Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Application topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bel Air planning commission continues review of 102 North Bond Street restaurant and nail salon

3699307 · June 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission continued a June 5 continued hearing on a proposed 3,300-square-foot combined restaurant and nail salon at 102 North Bond Street after staff and the applicant agreed additional details and consultant review were needed.

The Bel Air Planning Commission on June 5 continued a review of an application to build a one‑story, 3,300-square-foot commercial building at 102 North Bond Street that would house a 2,200-square-foot restaurant and a 1,100-square-foot nail salon.

The item, a continued hearing from May 1, was presented to the commission by Kevin Small of the Planning Department, who summarized outstanding technical issues including parking dimensions, stacked (tandem) spaces, sidewalk and storm‑drain alignment, and the requirement that the town’s architectural consultant review the updated elevations before a final decision.

Small told commissioners the developer proposed 23 parking spaces where 22 were required but that 16 were designed as tandem spaces and therefore a waiver would be necessary. Small also said on‑street meter relocation and coordination with Public Works had not been completed and that several existing parallel on‑street spaces did not meet code dimensions. Small noted the building footprint was moved 7 feet away from the North Bond Street right of way and that staff recommended graphical depiction of outdoor dining locations on the final plan. He also said one tree’s root zone would be affected by a proposed storm drain alignment and asked the applicant to revise the alignment so the tree would not be removed.

Tom Miner of Frederick Ward Associates, the project consultant, said the applicant had addressed many items from the May 1 review. He said the revised submission adds signage and striping to identify tandem spaces, provides one additional on‑site parking space to offset a likely loss of an unmetered on‑street space, and includes a revised entrance profile intended to match the neighbor’s curb detail. Miner said the applicant had met with DPW and that a DPW representative had not reported objections to the revisions provided so far.

Applicant Danny Wynn, who identified himself as associated with 102 North Bond Street, confirmed the restaurant would not serve alcohol but that customers would be allowed to bring their own; he said liquor‑board approval would be a separate matter. Wynn said staff’s request to depict outdoor furniture on the final plan would be met on a subsequent submittal.

Neighbors and other members of the public spoke in favor of the design changes and pedestrian connections. Wayne Goddard of 108 North Bond Street told the commission he had worked with the applicant on creating a shared sidewalk and suggested a brick treatment for aesthetics. Dylan Daniels, a resident, said he preferred the darker building color that was in the earlier submission.

Commissioners and staff stressed code compliance for parking space length (20 feet), sight‑distance setbacks (8 feet from driveways), sidewalk continuity, and the town requirement that the architect’s consultant provide comments on elevations before final action. Several commissioners said stacked parking can be acceptable with clear striping and signage but voiced operational concerns about vehicles blocking each other.

Chair Lois Kissinger Kelly called for a motion. A commissioner moved to continue the hearing; the motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor to carry the item to the next month’s meeting so the applicant could supply the revised plans and the required architectural consultant review.

The commission did not approve or deny the site plan at the June 5 meeting; the application remains under review pending the additional materials and formal consultant comments requested by staff.