AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance and Possible Action on Ordinance Changes Related to Duplexes and Nonconforming Status
DATE: October 21, 2002
Tonight the Council reconvenes the Public Hearing on the proposed new Land Use Management Ordinance. This hearing was last open on September 18, 2002, and recessed on that evening, to be reconvened tonight.
We recommend that the Council reconvene the Hearing, discuss issues presented in this memorandum, and recess the hearing again to October 28. Following the recessing of the Hearing, we recommend that the Council enact the attached Ordinances A and C, changing regulations regarding duplexes and nonconforming status.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council has been working since January 2001 to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance. A Third Draft of a proposed new ordinance, called “Land Use Management Ordinance,” has been under community consideration since August 2002. A Public Hearing on the Third Draft was conducted on September 18, 2002. A copy of the Manager’s memorandum from September 18 is attached (Attachment 1). At the conclusion of that evening, the Council recessed the hearing to October 21, and also asked the Manager to prepare a set of procedural suggestions to present to the Council on October 7.
On October 7, the Manager suggested that the Council schedule a Public Information Meeting for October 24, a Citizen Workshop for October 26, and that the Council schedule an additional evening of Public Hearing for October 28. The Manager also suggested that the Council consider taking action on October 21 on two time-sensitive items that are being considered in the Third Draft: changes to duplex regulations, and changes to nonconforming status regulations. A copy of the Manager’s October 7 memorandum is attached (Attachment 2). Also on October 7, the Council asked Mayor Foy to prepare an “Open Letter” to the community, for publication in local newspapers, describing the status of this project and summarizing the Council’s intentions with respect to nonconforming status. A copy of the published letter is attached (Attachment 3). The Council also asked the Mayor to prepare a set of remarks to be recorded on videotape, to be shown repeatedly on the public access cable TV channel. As of this writing, we expect the Mayor’s message to begin running on Thursday, October 17.
Advertisements for tonight’s continuation of the Public Hearing reported that October 21 action to enact duplex and nonconforming changes might be taken.
We note that plans are now in place for a Public Information Meeting on October 24 (from 4-6pm at Town Hall) and the Citizen Workshop on October 26 (9am-noon at Town Hall).
DISCUSSION
As we noted on October 7, we will prepare a full discussion of all issues raised on September 18 when the Public Hearing continues on October 28.
We will focus discussion in this memorandum on the two issues that are possibilities for action tonight: duplexes and nonconforming status.
Duplexes
We continue to believe that action to restrict construction of new duplexes (and conversion of single-family dwellings to duplexes) should be taken immediately. We note that, with the prospect of duplex restrictions pending, we are seeing an increase in activity of developers and property owners attempting to secure building permits for duplex development prior to Council action.
Option A: We suggested on October 7 that we would recommend that the Council enact, on October 21, the provision in the Third Draft that would change the Development Ordinance such that duplexes would no longer be listed as a permitted use in zoning districts Residential-1 through Residential-3. The attached Ordinance A would make this change.
Council Action Recommended: We recommend that the Council enact this change. Enactment of Ordinance A would do so.
Option B: An alternative to this approach would be to not change the conditions under which duplexes may be permitted, but to restrict the size of new or converted duplexes (for example, restrict newly-built duplexes to a maximum 1,000 square feet per side). This change would be designed to result in newly built duplexes that are less likely to be out of scale with their surroundings (we have seen proposals for duplexes of 2,500 square feet per side, for a 5,000 square foot structure). However, this approach would not necessarily limit the construction of new duplexes. Enactment of Ordinance B would make this change.
In the case of either of these actions, we recommend that the Council not consider such action to be the final word on duplexes. We believe that additional study would help to determine the areas and conditions under which construction of a duplex might be appropriate, and recommend that the Council continue discussion of this issue to craft a more precise management tool. One of these tools might be implementation of the new Neighborhood Conservation District overlay zoning district that is proposed in the Third Draft.
