Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning Commission Tables 425 Pacific Ave Zoning Appeal After Applicant Clarifies Home‑Occupation Plans
Loading...
Summary
The York City Planning Commission rescinded an initial recommendation to approve a variance for 425 Pacific Ave after the applicant clarified she intends a home‑occupation counseling office rather than a formal apartment/commercial conversion; staff said the item must be re‑advertised and refiled as a home occupation.
Chairman Johnson and the York City Planning Commission heard testimony and staff recommendations on a zoning appeal for 425 Pacific Avenue before agreeing to table the matter so the applicant can refile as a home occupation.
Staff told the commission the property, in the RS‑2 single‑family residential conservation district, does not permit an “apartment combined with commercial” use and recommended denial of two variance requests: one to allow an apartment combined with commercial on the first floor and a second to permit professional office use in RS‑2. Staff said the application had been advertised as a mixed apartment/commercial conversion and therefore did not match a home‑occupation filing.
Applicant Jacqueline George said she bought the house on 06/27/2025 and planned to use the main floor for counseling services for children and families, with her son living on the upper floor. “I specialize in working with children and their families,” George said. She told the commission four parking spaces behind the house are reserved for her use and that the adjacent church owns the remainder of the lot.
Commissioners pressed on the practical differences between a home occupation and an apartment conversion, asking whether there would be a separate second‑floor entrance, separate kitchens, or new separate utility meters. Staff noted building‑code requirements and that a formal conversion to multiple dwelling units would trigger additional requirements (for example, a separate entrance and code upgrades), while a properly limited home occupation is treated differently under the zoning rules.
A motion to recommend approval of the variance as originally advertised was made during the hearing, but commissioners and staff clarified the applicant’s stated intent was for a home occupation rather than a permanent apartment conversion. The commission voted to rescind the earlier motion and directed staff and the applicant to refile the item and advertise it correctly as a home occupation; staff asked the applicant to meet with Monty before the next Thursday so the item can be placed on a future agenda.
Outcome: the original motion to recommend approval was rescinded and the case will return on the agenda after the applicant refiles as a home occupation.
