Opinion ID: 2068552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is The Parking Lot Accessory?

Text: Petitioners assert that [i]t is a fallacy to assume or presume that the parking for... Cresmont [Loft] is `accessory,' and that  [such a] determination cannot be made based on the record of this matter.  (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). Petitioners' apparent position is that no determination has been made previously on this record as to whether the parking lot at issue falls under the Zoning Code's definition of accessory. [20] Presumably, Petitioners want us to remand the case for that determination. We decline the invitation. Although Petitioners' argument that the City has not decided this question is not wholly untenable, it is in stark contrast to the intent and wording of Bill 03-1228, as well as the 4 December 2003 staff report of the Baltimore City Planning Commission. The Recitals section of Bill 03-1228 provides: Recitals The applicant, Cresmont Properties LLC, is the owner of 2807 Cresmont Avenue, which is located in the Parking Lot District. The owner has obtained a building permit to construct a 26-unit apartment building on the property that includes a 33-space accessory parking lot, and construction has commenced. By long-standing administrative practice by the City, required accessory parking uses do not require a Parking Lot Ordinance. Certain individuals are, however, contesting the practice in court. To expedite the development of the apartment building, the applicant requests that this Ordinance be granted. (emphasis added). Similarly, the Commission's 4 December staff report stated: The applicants are requesting this conditional use [B]ill because several community residents have taken this project to court regarding the use of an alley, and because they are concerned about this same group challenging them regarding the Parking Lot District provisions in the Zoning Code. The City would not normally require this conditional use ordinance because the parking to be provided is accessory to the apartment building. The applicants simply wish to ensure that they may proceed with their project and are willing to provide the higher level of scrutiny afforded the community in the ordinance process, if that would speed the project's implementation. (emphasis added). The obvious intent of Bill 03-1228, as embodied in the Recitals section of the Bill, was to authorize Cresmont to proceed with its proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code, in particular § 10-201, which required accessory off-street parking to be provided for all newly-erected structures. [21] Before enactment of the change to the definition of parking lot in § 10-501 of the Zoning Code, the City was required by § 10-504 to issue an ordinance approving the use of land as a parking lot in the Parking Lot District  the District in which Cresmont's development is situated. See discussion supra Part I.B. Therefore, implicit in the City Council's understanding of the reason for enacting Bill 03-1228, as declared in the Commission's staff report, was the Council's finding that the parking lot being approved and authenticated by the Bill was accessory to the apartment building being constructed. Nothing in the record presented to this Court suggests that Petitioners challenged Bill 03-1228's applicability to the parking lot at issue here on the ground that the City Council's finding that the parking lot is accessory to the apartment building was erroneous, other than the bald assertions noted here.