Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-23 08-235 ORDINANCEItemr% 08 235 Date: June 23, 2008 Item/Subject: Ordinance, Amending the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, Land Development Code, 4 165-113, Nanning Board Review. Responsible Depar[mem: Legal This amendment to the Land Development Code (IDC) is Intended W ensure that developments comply with all conditions and requirements of the LDC, even R the Nanning Board Inadvertently approves a site plan not in complete compliance with the LDC. It Is In the aWs interest to prevent developers with she plan approval from taking advantage of an error In the plan that would make the development a violation of the LDC, even If part or all of one project at Issue has already teen consnucted. While edming law makes It near that approval of a noncompliant plan granted Inadvertently or in error is not lording on the City, an explicit statement of this fad within the LDC would serve to protide notice to developers that they must comply with the Cade, even If a noncompliant element of the plan Is approyed. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recommends approval. Department Head npe"Y_s "t'o�mmendsn f ro+^y IZon+o'M-W ��i It Clry Manager Assocjated Information: ft`o no GAm QO..__,n 0'�Y Budget Approval: Finance Director Legal Approval: 6olit wr passage X Fimt Reading Referral's PQLwrvtQ %-I-OB'Q%: POQrrc. 08 235 Assi�d to Couvcllor Scone lune 23. 2009 CITY OF BANGOR (T E.) Ordinance, Amending the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, Land Development Code, § 165-113, Planning Board Review BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANGOR THAT the Code of the City of Bangor, Chapter 165, § 165-113 be amended as follows: § 165-113. Manning Board relew. For those she developments requiring a land development permit under this chapter and requiring Manning Board approval uiMer the provisions of Table A in § 165-110, the following procedures will be followed: D. and development permit approval. ""'®- '.'- Me IB CTT4 WMIL June 23. 2008 First sending Notion Bade and Seconded to Refer to the Planning Board Meeting Motion Doubted Vote )-1 Councilors Voting Yee: Blanchette D'Nrrito, Farrington. Gratrlck Nemec. Palmer and Stone I Co lor8 Voting No: Mheelei Ne£ m CITY CLERK IN cin =Ncn July 28, 2008 Motiob rode and Seeo:ded to Pestpone Indefinitely e[poned LWefiai[ely inla DMTz tiyx �FmNJ MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2008 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: David G. Gould, Planning Officer SUBJECT: Amending Land Development Code Chapter 165-113 D, Council Ordinance 08-235 Please be advised that the Planning Board at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 15, 2008 held a public hearing on the above Land Development Code Amendment. Planning Officer Gould provided a brief overview of the amendment and his understanding of what it intended to do. The language was drafted by the legal office to try and make clear that site development plan approval does not vest an applicant In the ability to violate a provision of the Land Development Cade. Mr. Gould explained that the Planning Board's authority is limited to that that is given it within the Code. The Board does not have the ability to reduce specific ordinance standards or arbitrarily increase ordinance requirements. Member Mitchell asked if there was some specific issue that prompted the new language. Planning Officer Gould indicated on some recent projects there has been confusion as to the interpretation of the lighting height standard. The newly adopted provisions call for lights to be no taller than 25 feet. Several plan sets have been approved that include no light base information or may specify a base two to three feet above grade in the detail notes. When added together the three That base and 25 foot pole would make the lights exceed the ordinance standard that includes the base in the height measurement Chairman Brown indicated It was the responsibility of the applicant and their designers to know the Code requirements and comply with them. Planning Officer Gould noted that in recent years plans are getting more and more complex Involving multiple sheets and details. The potential that the plan itself may provide conflicting information is quite possible from page to page. The Planning Staff spends a large amount of time trying to eliminate conflicting information and getting enough detail in the plans so there would be no confusion as to what is intended. Mr. Gould further noted there is a legal issue as to what rights do vest to an applicant in Site Plan Approval and whether the proposed language adds any clarity to that question. It would seem that elements that are not subject to the Board's revlew (those covered by the criteria of 165-114 or other provision that specifically gives the Board review authonty) cannot be altered by a Board approval whether depicted Incorrectly, Inconsistently, or vaguely. what the Board should ask is does the proposed language add to the clarity of this issue or not. Member Mitchell indicated that she did not find adding the proposed language added any darity to the Issue. The Hoard voted unanimously not to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed text amendment to 165-113 D.