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