Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeals Procedural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MBZA Division 1 lacks quorum; several cases transferred, others continued to March 4 hearing
Summary
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 did not have a quorum at its public hearing and did not take final action. The chair announced transfers of specific petitions to upcoming division hearings and stated that remaining petitions will be continued to the March 4 hearing.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeals Procedural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peter Nelson, chairperson of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1, opened a public hearing and said the board did not have enough members present to take action on cases scheduled for the day.
"As the only board member present today, it does require 3 broths to take action on any request. So, unfortunately, today, we cannot hear any of the cases and take action on them," Chairperson Peter Nelson said, and added that the board would consider transfer requests and continuances in the order petitions were listed on the agenda.
Because of the lack of a quorum, petitioners and their representatives asked whether their cases could be transferred to hearings before other MBZA divisions or continued to later Division 1 dates. Several petitioners’ requests were granted by the chair as transfers or continuances; staff raised no objections to the transfers that were recorded on the record.
Attorney Joe Calderon, representing the petitioner for case 2025-DV-1-28751 (Michigan Road), asked for a transfer to Division 2 for the Feb. 11 hearing with no additional notice. The chair said the board would consider that transfer to the Feb. 11 hearing.
Harley Means, counsel for the petitioner in 2024-DV-1-045, asked that the matter be continued to the March 4 Division 1 hearing. Staff had no objection, and the chair said the petition would be continued to the March 4 hearing.
Kevin Bucheit, planner with the law firm Craig DeVault and agent for case 2025-DV-1-001 (listed at 4235 East 406th/"40 Sixth" Street in the record), requested a transfer to the Division 2 Feb. 11 hearing; staff stated no objection. Bucheit also asked whether the board could waive the usual notice-timing rules that apply to hearing notices; Chairperson Nelson said a waiver would require three board members and therefore could not be decided that day.
James Holman asked that 2024-DV-1-047 be transferred; after clarifying available dates, the petition was recorded as transferred to the Feb. 11 Division 2 hearing. For petition 2024-DV-1-037 (2402 East 308th/"30 Eighth" Street as listed in the record), the petitioner requested transfer to Division 3 for the Feb. 18 hearing; the chair said that petition would be transferred to Division 3 on Feb. 18.
The board secretary read two petitions that would be automatically continued to the March 4 Division 1 hearing because no transfer requests were made for them on the record: case 2024-UV-1-030 (2927 West Washington Street; Warren Township; Council District 18; zoned C4T0D; petitioner Tekleid Fekadu) — a variance of use to allow a five-unit multifamily building — and case 2024-DV-1-046 (8654 West 806th/"80 Sixth" Street as listed in the record; Pike Township; Council District 1; zoned D2/DSFF; petitioners Gary A. and Mickey K. James) — a variance of development standards to permit a six-foot decorative fence in a front yard where 3.5 feet is the maximum permitted.
Chairperson Nelson reiterated that, absent a transfer request, all petitions on the agenda will be automatically continued to the March 4 Division 1 hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
Notes on procedure and authority: Chairperson Nelson advised the public that contacting board members outside the public hearing regarding pending matters is prohibited and that a petitioner believing notice was not properly given must raise that at the start of the hearing. The record also reflects staff members present from the Division of Planning and the board's senior counsel, though those staff members did not make substantive rulings during this hearing.
