Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 213
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, the consultant confirmed at a meeting (again, attended by only two interested citizens including me) that it was just poorly worded and would be fixed to refer to secondary unit designators. There's already a separate provision that bans an ADU from (1) being inhabited if the owner lives neither in the ADU nor in the principal building, or (2) being a bed-and-breakfast or a short-term rental.
The zone in question already will allow three-story apartment buildings by right under the draft code (up from just duplexes under the current code).
No, a government official confirmed at the same meeting that it was traffic-related. Specifically, he doesn't want to see a repeat of a particular drivethrough elsewhere in the municipality that consistently backs up into the street during mornings. (He said something like, "I don't know how PennDOT approved that highway occupancy permit.") And he expects the traffic numbers that I cited to be applicable more to a fast-food restaurant in a commercial zone than to a "neighborhood" fast-food restaurant that would actually be built in a residential zone.
More options
Context Copy link