Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Reconsideration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland Zoning Board declines to reopen hardship-variance case for 1220 Brighton Avenue
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 6 declined to reopen a hardship-variance decision for 1220 Brighton Ave., finding arguments presented did not constitute the new, material evidence required to reconsider. The board voted by majority to deny the reconsideration and adopt its written findings.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Portland on Nov. 6 voted by majority to deny a request to reopen (reconsider) its earlier hardship-variance decision for 1220 Brighton Avenue, a property owned by Portland West Realty Inc., in the TOD-2 zone.
Chair (speaker 4) opened the hybrid meeting and read the board’s rules of procedure before staff announced the single item of business: the applicant’s written request for reconsideration of the board’s prior finding on the hardship variance. The board first took a procedural vote to determine whether to accept public comment limited to whether the board should reopen the matter; that procedural motion carried and the applicant addressed the panel.
The applicant’s representative (speaker 6) asked the board to reopen the case, arguing there was “additional evidence” and new arguments not fully considered at the prior hearing. The applicant emphasized site constraints, citing the presence of a quarry along the southern property line and the city boundary forming the westerly limit of the parcel, and urged the board to consider how those constraints and the city’s recode affected the feasibility of alternative designs.
Several board members said the packet and prior hearing already contained the relevant materials and that the applicant had offered new argumentation rather than new, material evidence such as a geotechnical report or an agency determination. One member summarized the position: “I don’t feel like there’s a preponderance of new evidence that would me really change my mind,” reflecting the view expressed by multiple members that legal and factual standards for reopening were not met. Another member said they had reconsidered their prior reasoning but did not indicate the change would alter the outcome.
After deliberation, counsel advised that a motion to deny the reconsideration and adopt the board’s written findings would be in order. The board voted on that motion; the transcript records a majority voting to deny reconsideration and adopt findings, with Nancy English recorded as the dissenting vote. The board did not reopen the matter for full rehearing on the hardship variance.
The board’s action ends this request for reconsideration; the chair closed the meeting after confirming no further business was pending.
