GROVELAND TOWNSHIP – A shorter, less detailed off-street residential parking ordinance was still too much, according to many residents, so the planning commission will try again.
“It’s still too restrictive,” said Commissioner Jean Sova at a Tuesday, Feb. 25 meeting which drew almost as many people as the Jan. 28 public hearing that led to the first revision.
Contracted township planner Chuck Cairns said the second draft was an attempt to recognize objections raised at the first meeting.
“I think it was too involved,” Cairns said. “We decided that we needed to loosen it up a bit.”
That attempt included an increase in the minimum number of parking spaces to two at a residence, plus allowance for two additional vehicles per licensed driver in the household.
In addition, the revised proposal provided for additional outdoor storage of maintenance equipment without requiring fences or shrubbery to shield them from public view.
“The actual screening device could end up worse than the stuff being stored,” said Cairns.
There was additional debate, however, on issues of “storage” of maintenance equipment and vehicles under repair, and residents continued to raise examples of how they would be in violation even if the revised ordinance were adopted.
For example, the first draft required vehicle repair to be done in an enclosed structure; the second draft allowed outside repair, but in a back or side yard.
“If people can’t pull their car into a garage, they probably can’t pull their car into a side yard,” said Sova.
“I have a vision of people doing body work in their front yard, and I don’t like that,” said Commissioner David Ax.
Commission Chairman Vince Ferreri questioned language restricting outdoor storage of farm equipment.
“I thought we wanted to exclude farmers and farming activities,” Ferreri said.
“I understand that we have a problem with parked vehicles,” said resident Charles Rockwell, who repairs lawn mowers on his property. “Where did we get all this other stuff? Why don’t we just deal with parked cars and get rid of all this stuff nobody can agree on?”
Township officials continued to defend the need for an ordinance, based on citizen complaints that cannot be adequately enforced through existing blight and business ordinances. The commission also repeated earlier statements that enforcement action comes only after citizen complaints.
“A lot of this has to be based on intent,” Cairns said.
The debate led the commission to table the issue once again, with another revision due before the March 25. Although not legally required to do so, the commission will conduct a second public hearing on the ordinance before voting on whether to send it to the board of trustees for possible adoption.