HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-13 97-78 ORDINANCEData January 13 1997 Item No. 97-78
Item/Subject: Amending Land Development Code - Chapter VIII,
Part II, Article 6, Section 9 - Accessory Support
Structures
Responsible Department: Planning Division
commentary:
For Referral to Planning Board Meeting of January 21, 1997 at
7:00 P.M.
This amendment would provide for flexible setback requirements
for accessory support structures that must be moved due to a
taking or conveyance for a right-of-way widening. This will
reduce costs and lessen hardships on property owners.
i
Depart Mead
Manager' s Comments 1^^"'�
City Manager
Associated Information: 044;aLl
Finance Director
Legal ppApppproval: „ �pQdi(PS .n
3ap//ma�ioe �aieg lna GJ^ssaat. (J�a�i
Ali �) a PC/f eau lftrv, City Solicitor UU
Intjoduced For
j/ Passage
_ First Reading Page 1 of 1
X
9]-]8
Austam dto CwntHar Svllivan January 13, 1997
CITY OF BANGOR
ryVIYp Amending d alopme Code -- haptat
(TITLE) T�II1T21M8. ......... La nev
....:........ t C
..........._............_..._.....
VIII, Part II, Article 6, Section 4 -- Accessory Support Structures
...._.. .............. 1......... .. .............. ....__......
Be is ordained ty the Oita Cannel of W G tY 4fliaatar, as fdbnn:
THAT the Land Development Code - Chapter Viii, Part II, Article 6,
Section 4 be amended by adding Section 4.1 as follows:
4.1 Notwithstanding the setback requirements set forth
in Section 4, above, and elsewhere in this Ordinance,
where an accessory support structure as defined in
this section must be moved due to d compensated
public taking or conveyance in lieu of a public
taking, the Code Enforcement Officer may:
A. Reduce or eliminate the yard requirement for
such structure provided that:
(1) This action shall apply only to existing
legally established structures to be
moved without alteration; and
(2) The replacement of such structures will
be done with a Minimum variation from
ordinance standards which is practicable
on the site; and
(3) In so doing, the Code Enforcement Officer
shall consider the following factors:
fairness to the property owner, the burden
which would be created by imposing current
ordinance standards, the impact on the
safety and functionality of the public
right-of-way and the provisions of Section
5.1.9 of Article 3, Chapter VI of the Laws
and Ordinances of the City of Bangor -
the Sign Ordinance.
IN CITY COUNCIL 97-79
January 13, 1997
First Reading ORDINANCE
Referred to Planning Board -
01/21/97 ( TITLE,) Amandine Land Development Code -
Chapter VIII, Part II, Article 6, Section
L - Accessory Support Structures
CITY CLERK
IN CITY COUNCIL
January Vote:
1997 �Aa
Councilors
Vaee: I yae,l absent ��e w
Coudacci. voting yea: Aube,BalRRIISIIl4lXX//,11,//�M/L•CC..PP..--nf�.
Soucy, cBlanchette,
Leen,
Soucy, or Tyler S Woodcock:Bulli - Doane ilAT
Councilor absent: Sullivan
i
CITY .SRS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 14, 1997
TO:
The Planning Board
FROM:
The Planning Stall
SUBJECT:
Agenda Review -January 21,1997 Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No.1: Zoning Amendment- Chapter Vlll, Article B, Section 4 -Accessory
Support Structures - City of Bangor - C.O. #97-78.
a. This proposed amendment to the Land Development Code deals with setback
requirements for so-called "accessory support structures" which are dealt with in
Article 6, Section 4. The City and the State have been confronted with the issue
of right-of-way widenings as they affect existing support structures (on the
Broadway project). Such structures (and any other primary or accessory
structures) would be grandfathered as to location if the right-of-way laking
reduced their setback below that required under the Ordinance. However, if the
widening necessitated moving such structures (even though they may presently
be nonconforming as to setback) they must be setback the full standard Provided
by the Ordinance. Obviously, this creates numerous problems in these older,
site developments.
b. The State has pointed out that requiring setback of signs and other support
structures to meet current ordinance requirements will be almost impossible in
some cases and extremely expensive in others (due to elimination of parking
spaces, for example, and extensive site disturbance for re -wiring structures that
would be located far from where they were originally positioned), The
amendment before you would deal only with such a situation where the property
line, in effect, moves due to a taking for right-of-way. It would allow the Code
Enforcement Officer to 'reduce or eliminate" the setback requirements subject to
certain conditions. (The conditions relate to the structure being legal in the first
place, they require that the minimum variation from the Ordinance standards be
followed and they do not allow the placing of the structure closer to the new
property line than it was to the previous property line.)
C. This somewhat unique treatment of a somewhat unusual situation appears to be
the most streightfomvard way of dealing with it. This provision would be used
only in those right-of-way widening situations which do not occur every day.
(Presently, Me City is attempting to establish adequate right-of-ways long before
they are needed, for example.) Staff would recommend that the Planning Board
recommend the zoning amendment to the City Council.