A contested set of applications on Michael Donald Avenue dominated the Mobile Board of Adjustment's January meeting, where the board voted to hold one variance request for six months and declined to advance a separate fourth‑unit variance after a public contractor complaint and procedural votes.

Colton Brown and Kelvin Brown appeared before the board seeking relief related to properties on Michael Donald (also shown in the record as Michael Donnell). Colton Brown sought multiple variances for a vacant lot at 122 Michael Donald Avenue, proposing a four-unit building with reduced access (about 18 feet proposed vs. 24-foot requirement) and limited parking. During public comment, contractor Mike Finland (JMF Construction) accused Brown of failing to pay subcontractors for work on a related property and asked the board to delay action until civil disputes were resolved. "He owes me $447,300," Finland said, asking that the board not reward a party he described as having unpaid bills.

Brown used his allotted rebuttal to say the payment dispute is a civil matter and that city inspectors had identified workmanship or permitting failures on the other property; he said payments were conditioned on passing inspection and pulling proper permits. "I met with inspectors from the city of Mobile, framing, plumbing, electrical ... and they failed everything through consultation," Brown said, adding he had documentation of the inspections.

Board members and staff debated whether rezoning (a planning commission/city council process) would be more appropriate than repeated variances along a street that already contains a mix of uses. Staff recommended a six‑month holdover to allow the applicant time to hold a neighborhood meeting, submit a rezoning application and pursue planning‑commission review. The board voted 6–1 to hold one application over for six months.

Separately, for a property where permits had been issued for three units, the board discussed but failed to second a motion to approve variances that would have legalized a fourth unit and related parking adjustments; because there was no second the motion failed and the variance request did not pass. Staff clarified that permits in the record authorized three units and that additional variances would be required to change that status.

The board emphasized the distinction between civil contract disputes (which the board cannot resolve) and zoning decisions. Applicants were reminded they could pursue rezoning or return with revised variance requests; contractors and claimants were advised to pursue civil remedies.