Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-24 93-272 ORDINANCEp 2r �rrea� Introduced! For O R , EDlilight lnt flNdiol ® Felarral to Planning Board Date May 24, 199.3 Ilam No. 93-2>2>2 ItaMSubleca amending Land Development Code - Chapter VIII, Article 4, Section 1.4 - Nonconformities Rmponible Department; Planning Division Commentary: For Referral to Planning Board. There have been c n which ow of -legally "grandfathered' res i dent dal uses n the built-upsa sof theCity have had problems obtaining noitgagefinancing because of the nonconforming use status of their property. This amendment would allow these legally established uses to be rebuilt if destroyed or damaged, thereby rcaoving any obstacleto financing such legally established nonconforming residential properties. pnwour eas j Maneper's Convrwn4: - Amociated bdormaalom Wdpat Approved: - lommelatera. Legal Approval: War Introduced! For O R , EDlilight lnt flNdiol ® Felarral to Planning Board Intradueb For ®Ponape ❑ First Padino Pape of _ ❑ Nafarral pots June 14,v1993 have No.gz-a�a- Item/Subject Amendina Land Development Code - Chapter VIII, Article 4, Section 1.4 - Nonconformities. C.D. p 93-272. Responsible Deputmantt Commentary: i The Planning Board at itsregularly scheduled meeting of .lune I, 1993 held a public hearing on the above-noted zoning amendment. Sally McKinnon and Joe Philipon spoke in favor of the proposed banguage change No one spoke in opposition. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to recommend to the City Council that the zoritng amendment contained in C.O. OF 93-272 be approved. 4tjI Wad Manager's Comments:'1 Cuy Maxop Associated Information.CM pudpat Apposed: /J 11-- shimmer turenuf Levealll Approval: i5 Il•M pei 11 tP9/Ilrc iNf " a fpi(m4h4 Na�CS7`hr bk"( �Jssta�(, cxr soma.. Intradueb For ®Ponape ❑ First Padino Pape of _ ❑ Nafarral 93-272 Aeeiredto CouneOor Sullivan May 24, 1993 CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) PfirZliMnrl; Amending, t d Develowent c a -.Chapter vin. ........... Article 4. Section 1.4 - Nonconformities Be fe ordaimed by W Cup Cowaolt air the City of Sachs. ae Palms. THAT, Chapter VIII, Article 4, Section 1.4 of the Laws and Ordinances of the City of Bangor be amended by adding the following: 1.4 . . . A. Notwithstanding the provisions of 1.4, above, any legally established residential nonconforming use in an Urban Residence 1 District or an Urban Residence 2 District which is destroyed or damaged may be reconstructed subject to the fallowing conditions: (1) No more dwelling units may be installed in the structure housing such residential nonconforming e than were legally established prior to the passage of this ordinance; (2) Nomore than three dwelling units in addition to that permitted order the district provisions shall be permitted; (3) The gross floor area contained in the preexisting structure shall not be increased in the reconstructed structure; (4) Any and all development standards of the zoning RI district which can be met at the time of •v% 93-272 i OPDINANCE ( TIT1E0 dreading Id eve Code - In City Council May 24.93 [ Chapter VIII Article 4 Sec. L4 p' deferred to Appropriate { Comittee Non C f mitl s- } Y r. C y clerl - .Aeogned to IN CITY COUNCIL •- Vgn June 14, 1993 _ r mmctUmn Passed by the following yes and no votes. Councilors voting.- yes: oting.yes: Blanchette, Bragg, Cohen, Frankel, Seal, Shubert, Soucy. Stone and liven. , . CITYJ CLIFF f-. Excerpt from Staff Memorandum - June 1, 1993 Meeting Item No. 3: Zoning Amendment - Chapter VIII, Article 4, Section 1.4 - Nonconfcrmities - City of Bangor - C.O. B 93-272 a. Apparently, there have been some recent changes made in the way mortgage applications are being processed at banking restitutions, particularly, v regard to the so-called "secondary market" (where mortgages are sold). Recent appraisal reports on nonconforming residential properties in Ingle -family neighborhoods have spelled out the nonconforming status of these multi -family units contained n the nonconformities section of the City's Land Development Code. (Many of these properties were subject to the same conditions under the 1974 Zoning Ordinance but with the change in toning in some of the some of the old R-4 there is a potential for more of these nonconforming multi -families in single-family zoning districts.) b. The proposed amendment exempts multi -family structures i the built-up URD -1 and URD -2 Districts from the prohibition against their being reconstructed if they are more than 50% destroyed by fire or other disaster. The amendment places a limit on the number of dwelling units over the minimum permitted in the district which can be included i such rebuilt structures. it would not allow additional units over those existing in the structure prior to the fire, to be added in the reconstruction. Obviously, the chances of these particular isolated multi -family properties burning in these URD -1 and/or URD -2 Districts are somewhat remote. Furthermore, the worst impact which these can have on the neighborhoods in question is to replace with new construction the same number of dwelling units at the same location as previously existed. This standard provision (not being able to rebuild nonconforming uses) is primarily e aimed at the m onfllctingcommercial and industrial uses in inappropriate residential areas where such policies encourage their elimination. The use In a multi -family residential structure in a residential district is residential." C. Based on the likelihood that there would be few situations in which such multi -family structures would be rebuilt over time, as compared to the hardship which property o must endure if the lending institutions either will not mortgage such properties (although they have in the past) orwill charge them a significantly different rate such as that charged non -owner occupied, rental properties, it is Staff recommendation that the amendment to the nonconformities sectn be recommended to the City Council.