Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harris Township approves ordinance to register nonconforming parking, sends shared‑parking language to planners
Summary
The Harris Township Board approved ordinance 3‑69 to allow registration of legally established uses that lack required off‑street parking and directed the Planning Commission to prioritize shared/off‑site parking language, after residents warned the change could limit property resale without a shared‑parking solution.
The Harris Township Board of Supervisors on Sept. 9 approved ordinance 3‑69, which allows owners to register a legally established use that does not meet current off‑street parking requirements so long as future uses do not increase the amount of required parking.
Board members and residents said the change is intended to give property owners some certainty about permitted uses where on‑site parking cannot feasibly be provided. Township staff outlined the Planning Commission and Village Parking Committee recommendations and explained the registration preserves the degree of nonconformity when future uses require the same or fewer spaces, but does not permit an owner to increase required parking beyond the registered amount.
Why it matters: Business owners and committee members said the measure could free otherwise locked buildings for future use, but they also warned that, without a shared‑parking program, some properties could be permanently limited to lower‑parking uses. "If you have a 2,000‑square‑foot office here and a 2,000‑square‑foot cafe there, one can do anything and the other can virtually do nothing," a public commenter said, summarizing the market concern expressed by several speakers.
What the board decided: After extended debate, the board voted to adopt ordinance 3‑69 and also passed a separate motion instructing the Planning Commission to make shared/off‑site parking its top priority and return recommended language for the board to consider. Several supervisors said passing 3‑69 now would be a modest improvement over the current, more restrictive rules and that shared‑parking work should proceed in parallel.
Public concerns and next steps: Residents who served on the parking committee and business owners asked for clear guidance for prospective buyers and sellers and said they want the planning and code work to include safe pedestrian access to any shared lots (sidewalks and lighting). Staff confirmed the Planning Commission will take up shared parking, including distance parameters and pedestrian access, and return recommendations to the board.
The ordinance change does not immediately create shared parking; the board’s action was to record the nonconforming parking framework and accelerate planning work on shared‑parking solutions.
