Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bel Air board discusses fee-in-lieu and off-site parking rules; staff to solicit commission feedback
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to revise or remove the town’s fee‑in‑lieu of parking rules, possible limits on long-term lease options, and suggested sending proposed changes to the Planning Commission and Economic & Community Development Commission for input.
The Board discussed possible revisions to Bel Air’s fee‑in‑lieu and off‑site parking provisions at the Sept. 30 work session, focusing on whether the town should retain, revise or eliminate the practice that allows developers to pay for required parking rather than provide all spaces on-site in certain zoning districts.
Staff and commissioners reviewed current rules: fee in lieu is charged at $4,000 per space (a figure raised in prior years) and the code permits fee in lieu as a percentage of required spaces in certain districts (for example, up to 50% in some zones and 100% in B-2 under past language). Commissioners noted prior amendments that removed parking requirements for some Main Street business uses and suggested removing fee-in-lieu allowances where on‑site parking is generally practicable.
Discussion covered administrative mechanics (where fee‑in‑lieu funds are held — the town parking fund — and permitted uses for the fund), practical effects on redevelopment of older downtown buildings, and whether a town could use the money for maintenance or capital parking projects. Staff said fee‑in‑lieu revenues are held in the town’s parking fund and have historically been used for capital parking projects (for example, adding spaces), and the code currently ties fee use to development of parking facilities; commissioners asked whether language could be broadened to permit physical maintenance or capital repairs if desired.
Commissioners also discussed removing the town’s unusual option of a long‑term renewable lease as a substitute for compliance; that idea drew support from multiple commissioners. The board asked staff to circulate the proposed language to the Planning Commission and Economic & Community Development Commission for feedback and recommended modest wording changes (for example, clarifying that fee funds be used for capital parking projects or related physical maintenance rather than operating costs). Staff and counsel indicated they would ensure changes align with existing code sections that define the parking fund and associated restrictions.
No vote occurred; staff will prepare redlined code language and send it to the Planning Commission and ECDC for review.
