Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Parking Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
101 South Grand: board pauses on legalizing paved area in right of way, awaits DPW input
Summary
An applicant asked the board to formalize two existing off‑street spaces at 101 South Grand but the board paused action and requested Department of Public Works review because portions of the existing pavement encroach in the city right of way and a code violation had been issued.
An owner at 101 South Grand asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to recognize two off‑street parking spaces adjacent to an existing house; the applicant said there is existing blacktop and the goal was to formalize two 9‑by‑20 spaces (two inside garage and two outside) without extensive removal of existing paving. The board raised concerns about existing asphalt lying within the city right of way, the potential impact on future curb, sidewalk or drainage work, and whether approving the variance would effectively legalize use of city property.
The applicant’s engineer described two proposed defined paved areas that would connect to the existing asphalt, and said the bulk of the asphalt currently in question is in the street right of way rather than on private property. Board members asked whether the Department of Public Works had reviewed the proposal; staff said DPW comments were pending and that approval should be contingent on DPW input. One board member noted approving the variance could require a 60‑foot curb cut if the city later installs sidewalks, and another said the board needed DPW’s guidance about whether allowing the paved area would create legal or operational issues for the city.
The record shows the application was prompted by an enforcement action: the applicant said a violation was issued for expanding the paved area without approval roughly two years earlier, and the current application is intended to address that violation. Board members also discussed alternative layouts that might limit future enforcement or preserve space for sidewalks, and suggested the applicant consider removing portions of the asphalt if feasible.
The board opened the public hearing but then adjourned the application to the Oct. 14 meeting to await DPW feedback and for the applicant to consider changes. Staff told the applicant that ZBA staff would contact them after DPW comments arrive and that the applicant did not necessarily need to wait until the next meeting to submit revisions once DPW had weighed in.
Why it matters: The item raises title and public‑right‑of‑way questions and could set a precedent for how the city deals with encroachments of private parking into the right of way and with enforcement of paved areas originally placed without permits.
The board adjourned the public hearing and review to Oct. 14 pending DPW comment and possible revised plans from the applicant.
