Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines discretionary review and approves rear‑yard parking permit at 3340–3342 Gary Boulevard
Summary
After a contested hearing and a recusal, the commission declined discretionary review and approved a permit to document two existing rear‑yard parking spaces at 3340–3342 Gary Boulevard. A Doctor requester argued there is no vehicular access and accused the applicant of seeking a litigation advantage; the sponsor said the use is longstanding. Vote was 6–0 with one recusal.
The Planning Commission on Dec. 17 voted to decline discretionary review and to approve a permit application that documents two existing rear‑yard parking spaces at 3340–3342 Gary Boulevard.
Staff architect David Winslow presented the request as a revision to an existing permit that would document two on‑site parking spaces used historically by the property and correct plan omissions (a storage shed and site vicinity map). Winslow told commissioners the permit is intended to document an existing use and that no construction work was proposed.
The Doctor requester’s counsel, Patrick Connolly, argued the property has no vehicular access to the rear yard because a fence was built on the property line before the permit was applied for and that the permit appeared to be pursued to gain a litigation advantage. "It's frankly to gain a litigation advantage," Connolly said, urging the commission to scrutinize the application.
Sponsor counsel Daryl Yorkie said the application is ministerial and seeks to confirm longtime use, arguing there has been a shared driveway and historical access. Yorkie said litigation over easement rights is ongoing but should not prevent the planning department from issuing a permit that conforms to code.
Commissioner Diamond recused herself from the item because she owns property within 500 feet of the site; after the recusal the commission proceeded with six voting members. Following rebuttals and a motion from Commissioner Tanner (seconded), the commission voted 6–0 to approve the permit and to not take discretionary review. The record notes that private civil litigation over access and easement rights is ongoing; planning staff said questions about recorded easements and private access are civil matters beyond the department’s jurisdiction.
Next steps: Sponsor to proceed with the corrected permit. Any civil easement or access disputes remain to be resolved in the appropriate forum.
