HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-08 16-088 ORDINANCECOUNCIL ACTION
Item No. 16_088
Date: February 8, 2015
Item/Subject: ORDINANCE, Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, of the Code of the City of
Bangor, By Amending Provisions Dealing with Nonconformities
Responsible Department: Code
Commentary: This ordinance amendment would amend Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code dealing
with nonconforming properties. Prior to 1991, City zoning often allowed single family homes to be converted to
multiple residential units. After 1991, the City changed the ordinance to prohibit these conversions in many
parts of the City where they had previously been allowed, thus creating a number of legal non -conformities.
Under the ordinance, if the property is not used for a period of one year, the legal non -conformity ceases to
exist and the property must be redeveloped to a conforming use. While such nonconformities are discouraged,
it is sometimes impractical to require their elimination. As a result of the recent surge in foreclosures,
residential properties sometimes are vacant for several years before they can be sold and brought back into
beneficial use. The problem is that these legally created non -conforming uses are too expensive and
challenging to convert back to single family use. As a result, they are left vacant and deteriorating.
If approved, this ordinance amendment would allow nonconforming residential units that otherwise comply with
the Code to retain their nonconforming use as long as they are not changed to another use, destroyed, or
vacant for seven years. The goal is to prevent the indefinite vacancy and degradation of nonconforming
buildings that were legally created. The ordinance would make other minor changes to the nonconformities
ordinance, including allowing nonconforming uses to change to permitted uses without site plan approval
unless otherwise required. This item was discussed at the Business and Economic Development Committee on
December 8, 2015 and the Planning Board on January 19, 2016. The Planning Board recommended allowing
nonconforming residential units to be vacant for a shorter period than the 10 years originally proposed
ordinance.
Department Head
Manager's Comments:
City Manager
Associated Information: Ordinance
Budget Approval:
Finance Director
Legal Approval:
'
City So icitor
Introduced for
Passage
x First Reading
x Referral to the B&ED Committee and Planning Board on February 16, 2016
16-088
FEBRUARY 8, 2016
Assigned to Councilor Graham
CITY OF BANGOR
ORDINANCE, Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, of the Code of the City of Bangor,
By Amending Provisions Dealing with Nonconfbrmities
WHEREAS, many parcels in Bangor have uses which, while at one time allowed, are now considered
nonconforming under the Land Development Code;
WHEREAS,, the City strongly discourages nonconformities, but recognizes that in some cases it is
impractical to require their elimination;
WHEREAS,, the City has strong interests in preventing blight and preserving the housing stock of the
City;
WHEREAS,, nonconforming residential buildings are sometimes left vacant for several years, in
particular if foreclosed upon, but would not be financially viable if brought into compliance with the
zoning requirements of their parcel, and so continue to be left vacant;
WHEREAS,, to discourage nonconfbrmities, owners of damaged or destroyed nonconforming buildings
should not be allowed unlimited time to rebuild their nonconforming building; and
WHEREAS, changes from a nonconforming to a conforming use should not, per se, require site
development plan approval;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CM OF BANGOR AS FOLLOWS, THAT
Chapter 165 of the Code of the City of Bangor be amended as follows:
§ 165-17. Discontinuance.
A. If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months it shall be deemed abandoned,
and the right to continue it shall terminate; provided, however, that even after such discontinuance
a conforming or conditional use may be established in accordance with § 165-20 below.
B
Ngt
tCtthggnding suLWOon A gbove, a nQngQnforming residential unit otherwi5g in coml2liance with
this Code of Ordinances May. upgn a1212lication for and Mipt ofa Certificate of OccupAngy, retain
its nQnconfbrming residentisli use so long a5 it has not been vaont for a pgriod of 7 ygars o
longer, changed to another use, or destroM.
§ 165-18. Restoration of nonconforming use.
IN CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 8, 2016
FIRST READING AND FEFERRAL TO BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE AND PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016
CITY CLERK
IN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 14, 2016
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED FOR PASSAGE
VOTE:9-0
COUNCILORS VOTING YES: BALDACCI, DURGIN, GRAHAM, NEALLEY, NICHOLS,
PERRY, PLOURDE, SPRAGUE, FAIRCLOTH
COUNCILORS VOTING NO: NONE
PASSED
CITY CLERK
16-088
FEBRUARY 8, 2016
A. If any building or structure housing a nonconforming use is damaged, destroyed or decays to the
extent that the cost of restoration of such damage, destruction or decay exceeds 50% of the
appraised fair market value of the building or structure prior to such damage, destruction or decay,
the nonconforming use may not be restored, and the right to continue it shall terminate. In the
absence of a prior appraisal, the term "fair market value," as used in this subsection, shall mean
the City of Bangor assessed valuation of the building or structure only, adjusted to 100% of state
assessed value on the most recent date prior to the damage, destruction or decay to be restored,
provided that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit establishment of a conforming or conditional
use in accordance with § 165-20 below.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A 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 pursuant to abuilding pgrmit obt in thin
A gd wit three
yors of its deWuOon or damage subject to the following conditions:
(1) No more dwelling units may be installed in the structure housing such residential
nonconforming use than were legally established prior to the passage of this chapter.
