Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Notice Rescind topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals rescinds decision on variance for 716 North Main Street; rehearing set for Jan. 15, 2026
Summary
Staff told the Board of Zoning Appeals that an applicant had not received clear individualized notice of a prior hearing; the board voted unanimously to rescind its decision on the variance for 716 North Main Street and directed staff to place the application on the Jan. 15, 2026 agenda for a new hearing.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to rescind last month’s decision on a variance application for 716 North Main Street after staff reported the applicant had not been given clear, individualized notice of the hearing.
Staff member Ginger told the board that the applicant submitted the application just past the October deadline and that staff had provided the applicant the standard annual meeting schedule but not a specific agenda or written notice confirming the November hearing. "We have not given the applicant actual notice of when that was going to be on the agenda," Ginger said, warning that the error created "some legal liability and vulnerability to a due process claim." She recommended the board follow Robert's Rules of Order and rescind the earlier decision so the application could be re‑heard.
The board moved and seconded a motion to rescind the prior decision on the variance application for 716 North Main Street; the transcript does not identify who made the motion or who seconded it. Because the board operates under charter rules, the chair called a roll‑call vote. Member Armstrong, Member Patterson, Member Perkins, Council member Noel, and Chairman Williams each voted "Yes," and the motion passed unanimously.
Ginger told the board the rehearing will be treated as a completely new hearing: the application will be placed on the January agenda with any additional documents from the applicant included in the packet, the applicant and counsel will have the opportunity to present, and staff will provide the board with a fresh analysis. She said she had spoken with the applicant’s counsel and that December would not work for them; the board set the rehearing for Jan. 15, 2026, at 6 p.m.
The applicant, identified in the record as Mr. Southerland, was present with his attorney, David Parsons. Staff and the applicant thanked the board for allowing a rehearing. The board adjourned after confirming the new date.
What this means: the earlier decision on the variance is voided for procedural reasons and the applicant will have a full, new hearing in January. The record shows the board took the step to avoid a potential due‑process challenge; no substantive decision on the variance was made at this meeting.
Next steps: the planning director was directed to place the variance application on the Jan. 15, 2026 agenda and to include any new materials from the applicant in the packet. The board did not record a mover or seconder by name in the transcript, and there were no amendments recorded to the motion.
(Reporting based solely on the board transcript.)
