Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-09 88-216 ORDINANCEData cahruar Zf 1989 Item No. 88-216 uem/subjeoc Amending Zoning Ordinance - C.O. 9 88-216 - "Special Exceptions" Responsible Department: Planning Division Commmmry: - The Planning. Board and the Community and Economic Development Committee have reviewed the amended. Ordinance. The Planning Board recommended to the City Council at its meeting of February 21, 1989 that C.O. 1 88-216 (As Amended) be approved. ewHold Maruser'ss Comments: 1 4 (IJvxWo., ud' ..-w7UKsl cav M4 Auociated Informatbmo,, Budget Approval: Ai,A Fm apveaar Legal Approval: CRY sawimr Introduced For In Famago ElFirst Reading Page _ ot_ ❑ Retained Date S/4/RRItem No. 88-216 Item/Subject Amending Chapter VIII, Article 22, Section 2 - Special Exceptions Responsible Department Planning Division Commentary: For Referral to Planning Board only. r � meNmJ Manager's Comments: ��t Associated Information: p,-Aj m aitFew Budget Approval: N A. - n'.eaae dreg Legal Approval: Ma* Cw,w..Yi c,yswmm. Introduced For ❑ Renege I�Fust Reading Pape I of 1 _QReferml to Planning Board 88-216 Introduced by Councilor Blanchette. any 9, 1988 -p. CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE,) @rbina IrPr Amending Chapter VIII Article 22, Section 2 - ..0 ... ............ _.. _.. Be it ordained by Me City Co of City of Bangor, as follows: THAT Chapter VIII, Article 22, Section.2 of the Laws and. Ordinances of the City of Bangor be amended by deleting it in its entiretyand replacing it with the following: Sec. 2 Standards for Special Ezcep Cions. Before the Planning Board shall grant a special exception, it shall have determined: a) That the requirements of the z n which the property in question is located have beenecomplied with. b) That theproposed use, although not appropriate for every site in the zone, i appropriate for the location for which it is sought, because of its compatibility with the develop- ments immediately adjacent to it and because of the adequacy of the site and its structures to support the. proposed activity. c) That the proposed use will conform to the general character f the development in the areas to architectural style, building hulk and extent, andintensity of site use. W That there will be no significant adverse affect upon other uses in the neighborhood resulting from the hours of operation noise, odor, storage of potentially hazardous materials, lighting, or excessive congestion from high intensity of use. e) That the proposed use will not have an Unduly adverse affect upon the property values of adjacent properties. "Unduly adverse affect" shall mean that property values will be reduced by more than 10% as demonstrated by a professionally prepared appraisal. f) That the proposed use e will not place an undue burden on municipal services.'Undueburden" shall mean that changes n demand for municipalservices will overtax the capacity - of s n the service area in which the special exception is requested. IN CITY COUNCIL May 9, 1988 Referred to planning in SAN In City Council January 23,1989 refered W Planning board 88-216 ORDINANCE � IN CITY COUNCIL February 27, 1989 amended by Substitution. mend Substitute copy in Sec.2 (b) by deleting in the last line 300 feet and adding 1,000 feet Amendment passed by the following yea and no votes. Councilors voting Yes: Blanchette, Seal, Sosnaud, Sullivan and Tilley. Councilors voting no: England and Sawyer. Councilors absent: Shubert and Stone. Passed a amended by the following yea and n votes. Councilors voting yes: Blanchette, England, Sasl, Bosomed, Sullivan and Tilley. Councilor voting no: Sawyer. Councilors absent: Shubert and Stone. I C117 CLEM BS -216 Assigned to Councilor AMENDED) CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) (0rNr=LC4 Amending. Chapter VIII, Article 22, Section 2 . _...... ........... ....................... of the Ordinances of the City of Bangor -- Special Exceptions _...__. _.... __ .................. ---- -1 _........... & R ordaixd by W COY Coastal oftls CUP affaager, a fo =. THAT Chapter VIII, Article 22, Section 2 of the Laws and Ordinances of the City of Bangor be amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following: Sec. 2 Standards for Special Executions. Before the planning Board shall grant a special exceptionr it shall have determined: a) That the requirements of the cone to which the property in question is located have bean complied with. b) That the proposed use, although not appropriate for cry site in the sone, is appropriate for the location for which it is sought, because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent, and intensity of site use. As to architectural Style, the applicant most show that the propased structure conforms with the exterior facade, reclines, shape and materials used on buildings in the immediate area. As to building bulk, the applicant shall cause his proposed building to conform with the height and existing ratio of land area to building area for other properties in the immediate area. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term "immediate area- shall include all properties located within the s black and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use• Faso c) net there will M no significant adverse affect Spot other existing uses in the imrcdiate area as a result of noise, odor, lighting, or traffic he and from the subject premises. In residential areas, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that traffic W and from the premises during periods prior W 8:00 a.m. in the morning and after 6:00 p.m. in the afterneon shall not cause traffic problems. BB -216 (AMENDED) -2- d) net the proposed use will not have a significantly adverse affect upon the property values of properties in the immediate area. For purposes of this provision, the term "significant adverse affect" shall mean Chet property values in the imrcdiate area "a rat reduced by more than aite n-.(15%) percent. In the event there is a question as to the inpact of the proposed use on property values in the immediate area, the Planning Beard shall have the authority to require that the applicant provide it with a professionally prepared appraisal projecting the impact of said use. e) That the proposed use will not overtax the existing capacity of municipal services in the service area in which the special exception is req ested. f) That the proposed use will not create traffic congestion on contiguous or adjacent streets to the extent that a lowering' in level of service category, as defined by the Institute of Traffic Erg ineers, will be created . g) That the alegacy of the site and its structures to support the proposed activity and the proper operation of the special exception will be assured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, storm drainage, access, parking and loalitg,.e ceenixng and other site inprovanents regired for the proposed use. g) That the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion on contiguous or adjacent streets. "Unreasonable traffic congestion" will be construed to mean that traffic flow on the streets will be affected to the extent that a change in level of service category as defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers will be created. h) That the proper operation of the special exception will be insured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, storm dralange, access, parking and loading, and other necessary site improvements. 