Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parking Frontage 553 557 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board rejects proposal to add front parking for Franklin senior living project at 553/557 Franklin Road

Franklin Board of Zoning Appeals · March 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Franklin's zoning board denied a request to allow perpendicular parking in front of a proposed senior living facility at 553/557 Franklin Road, citing hillside frontage rules and that an approved site plan already meets parking standards; residents raised flooding and traffic concerns.

The Franklin Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance on March 5 that would have allowed non-parallel parking in front of a proposed senior living and memory care facility at 553 and 557 Franklin Road.

Staff told the board the project sits within a planned district and a Hillside Overlay. A prior 2022 approval allowed landscape frontage and parking to the sides of the building; staff said the revised site plan under review meets parking standards without adding rows of parking in front, and staff concluded the variance criteria were not met because the hardship appeared self-imposed by redesign and the requested layout would impair the frontage and pedestrian-oriented intent in the zoning code and the Envision Franklin plan.

Jeff Rosiaak of Gamble Design Collaborative, representing Century Development, said the project remains a senior living, memory care facility and that users’ mobility and safety needs justify six perpendicular spaces in a drop-off courtyard close to the entrance; he argued the request is consistent with relief granted previously for this property.

A neighbor, Amy Smith of 548 Franklin Road, opposed the request, citing significant flooding from Dry Branch Creek that runs through her property and urging caution on added impervious surface and traffic given the narrow state road. She said she provided photographs to staff showing flooding concerns.

Staff and the applicant said the variance request would not change the approved stormwater management plan; staff noted engineering review of the approved plan. Board members agreed with staff that the existing approved plan offered a path forward without the requested amendment, described the hardship as self-imposed by the redesign, and voted to deny the variance (motion by Board member Scales, second by Board member Beams).