On balance, we believe that eliminating “duplex” as a permitted use in the R-1 through R-3 zones, at least for now, is an appropriate response to the community conditions that have been brought to the Council’s attention.
Nonconforming Status
We have heard the Council state intention to arrange language in the new ordinance such that existing development is affected as little as possible. Our response on October 7 was to suggest that the Council enact new nonconforming language immediately, in order to (1) assure homeowners that the new regulations will not negatively impact their homes; and (2) clearly set the stage for consideration of the remaining outstanding issues that need discussion in order to enact a full new ordinance.
Accordingly, we have taken proposed language in the Third Draft about nonconforming status and adjusted it to address what we understand to be the Council’s intent regarding this issue. The changes we propose would accomplish the following.
First, for the Resource Conservation District:
· For properties located within the federally regulated floodplain, there would be no change in status. Use of such properties is significantly restricted now, by federal law, and those restrictions would not change. Changes proposed to the Resource Conservation District do not and cannot change the boundary of the federally regulated floodplain.
· For properties other than single-family and two-family dwelling units, outside of the floodplain, establish that any building lawfully constructed (or for which a vested right has been established) as of October 21, 2002 that is located in the Resource Conservation District, but which does not meet the requirements of changed RCD regulations, may continue to exist, be repaired, and be reconstructed if destroyed. Expansion would be limited to 10% of existing footprint, as is permitted now. Such structures would not be considered nonconforming.
· In addition, for single-family and two-family dwelling units, there would be no restrictions on expansion.
We believe that these changes would mean that any existing single-family or two-family dwelling would not be affected by any changes to the Resource Conservation District.
For recently approved developments, such as the Larkspur and Cross Creek Subdivisions, we intend to recommend that any proposed changes to the Resource Conservation District boundary not apply to developments that have been approved since the RCD was established in 1984. This would mean that Special Use Permits (which already have vested rights), along with Subdivisions and Site Plan Approvals (which do not) would all be exempted from the changed boundary if those developments were approved between March 1984 (the date of the original RCD ordinance) and November 25, 2002 (possible effective date of enactment of Land Use Management Ordinance). This would mean that recently approved developments, such as the Larkspur and Cross Creek Subdivisions, would not be affected by the changed RCD boundary.
An additional note about this recommended proposal: It has been suggested that the RCD exemption for undeveloped lots apply to all and any proposed RCD changes. (Please see letter from Attorney Michael Brough, in Attachment 6.) This is not our proposal. We believe that it is reasonable to exempt such lots from boundary changes. However, we believe that it is reasonable to apply, within already anticipated RCD areas, the changes to RCD standards that are proposed in the Third Draft. (Examples include a more restrictive set of permitted uses in areas closest to a stream, requiring a variance for a street or bridge, and more restrictions on land disturbance in areas closest to the stream.) We also note that other requests in Mr. Brough’s letter, for exemption for undeveloped lots from other proposed changes such as floor area ratios and impervious surface ratios, would be appropriately considered at the time such changes are before the Council for action (currently targeted for November 25).
For all other, non-RCD nonconforming regulations, the recommended changes would accomplish the following:
· Statement of Intent: The proposed change would eliminate the current statement that it is the intent of the ordinance to achieve eventual elimination of existing uses or structures that do not conform to current regulations. The statement would be replaced with one of intent to minimize the impact of changed regulations on existing structures.
· Nonconforming lots: No substantive change.
· Nonconforming uses: Duplexes existing (or for which a vested right has been established) as of October 21, 2002, may continue as a use without limitation and would not be nonconforming. For uses other than duplexes, existing nonconforming use regulations would remain in effect that limit expansion and enlargement. The existing provision that prohibits reconstruction of a building which is devoted to a nonconforming use would be removed (allowing reconstruction).
· Nonconforming features: A structure with a nonconforming feature could continue to be used indefinitely, and could be reconstructed as it exists. But no action could be taken which would increase the extent to which the feature is nonconforming. (E.g., a house too close to a property line could not be expanded to draw even closer to the line.) There would be no time period for eliminating the nonconforming feature.
