Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Joint Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reviews draft for Article 37 to broaden joint parking rules and clarify required parking studies
Summary
Board members reviewed slides on Article 37, which would amend the zoning bylaw to broaden eligibility for joint parking and clarify required parking studies and when parking requirements change with a change of use.
Planning Board members on March 25 reviewed a draft Annual Town Meeting warrant article (Article 37) that would change the zoning bylaw to allow broader use of joint parking and to clarify when parking requirements may remain unchanged after a permitted change of use.
Presenters said the current bylaw does not allow a change in usage to preserve an existing parking requirement; the proposed changes would let entities justify shared (joint) parking through an independent parking study. "The current bylaw doesn't allow for a change in usage and, consequently, a change in the, parking regulation. So we need to put that into it," a presenter said. The proposal would also broaden who can qualify for joint parking so that users with complementary peak periods (for example, a breakfast cafe and a dinner restaurant) can share spaces if supported by a parking study.
Board members recommended the presentation emphasize several points for the public: include clear, simple examples of complementary uses; show that a parking study is required (and list what data the study must include); and explain that if a change of use later requires more parking, the applicant would need to redo the parking study. Members urged presenters to avoid wording that could be read as eliminating parking requirements; suggested phrasing included explaining that "additional parking is not required" in specified circumstances, rather than saying parking is "eliminated".
Members also recommended adding photos showing parking lots at different times of day and clearer slide language and legend elements for maps used in the presentation. The board discussed whether private lots shown on sample maps (for example the Walden Street lot and post office area) might confuse listeners; members suggested clearer labeling and focused map insets such as a 9-acre corner example to make the point about existing, underused spaces.
No formal vote on Article 37 was taken at the March 25 meeting; the board's comments were limited to presentation edits and clarification ahead of the public hearing and town meeting.
