Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate continues over Peekskill proposal to let developers pay in lieu of building parking
Summary
Staff outlined changes to a proposed payment‑in‑lieu (PIL) parking pilot that would allow developers to buy or pay annual fees instead of providing on‑site spaces; residents and some council members raised concerns about selling or reallocating downtown parking and whether the James Street garage can handle increased demand and electric vehicles.
Council continued the public hearing on a local law to implement a payment‑in‑lieu of parking program for the downtown. Planning staff explained the program's twin options — an upfront purchase amount per space (examples cited: $30,000 per space) or an annual maintenance fee — and a five‑year prepayment option for maintenance fees to provide the city earlier access to funds for garage improvements.
"What we're doing with the payment in lieu is... they have to pay a very significant investment in the parking garages themselves, which is the 30,000 and the $15,000 fee," planning staff said, noting that the program is designed to finance maintenance and possible expansion of shared downtown parking. Staff also said the Planning Commission would have discretion, based on findings, to reduce participation in the pilot for large buildings and that the Zoning Board of Appeals remains an avenue for relief.
Public commenters pushed back. Garrett Dennett and John Hodgins urged the council not to prioritize outside developers over existing downtown businesses and residents, questioned the structural capacity of the 50‑year‑old James Street parking garage for heavier electric vehicles, and said Peekskill's downtown cannot be compared directly to larger cities like New Rochelle or White Plains. Council agreed to keep the hearing open to Nov. 10 to gather additional data and comment, and staff pledged to return with comparisons, engineering findings and additional outreach to state housing agencies regarding affordable‑housing impacts.
The council did not vote on the pilot and left the public hearing open for further comment.