88-216 M Dig of Parti Mnim Data April 27, 1988 ManM1ew o Nichols flust. City Soll[i[m John Lord, Planning Office[ Memo To: Special Exception Criteria 1 have reviewed the proposed standards for special exception and subnit the following constants item by item: (a) that the requirements Of the wnC in which the property in question is boosted have been oonplied with. Consent: We may want to Consider deleting this standard entirely or at least mekfng reference that the Cade Enforcement Officer's decision is determinative of this issue Subject to appeal to the Zoning Board Of Appeals. The Law Court's recent decision in Oeste v. Camden examines the problem of overlaPa in responsibilities Of the Planing Board and Gode Enforoellent Office[. Specifically, that case stated that the Planning board did not have authority to review the decisions of the Code Prforcellmt Officer of the gown of Camden aM that the Planning board was hound by his determination of arming issues. We recently encountered this same problem in Noyes v. City of bargor where the Law Court determined that the Bangor Planning�idigt have authority o[ the riispansibility of reviewing _ decisions of the Code Enforcement Officer. The Law Court's decision may have been in Part based on that failure of the Plaintiffs' attorney to bring subsection (a) to the attention of Uwe Court. Be probably should have done so shed alleged that this subsection expressly grants a "second bite at the apple" W an aggrieved property owner who disagrees with the decision of the Code Enforcement officer and fails to appeal to the Zoning board of Appeals. (b) fiat the proposed use, although Out appropriate for every site in the Hite is appropriate for the location for which it is sought, because of its wnpatibility with the developments immediately adjacent toit shod because of the adequuy, of the site and its structures to support the proposed activity. -2- 88-216 Courant: This criterion sounds more like a variance standard than a special exception or conditional use criterion. Again, the canpatibility is to he determined by the legislative body, i.e., the City - Council. Furthermore, the intent of this subsection may already be adequately addressed in proposed subsection (e). This subsection gives the appearance that the Planning 9oard is creating "sub zones" within the zones already established by the Council. Perhaps we could reword the subsection to read as follows: that the proposed site is adequate (in specific terms define "adequacy") to support the proposed activity. However, this sears more like a site plan criterion than a special exception or conditional use criterion.. (c) that the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent, anal intensity of site use. Co ment: Perhaps we could [ wrd this subsection by requiring the proposed use to not exceed a'defined measure of intensity. We could impose the same limitation on building bulk by defining a specific limitatim on floor area and/or lot coverage. (Unless you feel that this latter requirement would be better addressed under site plan review.) This subsection sounds dangerously close to the criterion struck down in Wakelln v Yanmuth in that it fails to quantify definitions of building bulk end intensity and in that it fails to tell the property owner whether his use should be nacre intense or less intense, etc. (d). that there will be m significant adverse effect upon other uses in the ueighborhood resulting £[ok the tours of operation, m War, storage of potentially [haxardousll mistrials, lighting, or excessive ingestion town high intensity of use. Courant: The only potential problem with this criterion appears to be the lack of quantifiable standards as alluded to in Wakelin However, shoot of defining specific hours of oporation, decible levels, odor measurecomts (this i an up ad burning field of science), radiation levels, "candles", and traffia c counts this is probably as goal as we can get. (e) that the proposed use will rot have a, unduly adverse effect upon the property values of adjacent properties. "Unduly adverse effect" shall mean the property values will be reduced by more than 108 as drnwnstrated by a professionally prep ed appraisal. Comment Very good. M that the proposed use will rot place an undue burden on aranicipal services. "Undue burden" Shan mean that changes In d®ad for inicipal services will overtthe capacity of services in the service area Ax whim the special exception is requested. Comment: Perhaps we can improve "overtax" by caning up with a quantifiable standard and by specifyirg an w coeptable amort of increase in demand. (Perhaps as compared to permitted uses or other uses in the immediate service area, which we may also want to define.) -3- 88-216 (g) tier the proposed uee will not create wreasmaDle traffic congestion on motiguous or adjacent streets. °pmreasonable traffic ,estion- will be construed t mean the traffic flow on the streets will be byftbe Institute Of Traffic E)ginsersrwilllVebe createdl of ,ce category as deEired pmmoent: excellent. (b) tbrt the proper Operation of the special exception will be insured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, storm drainage, aures, parking and loading, and other necessary site improvements. convent: Again, it may be overburdensane to provide quantifiable staedards (Nakelin) but, perhaps these itemsare batter addressed under site plan review, keeping in mind that site plan approval is a necessary 'carroliary to special exception approval. if possible, I would like to discuss these criteria witb you prior to bbe planning Hoard meeting at your earliest convenience. In the wake of recent Iaw Court decisions, we both realize how difficult it is. to draft special exceptiWounditional use criteria that will both pass constitutional muster and provide a meanie ful basis for review by the planning Hoard. My feeling is that the approach to oc, itional uses which you have developed in the proposed Iona zevelopment Cede is the most meaningful and safest way to address special exceptions/conditional uses. M.B.N. o9 -a,: < 4�11 fad