Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grants one‑year extension for Bridge Street Hotel CUP after debate over diligence and fees
Summary
After debate about what constitutes "diligent pursuit," the commission granted Averill Hospitality Group a one‑year extension of its conditional‑use permit for the Bridge Street Hotel (PCUP23‑0004); one commissioner voted no amid concerns about benchmarks and unpaid plan‑check fees.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on June 16 voted to grant a one‑year extension of the conditional‑use permit (PCUP23‑0004) and associated variances for the proposed Bridge Street Hotel and resort, allowing the applicant additional time to secure financing and finalize plans.
City planner Bill Dean briefed the commission on the request, noting the original CUP was approved June 18, 2024, and that the commission granted a one‑year extension last year. Dean said the applicant had submitted a demolition permit that later expired and a building‑permit application for which the plan‑check fee (a substantial sum) had not yet been paid; staff said the building‑permit application would expire June 29 unless action is taken.
Ben McGrann, the applicant’s representative, outlined progress: permit‑level drawings, selection of a general contractor through competitive RFP, foundation/soil work, and roughly $1.8 million spent on design and engineering since the last hearing. He said market and financing conditions have made moving the project forward more difficult and asked the commission for flexibility to preserve the existing entitlement while the team pursues partners and funding.
Commissioners debated what demonstrable steps would show "diligent pursuit." Commissioner Torpey proposed conditioning the extension on payment of the city’s plan‑check fee before the building‑permit application expires; that motion died for lack of a second. Other commissioners cited the applicant’s spending on design work as evidence of diligence and favored a one‑year extension while signaling that future extensions might be less likely.
The commission approved the one‑year extension by roll call (majority yes; Commissioner Torpey voted no). Staff noted that if the applicant does not pull the building permit and initiate construction before the permit timeframes expire, the CUP remains subject to expiration and future review.
