Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-25 112 AH ORDER112 AH Intro uced by Councilor WXernan, February 25, 1980 CITY OF BANGOR QITLEJ Psobtj........... ..Stating. Opposition To L.D. 1758 ev we City CaimcJ NW Ctiy o(eoapr+- R OLVZD, THAT the Bangor City Council go on record as indicating its opposition to L.D. 1758 - "An Act To Prevent The Exclusion of Manufactured Housing From Maine Towns By Unduly Restrictive Police Power Ordinances" and that the City Manager be instructed to convey the Council's position on this Bill to the Legislature. 112 x8 IN CITY COUNCIL N E$ U L V E Febrvary 25" 1980 Passed by thI following Cee and o: wt c nouov voting yea. saldaeoi, eroantas, MC vnan, pontes, Seery, Weymouth, Wood and Zendzian, Councilor Stating Opposition to L.O. 1758 /� ti/P n-:e,Ga9H. V FEB 21 P342 TY clews _ CITY TY OF f CLERK Bangor, the center of Maine—ehs thimm y to Maim's North Woods, and .Seashore BatorU wDNEYaMDKAV CITY HALL JOHN M, Logo •••. 307o.,.m., I,g, CH (94 of Paagat Mauve DEPARTMENT gf PLANNING Y6 COUMVNITV DoE LOPMUNT DATE: February 21, 1980 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: The Planning Board SUBJECT: L.D. 1758 "An Act To Prevent The Exclusion of Manu- factured Housing From Maine Towns By Unduly Restrictive Police Power Ordinances" The Bangor City Planning Board at its regular meeting o Tuesday, February 19, 1980 voted unanimously to inform you, the Local and County Government Committee, and our area Legislators of its opposition to L.D. 1758 as presently worded. The Bangor Planning Board has always maintained a concern for the living environment of Bangor residents and has reaffirmed that concern in the course of reviewing the City's land use plan and re- vising it in 1979. Our concern for L.D. 1758 is a direct result of that objective and the recognition of the fact that large numbers of people are affected in their daily lives and, in many cases, their single most important investment, in the residential areas of this community. Concern for L.D. 1758 must be for the maintenance of policy making capability at the local level in order for the City to meet the needs for all of its rest a—nts: One of the prime objectives of the municipality's land use planning and zoning activity is to protect the investment and the living environment of the City's homeowners. Many times other activities and other development objectives of the municipality con- flict with the maintenance of the integrity of residential neighbor- hoods and the amenities and facilities which support and enhance a safe and healthy living environment. The local municipality has historically guarded its ri&ht to pursue these objectives for pro- viding a safe and healthy living environment for its residents under its land use planning and zoning activities, One of the problems with L.D. 1758 is the vagaries of language n the definition section in Section 3 which is entitled "Preventing Exclusion" and to a lesser extent in Section 4 - "Reasonable Control". It is not clear what the language which refers to "Assembled on a Building Site', means in the definition section. It is far from clear as to how the requirements of Section 3 would be met with the language which says "a municipality may not exclude manufactured housing . from all areas within the town in which conventional single-family housing is permitted on individual lots" or the question of what would constitute the adoption of land use controls which enable manufactured housing to be located on individual lots "in most, but not necessarily all, residential areas within the town It wouldappp ear much more appropriate if the Legislature intends to provide for the location of mobilehomes on individual lots to require that an area which is feasible for such use be established within the zoning fabric. Such a specified criteria would clarify the burden on the municipality and would also provide the optimal freedom to develop and carry out land use policy as it sees fit. There is not adequate instructions as to what the municipalities may do or not do in providing for minimum standards in mobilehome park facilities. It may well be appropriate, given for example, the kind of requirements that the City of Bangor has in its A-4 Zone for minimum lot size requirements to be the same as those applied to mobilehome lots in mobilehome parks. However, Section 4 seems to prohibit this or it might be interpreted to prohibit this. The looseness of the language would probably create a condition, if L.D. 1758 were adopted, where almost any local municipality's mobilehome park ordinance or zoning ordinance could be challenged on some interpretation of this statute. Not only are tehene p blema, with the concept of the statute but there are very serious problems with the language as it is presently drafted. There is still a valid distinction to be made for the mobilehome unit which is constructed to have a frame which will support the . weight of the unit and have exalt and wheels attached to it so that it may be transported as a wholly, fully enclosed complete unit over the highway. There is every e reason to believe that there a still serious market impacts of the juxtaposition of a mobilehome unit and a con- ventional single-family residence in close proximity one to the other. Whether or not these implications are mostly psychological and reflect simply the attitudes of home buyers or whether there are other more tangible reasons for such effects, it is a fact of life that the municipalities are faced with. �. , —binge a er, a rman Bangor Planning Board DSC/p