Board debates nonconforming parking draft; distance for shared parking and liability divide supervisors

Township staff presented draft regulations intended to register a nonconforming amount of parking for village properties that cannot meet current off‑street parking requirements. The proposal would allow legally established uses that lack required spaces to register their nonconformity so the property owner could change uses in the future without automatically losing that baseline, provided any increase in required parking is subsequently provided.

Discussion focused on three interrelated concerns: (1) how the nonconforming baseline differs by existing use (for example, a 2,000‑square‑foot restaurant may have a far larger parking requirement than a similarly sized office), (2) the acceptable distance for shared or off‑site parking that could count toward a property’s requirement (the draft referenced 66 feet in earlier ordinances; some board members urged distances up to 1,200–1,500 feet to make shared parking meaningful), and (3) potential liability if the township recognizes off‑site spaces (alleys or municipal lots) but does not provide safe pedestrian access.

Board members raised equity concerns that the draft could advantage some existing properties over others and stressed the need for shared‑parking rules, safe pedestrian connections, and clearer limits on how registered nonconforming amounts would be used. Staff and planning‑commission representatives noted the provision is intended as a short‑term mechanism while a broader zoning study proceeds.

After extended debate, the board directed staff to forward the proposed nonconforming parking regulations to the Center Region Planning Commission for review and to advertise the amendment for possible adoption; the voice vote carried with at least one supervisor recorded as opposed.