Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parking‑restriction ordinance tabled after council requests more field review

Charlestown City Council · February 2, 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

Charlestown City Council paused further action on proposed parking restrictions after staff updated the ordinance following 136 public comments; members asked for a month to drive streets and verify revisions before a second reading.

Charlestown City Council on Feb. 2 tabled further consideration of a proposed parking‑restriction ordinance (2026 O1) to allow council members additional time for field review and one‑on‑one discussions with staff.

The chair summarized changes made after 136 public responses to an online feedback form: a blanket requirement to keep a minimum 12‑foot travel lane (verified with the fire department as the clearance needed for emergency equipment); clarification that a 30‑foot intersection setback applies; a 72‑hour limit on continuous parking with an explicit carve‑out for short‑term events such as yard sales, open houses and deliveries; added prohibitions on parking in front of mailboxes or blocking driveways; and an approach to adopt and enforce subdivision/HOA parking rules where applicable.

Chuck Deon, a council member, said he wanted more time to ‘‘drive the streets’’ and inspect curb visibility after the recent snow and moved to table the item for one month; Shannon Elder seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote called by the meeting chair.

Why it matters: the revisions aim to balance neighborhood parking needs, temporary event flexibility and public‑safety access for emergency vehicles. Council members asked staff to continue outreach and to provide clearer exhibit maps showing which sides of specific streets are affected.

The council did not adopt changes at the Feb. 2 meeting and will revisit the ordinance at the next regular meeting after members can conduct on‑the‑ground reviews.