AGENDA #5d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition from Mr. Joe Patterson for Cobb Terrace Parking Structure
DATE: September 27, 2004
This memorandum responds to a petition from Mr. Joe Patterson that was presented to the Council on May 24, 2004, and referred to the Town Manager for comment. We recommend no action by the Council on the petition.
THE PETITION
Mr. Patterson’s petition is attached. It asks the Town Council for consideration of either of these two options for his Cobb Terrace property:
“1. Modify the setback requirements for eastern CT (Cobb Terrace) properties to allow the construction of parking structures over existing parking areas with (of course) the agreement of an adjoining property owner if the structure would be inside existing property line set back requirements, or
2. Grant the Historic District Commission the power to grant variances to set backs within the Historic Districts. “
DISCUSSION
The petition seeks relief from the Land Use Management Ordinance setback provisions for Mr. Patterson’s property at 7 Cobb Terrace. The property is located in the Residential-3 zoning district, in a local historic district and may be in the Resource Conservation District. The property owner requested a courtesy review from the Historic District Commission in April of a proposed carport on the Cobb Terrace lot. The Historic District Commission found the proposed structure to be appropriate and consistent with the area. The street setback in the Residential-3 zoning district is 24 feet. Many structures on Cobb Terrace are nonconforming. In addition to receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission, a proposed parking structure must also meet other Land Use Management Ordinance provisions, including setbacks. The structure proposed by Mr. Patterson would not meet the street setback provisions.
We believe there are three ways to change a street setback to allow a garage next to the road in Cobb Terrace:
1) Request a Variance from the Board of Adjustment: The Land Use Management Ordinance establishes a procedure for variance from dimensional regulations such as setbacks. The Ordinance dictates that variance requests be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and identifies specific findings that must be made by a 4/5 majority of the Board in order to grant the variance. This process involves findings by the Board for an individual property. The findings are based on the following determinations:
(1) That strict compliance with the regulations allows no reasonable use of the applicant's property;
(2) That the hardship complained of is one suffered by the applicant rather than by neighbors or the general public;
(3) That the hardship relates to the applicant's property rather than to personal circumstances;
(4) That the hardship is peculiar to the applicant's property, rather than a hardship shared by the neighborhood or resulting from the existence of nonconforming situations in the vicinity;
(5) That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions;
(6) That the variance will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by granting of the variance; and
(7) That the variance will not result in a violation of the provisions
of Article 7 by allowing the
enlargement, expansion, extension, or the greater permanence or intensity of a
nonconforming use or feature.
The variance option would have to be initiated by the property owner.
2) A change to the zoning district which establishes setbacks: A change to the zoning district which establishes setbacks is one way to change a street setback. In this situation, we do not have any residential zoning districts which apply a zero setback at the road. It would be necessary to create a new zoning district or apply an overlay zone such as a Neighborhood Conservation District. This sort of change would apply the new setback to the entire neighborhood. If the setback were to be reduced to zero, all property owners could apply to place a structure adjacent to the road which, given the nature of the Cobb Terrace right-of-way, could raise concerns about adequate passage for vehicles, especially service vehicles and emergency vehicles. The property owner may apply for a zoning amendment.
3) Approval of a Special Use Permit for the property which modifies the setback regulations: A Special Use Permit could be requested from the Town Council for the property with a request that the setback regulation be modified in this specific situation. In addition to the regular findings, including a finding that the proposal would not adversely affect the value of contiguous properties, an additional finding would be necessary that a public purpose is being achieved. The burden would be on the applicant to provide evidence that a public purpose was being achieved. The Special Use Permit option would have to be initiated by the property owner.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
We do not recommend any of these options. With the variance option, it would be necessary for the Board of Adjustment to make the seven findings noted above, which we recognize could be challenging given the facts of this case as we understand them. Regarding the rezoning option, we are concerned about the impact on the neighborhood if all properties were allowed to place structures close to the right-of-way.
We do not recommend any of these options; however, if the property owner is interested in pursuing placement of a garage at this location, he can apply for a Special Use Permit and ask for modification of the regulations for this particular property, or apply for a variance. We do not recommend pursuing a zoning change that would reduce setbacks for all properties in the Residential-3 zoning district.
ATTACHMENT
1. Petition from Mr. Joe Patterson regarding his Cobb Terrace Property (p. 4).