Neighbors oppose cash‑in‑lieu for 602 Cedar Street development; trustees reject parking relief request

Neighbors and trustees sparred April 22 over a developer request to provide a cash‑in‑lieu payment instead of building 12 off‑street parking spaces for a proposed 14‑unit condominium at 602 Cedar Street.

The applicant (development team from Geneva Rock/Rock Development) proposed a three‑story, mixed‑use‑zoned, 14‑unit condominium with seven off‑street spaces accessed from the alley and additional bicycle parking. The town code requires 1.5 vehicle spaces per unit (21 total); the applicant proposed supplying seven spaces, providing bicycle parking and requesting a cash‑in‑lieu contribution for the remaining 12 spaces. The applicant said two of the 14 units would be deed‑restricted at 100% area median income (AMI) and asked trustees to consider the housing benefit when evaluating the parking request.

Several nearby residents testified during public comment and described severe on‑street parking pressure on Cedar and Belden streets, particularly during school pickup and drop‑off at the adjacent elementary school. Residents said current on‑street parking is already constrained by existing multifamily development, and argued the requested fee‑in‑lieu would worsen congestion and safety at a block heavily used by children, bicycles and pedestrians.

Trustee discussion focused on four code findings that guide a fee‑in‑lieu decision: whether the development provides a substantial community benefit, whether the relief requested is the minimum necessary, whether reduced parking would substantially impact adjacent properties, and whether the request is driven by convenience or financial burden.

Trustees were split but a majority questioned whether two 100% AMI units in a 14‑unit market‑rate building constituted a sufficient community benefit to waive on‑site parking. Trustees also expressed concerns about precedent for other downtown parcels, the lack of public notice for fee‑in‑lieu requests (town code does not require neighborhood notice), and possible shortfalls in the applicant’s attempt to provide off‑site parking on an adjacent parcel the applicant owns.

After debate and a roll‑call vote, trustees rejected the cash‑in‑lieu request. Counsel and staff said the applicant may revise the site plan, provide additional on‑site spaces or return with a different request. The vote followed public comment from nearby property owners who said the neighborhood’s existing curb‑side capacity is at or beyond safe limits during school pick‑up and other peak hours.

Trustees asked staff to consider whether changes are needed in the town’s process — including public notice requirements for fee‑in‑lieu applications and whether the town’s in‑lieu fee should be reexamined — because multiple trustees said the current per‑space fee feels low relative to construction costs and the community impact of fewer on‑site parking spaces.