(2) No more than three dwelling units in addition to that permitted under the district provisions
shall be pennitted.
(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 district which, in the opinion of the Code
Enforcement Offiggr, can reasonabti be met at the time of reconstruction shall be met.
§ 165-20. Change to conforming use.
Subject to site deyelopment plan appFeyal by the Planning BeaFd pursuant to Arliele all) reguired
gpRmy-a-l-& a nonconforming use may be changed to a use which is a permitted use in the zone in
which it is located. Subject to treatment as a conditional use pursuant to § 165-9, a nonconforming use
may be changed to a use which is a conditional use in the district in which it is located.
§ 165-111. Site developments requiring permit
A. Any activity covered under this chapter shall require a land development permit under the
following conditions:
(1) Any conditional use.
(2) Any ehange in use of a neneenferming use.
Additions are Underri ruek thmuo.
ngd, deletions 96
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 2, 2016
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: David G. Gould, Planning Officer
SUBJECT: Amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 165-17
Discontinuance of Residential Nonconformities, and
Chapter 165-18 Restoration of use, 165-20 change to a
conforming use and 165-111 Council Ordinance 16-088
Please be advised that the Planning Board at its meeting on February 16, 2016,
held a Public Hearing on the above Zoning Amendment dealing with discontinuance of
residentail nonconformities.
Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas commented that after the discussion with the Board
concerning the length of time in which a nonconformity would be grandfathered the
proposed amendment was changed from 10 years to seven years.
Pauline Civiello of Coombs Street stated she had a concern that some of the
nonconforming structures have a lack of adequate parking which puts a burden on
adjacent properties in the neighborhood. She noted even at seven years the time frame
seems too long. More effort should be made to have the buildings be in compliance
with the regulations of the Land Development Code. She noted that not all structures
can be restored to single family homes, but there is middle ground that could improve
conditions in the neighborhood.
Assistant City Solicitor indicated that what the City has seen since the recession of 2008
is many existing nonconforming multifamily dwellings being foreclosed on and during
the process of putting them back on the market the 12 month window of grandfathered
nonconformity lapses. The properties are now faced with being brought into compliance
with the current Land Development Code standards. In some instances that loss of
potential revenue leads to the building's marketability being limited and structures
remaining vacant.
Member Hicks asked if there were other communities that this was derived from. In his
review of surrounding communities they all had similar language, 1 year. In his opinion
extending the length of time in which a nonconformity could exist would adversely
impact adjacent neighbors.
Member Williams indicated the Ordinance change is another step to help spur
redevelopment and she was in support of it.
i
Planner Gould noted it comes down to whether the Board thinks it is better to allow the
continued use of the nonconforming structures or to have the potential that buildings
will sit empty and deteriorate. There is no perfect solution for the length of time, it
would be very unfortunate to have a building about to be restored only to find it missed
the deadline by a few months. When Staff looked at the options available, the decision
was made to make it a fairly simple change in Ordinance language as opposed to an
involved additional layer of review where the final conclusion would be uncertain for
applicants, one in which an owner can go to the Code Office and get a building permit,
no uncertainty, no hearing or lengthy review steps.
Mr. Gould noted that State enabling law makes variances very difficult to obtain.
Rezoning is an option; it does cost money and takes some time. In the last few years
more than half of those considering rezoning found that even changing to a denser
zoning district would make many still not comply. In addition while the Planning Office
can make a recommendation to the Board and City Council there is no certainty in the
outcome of the process.
Mr. Hicks noted that it is not a choice between vacant buildings or nonconforming
multifamily structures; returning to a conforming use is always an option and what we
should strive for.
Chairman Kenney noted this would likely delay the movement towards conformity, but
would allow more multi -unit structures.
Member Boothby moved to recommend C.O. #16-088 to the City Council.
Member Williams seconded and the Board voted four in favor and two opposed.