Illegal commercial parking lot

Comment

Comment by Kevin atwell on January 25, 2013 at 4:33pm

Police and PEO can ticket these people. They are in violation of , Sec 1114 (a) No Parking on grass and or properties. 25 to 100 Dollar fine. Can also be Towed

Comment by Howard McCoy on January 23, 2013 at 3:53pm

Yes, there is a distinction between what the Borough wants and what the Zoning Board decides upon, that's why the Zoning Board is separate from the Borough Council. In the instance of 32 W Sellers the Zoning Boards was 5/0 over 5 specific points of law that have not been overturned. The Zoning Board heard the facts and replied appropriately. Our hope is the lot will be sold and a residential home will stand on the lot.

Comment by Kenneth Harper on January 23, 2013 at 10:48am

Looks like our borough council wants to roll over on the zoning laws for some property owners.  I can remember when our borough council would fight & appeal cases for other people in the 70's, 80's, 90's.

When council makes a decision to cave in because of a lawsuit, this will allow others to do the same.  Thus weaken

Comment by Howard McCoy on January 22, 2013 at 6:29pm

Yepper-do, this shot's from the lot at 32 Sellers Ave, 100% fur-sure

Comment by parkergirl on January 21, 2013 at 7:37pm

Are u sure that's Seller's Avenue? LOL Sure looks like West Ridley Avenue to me. Fleet of 3/4 trucks several times a week parked there with a business being run out of the house and code enforcement allowed them to expand their driveway. Now I'm stuck living next to a house that's like parking in Walmart. Code Enforcement = JOKE

Comment by Roxanne Lucchesi on March 30, 2012 at 4:52pm

Okay. Since no one else has said it yet: "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot" -- Joni Mitchell

Comment by Howard McCoy on March 29, 2012 at 7:51pm

Today two "No Parking" signs were erected on 32 West Sellers.  Wood and paper ones were put up on Monday but the wind blew them down and they were ignored. Now comes enforcement of the no parking on private property.

Comment by Howard McCoy on March 26, 2012 at 9:07pm

The problem with the Borough buying 32 W Sellers is it cost money - and from then on the Borough would loose money in taxes to the Ridley School District and Delaware County. Just because the Borough owns property doesn't allow the Borough to escape school or county taxes. The good money for Ridley Park is to enforce the Zoning Board's 5/0 decision.  When it's enforced the current owner can sell the property, unencumbered, to the current builder who has an agreement of sale to build a new home on the property.  RP's homes and the unique character of Ridley Park have the lasting effects Ridley Park's residents want.  The special public meeting held two weeks ago proved that.  The lasting property value and lasting economic values to RD, the historic District and the School district come from enforcing the zoning laws and seeing that a proper Ridley PArk home is returned to that site.

Comment by Howard McCoy on March 26, 2012 at 8:44pm

@Barsuglia: good question about parking.  The current answer is the property is legally zoned R1 and one family can reside there. If one family owns all 6 vehicles then they can be legally parked there.  The property is not zoned to be apartments like it was back-in-the-day.  Over a decade ago, the property was zoned for more residents because the property was subdivided into apartments; probably the number you mentioned, but a few owners back the property owner converted from multiple family home (R3) to a single family home where one family was to reside. Also back-in-the-day, in the 80's, Ridley Park forced a moratorium on apartments being sliced into older homes.

The Borough placed a NO PARKING sigh there today and the lot was bare until the wind blew it down.  Hopefully a second NO PARKING sign will be erected tomorrow and the residential R1 zoning code will continue to be enforced.

Comment by Kenneth Harper on March 26, 2012 at 3:48pm

I think it was great that the landlord could provide the needed parking for his tenants of the triplex.  It is just that we have a medical building that was built back in the 1970's that when it was approved they didn't have adequate parking for this building in the begining.  Now, since a house that has been demolished, because of a fire, the owner of the medical building, by the way who lives out of town wants to buy it, change the zoning & correct the problem he created over 25 years ago.  This location is also in the historic district of Ridley Park.  There is also more than one resident that is against this change.  It just happens the resident who is most vocal about this also lives across the street.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page