Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Filing Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects Mid Harper Properties' request to transfer rezoning fees to variance filing
Summary
A special request to transfer filing fees from a withdrawn rezoning petition to a new variance-of-use petition (2024ZON-124) was denied unanimously by the Metropolitan Development Commission on Feb. 5, 2025; staff had recommended denial.
A request from Mid Harper Properties to transfer fees paid for a rezoning petition to a new variance-of-use petition was defeated by the Metropolitan Development Commission at its Feb. 5, 2025 meeting. The petitioner's representative, David Wilson, asked that fees already paid toward a rezoning petition be applied to a new variance filing; staff opposed the request and the commission voted it down unanimously.
What was requested and why: David Wilson, representing Mid Harper Properties, asked the commission to transfer paid filing fees from zoning petition 2024ZON-124 toward a variance-of-use petition. Wilson said the new filing concerns the same parcel but a different procedural path. Staff opposed the transfer, stating that the variance-of-use is evaluated through a different process, requires new legal notice and other work (including site visits) and that "none of the work is directly transferable" to a variance filing.
Motion and vote: The commission moved and seconded the special request for a fee transfer and then voted; the roll call recorded all commissioners voting "no." The secretary announced that the special request to transfer fees "has been defeated." The transcript records the roll-call responses (Dillon: no; Schumacher: no; Murphy: no; Moriarty: no; Lyle: no; James: no; Garber: no).
Why staff opposed: Staff reiterated two reasons: (1) the applicant had been told at the prior meeting additional filing fees would be required to file a variance of use; and (2) even if the proposed use were superficially similar, the variance is processed under a different procedure that requires staff to begin work anew, including republication of notices and possibly redoing the site visit.
Outcome and next steps: The petitioner was told they must file and pay the separate fee for the variance-of-use filing; the withdrawn rezoning petition remains on record as acknowledged by staff. Staff offered to answer commission questions during the meeting and to continue to process the new petition following standard procedures.
Ending: Commission members emphasized adherence to established filing processes and fees; the petitioner will need to submit a new variance filing and associated fee for the matter to proceed.
