OCEAN CITY — For want of a half a parking space, site plan approval for a proposed seven-unit multi-family development in the ocean block at 125th Street was shelved again this week after a hearing with the Ocean City Planning Commission.
In March, the developers of the proposed Island Wave condominium, a new project proposed for the oceanside at 125th Street and Assawoman Drive, requested a special exception to the on-property parking requirements from the town’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Developer Jeff Thaler and attorney Joe Moore said told the BZA the project, which will include seven multi-family units, needed 18.5 parking spaces according to the code and the project as designed included 18 on-site parking spaces.
The developer is essentially seeking an additional half a parking space on-site to accommodate the seven-unit project, which includes a five-bedroom unit, four four-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. The BZA held a hearing for the parking special exception in March that stretched on for several hours as neighboring property owners voiced concern about the potential impact on the parking in general with the project as proposed.
That BZA hearing was ultimately tabled after several hours when it was determined many non-resident property owners in the immediate area could not attend because of snow in the Baltimore area. As a result, the BZA is expected to renew the hearing on the parking exception next Thursday, allowing non-resident property owners an opportunity to weigh in on the project.
However, in what essentially became a cart-before-the-horse situation, the planning commission on Tuesday was tasked with a site plan review and possible approval before the BZA had made a decision on the parking special exception. Complicating the issue was the fact the developer had acquired a Transfer Development Right (TDR), allowing him to meet the density requirements to develop the project as proposed.
Typically, site plan review by the planning commission comes after any special exceptions or other code issues are dispensed with by the BZA. Because the BZA tabled its hearing on the parking special exception in March, the planning commission on Tuesday was reviewing the site plan before the BZA had resolved the parking issues. Ultimately, the commission tabled the site plan review until after the BZA completed its hearing on the parking special exception, but not before a spirited debate about the parking situation for the property specifically and the neighborhood in general.
Moore explained the project as proposed required 18.5 on-site parking spaces, but the property’s footprint allowed for only 18 spaces, which is why the developer was seeking a special exception. Moore also explained City Engineer Terry McGean had signed off on adjusting the red-painted curb to allow for more on-street parking. The additional on-street parking would not be dedicated to the Island Wave project, but could be used by any of the residents and visitors in the area.
Moore argued the additional three spaces or so created by adjusting the red paint on the curb would actually improve the parking situation in the neighborhood. It came up later that section of red curb in the proposed project area was currently 33 feet, but it could be reduced to 22 feet, or a difference of 11 feet that could create more on-street parking.
“We have worked with the city engineer to provide additional parking on 125th Street,” he said. “He has authorized the adjustment of the red curb to allow for more on-street parking.”
Moore acknowledged the BZA had yet to rule on the parking special exception, but said the project could be expedited if the Planning Commission could approve the otherwise code-compliant site plan conditioned on the approval from the BZA.
“We do recognize that any approval tonight would be conditioned on approval from the BZA,” he said. “We’re prepared to comply with all of the requirements. If the BZA rejects the half-space request, all that happens is we lose a bedroom. It doesn’t change the overall site plan.”
However, the planning commission was less than keen on approving a site plan for the project with the parking issues still unresolved. Planning Commissioner Lauren Taylor pointed to the already challenging parking situation in the existing neighborhood.
“That neighborhood already has a parking problem,” she said. “That’s why the neighbors have complained. This red curb reduction has nothing to do with this project.”
However, Moore continued to assert the entire issue was over half of a parking space required by the code and reiterated the project as designed would actually provide more parking then required.
“We agree,” he said. “We need 18.5 spaces and we have 18. We’re talking about a half a space. This project would not exacerbate the parking problem in the neighborhood. We have two parking spaces for every unit along with three additional spaces. Our parking does not stress the neighborhood. We’re going to provide more spaces then there are now when we’re finished.”
The planning commission pointed out the project would create more demand for parking on a neighborhood already stressed during the summer season. Planning Commission Chair Pam Buckley said with a five-bedroom unit along with multiple four- and three-bedroom units, the two-space per unit standard probably wouldn’t meet the demand with multiple families and multiple vehicles utilizing the units.
“That has always been my issue,” she said. “We’re talking about two spaces per unit, but these are big units. It has been our policy in recent years to ask for more parking than the code requires on new developments for that very reason.”
However, Moore said concerns about the increased demand for parking caused by the size of the proposed units was unfounded.
“That’s simply not factual,” he said. “We’re not exacerbating the problem. We’re actually creating more on-street parking in that area. If we need 18.5 spots on the property and we have 18, we’re adding three more on-street parking spots. If we take the parking situation as it exists now, it will be better than it was.”
Planning Commissioner Palmer Gillis questioned if that body would have an opportunity to revisit the parking issue after the BZA had made its ruling.
“If the BZA complies with this request, we’re stuck with it,” he said. “I don’t think we get another chance with this.”
Buckley suggested not going any further with the site plan approval until the BZA had made its ruling.
“My concern is taking a piece of property and putting a density on it with a three-space deficiency,” she said. “I’m not okay with that. I think what we might need to do is put a hold on this until the BZA resolves the parking issue.”
At that point, Thaler attempted to clear up any misconceptions about the parking situation.
“The three- and four-bedroom units have two dedicated parking spaces and the five-bedroom unit has three dedicated parking spaces,” he said. “According to the code, the five-bedroom unit has to have 3.5 spaces, that’s the half a space we’re trying to get an exception for. That’s the big high-ticket unit in this project.”
As far as any concerns about the use of the TDR for the project, Thaler said that was a misconception.
“We’re using the TDR for 150 square feet,” he said. “We could actually do eight complete units with this project and be code-compliant, but we’re not. We’re doing seven units. I’m not understanding the problem here. We’re providing the full complement of parking.”
Thaler also explained the previous property owner was the Salvation Army, which could have come in with a less attractive project for the site.
“The Salvation Army owned this property,” he said. “If we didn’t do this, they could build a homeless shelter there. That’s what they do. The other bidder wanted to do employee housing. This is a better project for that neighborhood and this is what we want to do.”
The planning commission was less than keen on the veiled threat of what the property could become if the proposed project could not be completed, particularly the notion the Salvation Army’s mission includes building homeless shelters. Taylor said it would not be appropriate to move forward with site plan approval until the BZA ruled on the parking exception and made a motion to that effect.
“This document is useless until they come back from the BZA,” she said. “I would abstain if we do anything with this tonight and if I don’t vote, I don’t think we have a quorum.”
The planning commission voted unanimously with commissioners Peck Miller and Joel Brous absent to table the site plan review until after the BZA ruling. The BZA will resume the parking discussion on April 12 and the planning commission can take up the site plan review on April 17.
