up with efficiencies that satisfy everyone.

"There was no consensus among the council members, the public and Board of Appeals members about what changes need to be made or what problems need to be solved," said council member Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat.

She said the county Office of Law will be working with Board of Appeals members to identify potential efficiencies in the existing process

The council also tabled a bill introduced by council chairman Calvin Ball that would allow the police to impound a vehicle if it has parking tickets that have been outstanding for more than 90 days.

"(Tabling) gives us an opportunity to work through any issues and concerns, and ensure that the bill meets the goals that were intended," said Ball, a Columbia Democrat.

Ball said he drafted the legislation after getting repeated calls about illegally parked cars and learning that many of the cars had outstanding parking citations.

A few people have raised concerns about police being allow to impound vehicles after only one parking citation, but Ball said residents get ample warning of their unpaid fines. The county's Department of Finance, which is in charge of collecting parking citation fines, issues a notification letter to the registered vehicle owner every 30 days that a ticket remains unpaid.

Also on Monday, the council unanimously approved a bill, tabled last month, that alters the county ethics law to comply with conflict of interest and financial disclosure requirements in the state's ethics law.

Local jurisdictions throughout Maryland have to change their ethics laws because the state Ethics Commission wants "requirements for local elected officials that are at least as stringent as requirements for state public officials," according to the council bill, which was filed by the administration.

The bill had included more stringent financial disclosure requirements for members of boards and commissions than required. At the request of council members who suggested too many restrictions would discourage residents from volunteering on boards and commissions, the administration submitted an amendment to allow some of the county's board and commission members to submit short-form disclosure forms.

David Nitkin, the administration's director of policy and legislative affairs, said the amendment aims to make the requirements "less onerous." The council unanimously approved the amendment before passing the bill.

The council also unanimously passed a resolution to approve the Board of Education's capital budget request for Fiscal Year 2013, so the county can be considered for state school construction funding.

At the request of the administration, the council also voted to withdraw a bill that would have eliminated the Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board. The administration filed the bill because the group had not met since 2001, but asked to withdraw it after preservationists proposed the board be revitalized, not eliminated.