Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Multifamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves registration of fourth unit at 442–446 North Pershing despite parking concerns
Summary
The planning commission approved a dimensional variance to register 442–446 North Pershing Avenue as a four‑unit building and also recommended a parking variance; staff had recommended denial and neighbors raised on‑street parking concerns.
The York City Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a dimensional variance that will allow a property at 442–446 North Pershing Avenue to be registered as a four‑unit building, and the commission also approved a recommendation for a parking variance for the same property.
Staff told the commission the property is in the RS‑2 single‑family detached residential conservation district and that the zoning ordinance requires six off‑street parking spaces for the proposed four units; staff recommended denial of the dimensional variance and of any reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces because, in staff’s view, the property is not large enough for the proposed density and cannot provide the required parking.
Applicant Charles Martin told the commission he bought the building in late 2023 and said he believed it was a four‑unit property at the time of purchase, noting four mailing addresses, four hot water heaters and four gas meters. “I purchased the property back in 2023,” Martin said. “When I purchased it, I was told it was a 4 unit.” He said all four units are currently occupied and that he seeks to have the property legally registered as a four‑unit dwelling.
Neighbor David Orr, who said he owns 436 North Pershing, said parking is already a problem on the block because of an adjacent church, a school and a garage that parks cars on the street; he cautioned formalizing additional units could exacerbate parking pressure.
After discussion and public comment, the commission approved a motion to allow the additional unit and then voted to recommend a parking variance; the roll call votes for both motions recorded affirmative responses from Commissioners Velez, Davis, Wolfe, Gaines and Moore (5–0).
The commission’s packet and staff presentation cited local zoning ordinance parking and density provisions; staff and the applicant gave differing views on whether the property’s historic use and physical conditions justified relief.
