Loading...
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.