pages: PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2017-05-08 | 4 | Staff Member Thomas explained that the intent about the satellite parking lot makes it clear that they intended for customer cars not to be parked on the street. Board Member Mitchell said he was concerned that the specific call out of "business vehicles" would create a legal issue surrounding enforcement against customer vehicles. Staff Attorney Roush said that looking at the totality of the record is important and you can not just isolate a specific term in the language. He said the language might not be precise, but a court would likely support staff's recommendation. Board Member Curtis said the issue has been discussed at great length and nobody can plead ignorance. He said there has been ample time to cure the parking problem. Board Member Knox White asked if staff did any parking counts in the area to evaluate the issue. Staff Member Thomas said they did not do any counts and focused only on the violations. He said the street was always pretty full but they were always able to find space on Park Ave. Jay Garfinkle, representing the family of the building's owners, said automotive repair has been done on that site for over 90 years. He said there are other gas stations and auto repair facilities on Park St. He said Mr. Thomas has told him that there is ample parking in the neighborhood. He said there was little or no concern expressed to them until 2013 when there was a feud with a neighboring businessman. He said all the concern is about customer cars in the neighborhood, but the conditional use permit is related to business vehicles. He said they believed their tenant would remain in compliance with the use permit after the 2015 hearing. He said Mr. Thomas told him that obtaining the additional property would be "de-facto" compliance, even if the tenant did not use it for customer cars. He said they told their tenants that if they were in violation with their conditional use permit, they would be in violation of their lease and subject to eviction. He said they sought clarification from the City on the definitions of "business vehicles" and "store" (vs. park) in the use permit. He outlined the history of correspondence relating to business owned vehicles. He said it would be inappropriate for the board to remove the permit based on reported historic issues, but only on current issues. He said they do not believe the conditional use permit has been violated as written. Board Member Sullivan said she met with the owners previously. She asked about underground monitoring of the site. Mr. Garfinkle said they conducted a study in preparation for sale of the property. He said there is minimal contamination where the underground tanks were located before 1979. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 4 of 10 May 8, 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf |