Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bza Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michigan City BZA reviews major rules overhaul, defers final vote
Summary
The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed proposed changes to its rules that would let the enforcement officer determine hearing scheduling, require 20-day signage for large projects, and extend administrative-appeal filing windows; members asked for revisions and another workshop before voting.
The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals spent most of its Dec. 9 meeting reviewing a proposed overhaul of its rules and procedures, with the board’s attorney outlining changes that would shift scheduling authority to the enforcement officer, add interdepartmental review, and require public signage for larger projects.
Attorney Hale, who drafted the updated rules, told the board the central change is procedural: rather than relying on a fixed application-due-date schedule, “the application comes in and our enforcement officer Dominique reviews those,” and when Dominique determines an application is complete and adequate public notice can be given, “then it would be scheduled as a next hearing.” Hale said he added phrasing to authorize department and interdepartmental review as part of that process.
Board members raised concerns about timeliness and clarity. Several members said a 14-day packet turnaround in the draft was too short for staff review; one member urged keeping about a month for staff to prepare materials. Hale acknowledged the 14-day dates were adjustable and proposed removing public-facing due dates while maintaining internal deadlines for staff.
Members also debated a proposed sign-posting requirement for large projects. Hale described the provision as limited to projects above a size threshold and called for a 20-day posting period to improve public notice. Board members said the thresholds and the 20-day period were “arbitrary” and could be adjusted but expressed support for clearer, consistent notice for major developments.
The board discussed administrative appeals and the draft’s 15-day filing window. Hale noted the draft followed existing city code but agreed members’ suggestion to extend the window to 30 days merited consideration; several members said the petitioner and city response windows should be aligned for fairness in complex cases.
Other subjects included whether petitioners must appear in person or may participate remotely and the board’s abstention language. Hale said the board may require in-person appearance but must follow state rules that allow members limited remote attendance; the board noted past instances where petitioners appeared by Zoom or through a representative.
The board did not vote on the rules. Members requested another iteration of Hale’s draft, suggested staff produce a clearer, reorganized version (with headings for administrative appeals), and asked for a future workshop or special meeting to review the revisions line-by-line before a formal vote. Staff said petitions are expected in January and that the revised draft would be circulated for further comment.
