Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting   4/16/2026

To certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under this chapter and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed, or considered in the meeting by the public body.

Could we have a roll call vote please?

And Ms. Keller?

We have no reason for a statement from Mr. Brodhead or do we?

I'm happy to make a motion if you'd like and then we can deliberate on the motion.

That would be perfect.

I would move that we affirm these on the administrator's ruling or opinion as opposed to BZA case number 26-02-001.

And is there a second?

Second.

Does anyone have anything they would like to say?

And I will never leave town again.

Unless you get to go to the wrong school.

To limit yourself to ten and a half square miles.

I'm going to strike that from the record.

Thank you.

I am nothing different than State from a couple weeks ago.

For these reasons, at this point, until I've heard from my fellow board members, I will probably vote no because we have no certainty of the extent of central grounds and its boundaries.

The pocket park is within the boundaries of what the ordinance is speaking to, and so for that reason I don't intend to change my vote.

As you said, we don't have clarity around what this boundary is, but for that reason I think I'm still inclined to say that the zoning administrator made a good faith effort to set that boundary and I have no reason to overturn it.

Professionalism or administration of his role clearly centers around no clarity for me on what central grounds constitutes.

feel is the right decision based on the information I have and it's not a reflection of the zoning administrator's work and I think he's done an excellent job using the information that he has available which is what he can do as an administrator for the city.

Could we call the question please?

Mr. Ahmed.

No.

And Ms. Keller.

No.

The motion does carry by a vote of three to two.

Thank you.