09-13-2015, 04:05 PM
I think that's what everyone's taking about. They wouldn't be in compliance, but since it's the government initiating the change, they should get grandfathered in.
Though... it's possible that during the initial zoning application, they acquired the lease for that parking as a condition of the zoning change, and so termination of that would call into question the ongoing permission. They could be compelled to find some alternate arrangement, or show that they parking was not required. If they apply to have the parking requirement reduced, they could be chased after for cash-in-lieu payments, which would be in the $100,000s, for that much parking.
Yeah, for potentially very expensive reasons, they need to toe exactly the line they're going with: "We got permission for this parking. It's not our fault that you're taking it away."
Though... it's possible that during the initial zoning application, they acquired the lease for that parking as a condition of the zoning change, and so termination of that would call into question the ongoing permission. They could be compelled to find some alternate arrangement, or show that they parking was not required. If they apply to have the parking requirement reduced, they could be chased after for cash-in-lieu payments, which would be in the $100,000s, for that much parking.
Yeah, for potentially very expensive reasons, they need to toe exactly the line they're going with: "We got permission for this parking. It's not our fault that you're taking it away."