· Nonconforming signs: No change.
· Nonconformities because of Watershed regulations: No change.
· Nonconforming Parking Areas in Front Yards: No change.
· Repairs and Maintenance: There would be no restrictions on minor repairs or maintenance of structures that have a nonconforming status.
· Nonconformity Survey: The provision requiring the Town Manager to conduct a survey of all nonconforming uses and features would be eliminated.
Council Action Recommended: We believe that these proposed changes would implement the Council’s intent regarding nonconforming status. Enactment of Ordinance C would make these changes.
NEXT STEPS
We are recommending that tonight the Council enact proposed provisions related to duplexes and nonconforming status. We believe that the remainder of the proposed Third Draft continues to need attention.
The following schedule lists upcoming dates for additional discussion and possible action:
· October 24: Public Information Meeting, 4-6 pm
· October 26: Citizen Workshop, 9am-noon
· October 28: Full Evening of Public Hearing
· November 25: Possible Enactment of Third Draft
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council enact Ordinances A and C. Ordinance A would eliminate “duplex” as a permitted use in zoning districts R-1, R-2, and R-3. Ordinance C would enact new nonconforming rules designed to minimize impact of changed regulations on existing structures.
Ordinance B, an alternative to Ordinance A, would limit the size of new or converted duplexes to 1,000 square feet per side.
We note that full discussion of the remaining proposed provisions in the Third Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance is scheduled to continue on October 28. We recommend that, at the conclusion of discussion tonight, the Council recess this Public Hearing until October 28. Following this action to recess the Hearing, we recommend that the Council consider action on either Ordinance A or B, and action on Ordinance C.
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 18 Manager’s memorandum (p. 16).
2. October 7 Manager’s memorandum (p. 23).
3. Open Letter to Chapel Hill Community (p. 34).
4. Copies of Citizen Correspondence Since October 7 (p. 37).
ORDINANCE A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE to prohibit TEMPORARILY two-family duplex dwelling units in particular residential zoning districts (2002-10-21/O-5a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of the two-family duplex land use in lower density residential zoning districts; and
WHEREAS the Town Council has during the process of revising the Development Ordinance found that adjustment to the two-family duplex dwelling units provision is desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate as a temporary measure due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
|
|
R-2R-2AR-3 |
R-1 |
DWELLING UNIT(S)Two-Family:· Duplex |
- - |
- - |
Section 2. This ordinance
shall be effective until June 30, 2003, after which time the previously
existing Ordinance Schedule of Use Regulations regarding Duplexes shall be
again effective; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall prevent
the Town Council, after following procedures for amending the Development
Ordinance, from taking action to amend this Ordinance during this period. That
That, subject to the provisions of the previous sentence, all ordinances
and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 21st day of October, 2002.
ORDINANCE B
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE to restrict the size of dwelling units for two-family duplex land use (2002-10-21/O-5b)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of the two-family duplex land use in lower density residential zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has during the process of revising the Development Ordinance found that adjustment to the two-family duplex dwelling units provision is desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
“2.39 Dwelling, Two-Family -- Duplex: A single dwelling consisting of two (2) dwelling units (other than a two-family dwelling - including accessory apartment - see Section 2.38 above), provided the two dwelling units are connected by or share a common floor-to-ceiling wall, or, if the two units are arranged vertically, that they share a common floor/ceiling and not simply by an unenclosed passageway (e.g., covered walkway) and provided that each dwelling unit contains no more than three (3) bedrooms per unit and no more than 1,000 square feet of floor area per unit. A duplex structure with more than three (3) bedrooms within either dwelling unit shall be classified as a Rooming House unless each dwelling unit is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.”
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 21st day of October, 2002.
