Westminster panel denies postponement in Modular Genius zoning appeal; appellant withdraws case

The Westminster Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 5 denied a request to postpone an appeal by Modular Genius Incorporated of a zoning administrator's May 21, 2025, determination that an outdoor-storage use was not permitted at Meadow Range Industrial Park, Lot 2C, in Westminster. After the board denied the postponement, counsel for the applicant said the appellant would withdraw the appeal and resubmit a revised zoning determination request.

The request to pause the appeal was made by Adam Rosenblatt, an attorney for Modular Genius. Rosenblatt told the board the company's proposed operations had "substantially changed" since the letter that prompted the original determination and that the new proposal would include a building and on-site assembly. "The proposed use now includes the construction of a building from the start, some assembly, like manufacturing, and job creation elements," Rosenblatt said, and he asked the board to postpone the appeal so the applicant could submit a revised zoning-determination request and avoid possible preclusion or estoppel issues.

City staff and the city attorney opposed postponement. Anthony Whitebark, identified in the meeting as the city attorney for Westminster, told the board the city was concerned about creating a precedent that would allow applicants to keep appeals open while re-filing different factual proposals. Whitebark said the board should not allow a procedure that would leave appeals "in limbo" and noted that, if facts are truly different, the applicant could withdraw and refile. City staff also noted the May 21 determination had been issued and that the applicant had time since that date to submit a new request.

The board voted to deny the postponement request by voice vote after a motion to deny was made and seconded; members present responded "aye." Following the vote, Rosenblatt told the panel the applicant would follow the board's guidance and withdraw the current appeal while preparing and filing a revised request describing the changed use.

Background and timeline: the transcript record cites that a zoning-determination request was filed on April 4, 2025; the zoning administrator issued a determination on May 21, 2025; and an appeal of that determination was filed on June 20, 2025. Rosenblatt said he spoke with planning staff on July 18 to indicate his client planned to request a postponement and that the petitioner intended to submit new materials describing the revised use.

Earlier in the meeting the board approved a final decision letter (docketed as BZA250) by motion and second. No further details about the content of that letter were provided in the transcript.

The applicant's attorney said the company plans to describe the revised use in a new filing and hopes that the zoning administrator will rule that the revised proposal either is permitted as-of-right or qualifies for a special exception. The board did not make any determination on the merits of the use during the Aug. 5 hearing.

Any neighbor concerns that were present at the hearing were not recorded in the transcript as resulting in formal testimony or a separate motion. The appellant left the option of returning with a new application; city staff noted the applicant could submit a new zoning-determination request or a special-exception application as appropriate.