Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies conditional use permit for home‑based food stand after neighbors object
Summary
After a split planning commission recommendation and extensive public testimony for and against, Franklin City Council voted to deny a conditional use permit for 'A Taste of Philly' to operate from a residential garage; supporters urged entrepreneurship while neighbors cited traffic, safety and cottage‑law concerns.
Franklin City Council denied a request to allow a home‑based food stand operating from a residential garage at 1004 North High Street to continue as a conditional use after residents raised traffic, noise and property‑value concerns.
The planning commission had recommended denial by a 3–2 vote with one abstention. Planning staff described the request as a conditional use outside principal permitted uses. Owner Grama Williams told council the stand was a small, community‑oriented venture and that it was intended to be temporary while the business seeks a truck or storefront. “We just decided to do something because we wanted to do something new and we wanted to give the kids something to look forward to,” Williams said.
Neighbors said the location — an open garage facing the street — created safety and zoning concerns. Joan Queen, a nearby resident, listed five reasons for opposition including traffic, safety, noise, appearance and property values. Cindy Thomason, who said she had run a home business in the same neighborhood in the past, raised public‑health and cottage‑law issues and said a street‑front presence distinguish this operation from typical cottage businesses.
Some council members acknowledged the business’s community value and urged the applicant to follow city procedures; others sided with neighbors and the planning commission recommendation. One council member described the broader challenge of enforcing rules consistently and noted that if the council allowed a home‑based operation to continue it could undermine other businesses required to comply with licensing and zoning rules.
Council debated a motion to table the item to clarify legal limits and possible conditions, but a subsequent motion to accept the planning commission recommendation to deny carried. The council recorded four affirmative votes, two negative votes and one abstention and the mayor declared the planning commission’s recommendation accepted.
What happens next: the applicant must comply with city licensing and health‑department requirements before reapplying or relocating; if operations continue contrary to council’s decision the city may issue summonses and pursue court enforcement.
