Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Procedural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MDC approves multiple continuances, withdraws and transfers to hearing officer
Summary
The Metropolitan Development Commission on June 18 approved several requests to continue zoning petitions, withdraw appeals and return items to the hearing examiner for rehearing; actions were unanimous where recorded.
At the June 18 public hearing the Metropolitan Development Commission approved a series of procedural requests: continuances of zoning petitions to later meetings, withdrawal of an appeal for a front‑setback variance and transfers of cases back to the hearing examiner. The commission recorded unanimous votes on the items as they were taken.
Notable administrative actions
- 2025ZON019 (1404 Prospect Street): Petitioner Kevin Buckheit requested a continuance to the July 16 agenda; staff raised no objection and the commission continued the item without additional notice. Vote recorded as 9‑0.
- 2024CVR855 A & B (1527 E. 12th Street): Paul Lambie, representing the petitioner, asked to withdraw the appeal of part A to let the hearing examiner’s approval of the front setback variance stand. For part B, which had been denied by the hearing examiner, the petitioner requested a continuance to July 2 to do additional neighborhood outreach; staff supported the continuance and the commission approved the request (vote recorded 9‑0).
- 2025ZON037 (2026 Carrollton Avenue): The petitioner requested a continuance to July 2 after receiving staff feedback on a revised site plan; staff did not object and the commission granted the continuance (vote recorded 9‑0).
- 2025 CPL 805, 2025 CPL 805D and 2025 CVR 805C (7515 Canby Road): Staff requested these items be transferred back to the hearing officer; the commission approved returning the matters to the hearing examiner for the July 10 hearing without notice (vote recorded 9‑0).
- 2025 MOD004 (11840 East 201st Street): Staff requested the item be sent back to the hearing examiner for rehearing after the petitioner later sought to appeal one of the commitments attached to the earlier approval. The commission approved returning the petition to the hearing examiner; staff and the petitioner agreed the hearing examiner level was the appropriate forum (vote recorded 9‑0).
The commission recorded roll‑call votes on each motion; where a vote count was read into the record, the clerk reported the items passed with nine yes votes and no no votes. These were procedural determinations: no policy incentives or TIF expenditures were enacted by these motions, and staff instructed petitioners about revised hearing dates or the steps to follow at the hearing examiner.
