In May 2019, the city code was amended to eliminate all offstreet parking requirements. The question is: Does that amendment eliminate the need to follow a previously approved site plan that included offstreet parking?
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Monday, March 2, 2020
Olly Olly Oxen Free
Back in March and April of 2017, Galvan Initiatives Foundation came before the Planning Board for a conditional use permit to create space for COARC Starting Place in the basement of the Galvan Armory.
During the site plan review, parking was an issue. According to the code at that time, the proposed new use, which involved space for the COARC daycare program and some professional office space, required ten parking spaces. What was finally agreed on was that Galvan would create a parking lot with ten spaces behind 61-65 and 67-71 North Fifth Street--residential buildings owned by Galvan.
Now, three years later, work is going on at the armory to create the promised space for COARC Starting Place, but word from a Gossips source is that the space across the alley, which was supposed to be a parking lot to provide the ten spaces required, is now going to be a playground for the daycare facility.
In May 2019, the city code was amended to eliminate all offstreet parking requirements. The question is: Does that amendment eliminate the need to follow a previously approved site plan that included offstreet parking?
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
In May 2019, the city code was amended to eliminate all offstreet parking requirements. The question is: Does that amendment eliminate the need to follow a previously approved site plan that included offstreet parking?
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Several major healthy shade trees along the sidewalk were slaughtered to create the alleged parking lot.
ReplyDeleteIf the Planning Board imposed conditions for a use that was conditional, that is not a zoning issue, and the changing of the zoning code would not negate that condition. I suppose the property owner could go back and ask for a release from the condition which might make sense if the Planning Board imposed the condition only because the Zoning Code required it, but if it did, that was not appropriate. It is within the provenance of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant area variances from parking requirements, not the Planning Board, and the Planning Board should only impose parking requirements for conditional uses where it is appropriate for the proposed use irrespective of what the zoning requirement is. That is my opinion and I hope it makes sense.
ReplyDelete