Consider the following circumstances that justify the board rescind the variance:

​

1. Prior to the June 13, 2024, ZBA meeting, the Planning Department’s “Report of Findings,” posted online, misled the public by stating:

“Since the previous meeting, the petitioner has not provided any additional material nor has made any modifications to the proposed plans that would alter the variance requests.”

2. In fact, three additional changes were made without notifying the public:

a. Attorney Dennis Cowan had joined the development team and submitted a misleading five-page analysis of variance criteria  – just two days before the hearing.

b. In addition, Cowan submitted a document mislabeled as a parking study.

3. The ZBA failed to adjourn the meeting, allowing time for affected persons to read the new materials.

4. The ZBA failed to recognize that the petitioner’s so-called parking study was not valid in that it was merely a data compilation that failed to consider all factors that a true parking study takes into account.

5. The ZBA failed to consider valid parking studies commissioned by the city and DDA over many years. All these studies are in the possession of the city and are available to the ZBA.

6. The ZBA failed to demand that the petitioner provide competent evidence proving all the relevant criteria needed to grant the parking variance. A memo from an attorney is not evidence. In fact, it is merely a set of unsupported, self-promoting conclusions.

7. The ZBA majority failed to properly analyze all the required criteria. They introduced their own irrelevant comments. Factually inaccurate and unsupported personal opinions do not permit the ZBA to ignore the law.