ORDINANCE C
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE to adjust nonconformity provisions (2002-10-21/O-5c)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of nonconformity regulations on two-family duplex land uses and the impact of nonconformity regulations on future, potential changes to the Resource Conservation District; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has during the process of revising the Development Ordinance found that adjustment to the nonconformity provision are desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
22.1 Intent
It is the
intent of this Article to minimize the impact of changed regulations on
structures that existed (or for which a vested right had been established) as
of the effective date of the changed regulations. chapter to recognize
that the eventual elimination, as expeditiously as is reasonable, of existing
uses or structures that are not in conformity with the provisions of this
chapter is as much a subject of health, safety, and welfare as is the
prevention of the establishment of new uses or structures that would violate
the provisions of this chapter. It is also the intent of this chapter that any
elimination of nonconformities shall be effected so as to avoid any
unreasonable invasion of established private property rights.
22.2 Nonconforming Lots
22.2.1 Definition
A nonconforming lot is a lot that was lawfully created prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the minimum gross land area or minimum lot width requirements established in Article 13 for the zoning district in which it is located.
22.2.2 Required Combination or Recombination of Nonconforming Lots
Where a nonconforming lot abuts another lot of record (whether conforming or nonconforming) held in the same ownership at or subsequent to enactment of this chapter, such lots shall be combined or recombined as necessary to form a conforming lot or lots and shall not thereafter be subdivided except in compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter.
Where a nonconforming lot was created by public taking action or as a result of a court order, the above combination or recombination of lots shall not be required.
22.2.3 Use of Nonconforming Lots
Where a nonconforming lot cannot be combined or recombined with other lots to form a conforming lot or lots, such nonconforming lot may be used subject to the compliance of the intended use and structure(s) with applicable use regulations and with applicable LUI ratios and setback and height regulations. However, any use (e.g. two-family or multi-family dwelling) that requires a greater gross land area than the minimum gross land area listed in Section 13.3 for the appropriate zoning district shall not be permitted on a lot which does not conform to such minimum gross land area requirement.
If compliance of the structure(s) intended on the nonconforming lot with applicable setback regulations is not reasonably possible, the nonconforming lot may be used as a building site subject to the granting of variance from such setback regulations by the Board of Adjustment in accord with the provisions of Article 24.
22.3 Nonconforming Uses
22.3.1 Definition
A nonconforming
use is a use of land, buildings, or structures that was lawfully established (or
for which a vested right had been established) on a property prior to the
effective date of current use regulations, prior to the effective date
of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to
the Use Regulations of Article 12 for the zoning district in which it is
located.
22.3.2 Regulations
Two-family duplex dwelling units existing or for which a vested right had been established as of October 21, 2002 may be continued as a use without limitation and shall not be considered as a nonconforming use as defined herein. Nonconforming uses, other than two-family duplex dwelling units, may be continued subject to the following limitations:
a) No nonconforming use shall be extended, expanded, enlarged, or moved to occupy a different or greater area of land, buildings, or structures than was occupied by such use at the time it became nonconforming, provided that a nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of a building which were specifically designed and arranged for such use at the time it became nonconforming.
b) No building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use shall be
enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or moved, or structurally
altered unless such building or structure is thereafter devoted to a
conforming use.
c) When a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use
is damaged to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of its current assessed
taxable value, such a building, if restored, shall thereafter be devoted to
conforming uses.
cd) If a nonconforming use ceases for more than ninety
(90) consecutive days or a total of one hundred and eighty (180) days in any
twelve (12) month period, subsequent use of the land, or structures previously
devoted to such use shall thereafter be devoted to conforming uses.
22.3.3 Discontinuance
Any
nonconforming use of land and any nonconforming use involving structures with a
total replacement cost of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) at the time
such use became nonconforming shall cease within five (5) years after the date
of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.7.
Any
nonconforming use involving structures with a total replacement cost of five
thousand dollars ($5,000) or more at the time such use became nonconforming
shall cease within fifteen (15) years after the date of the notice of
nonconformity required in Section 22.7, or within forty (40) years after the
construction of such structures, whichever is later.
22.4 Nonconforming Features
22.4.1 Definition
A nonconforming feature is a physical feature or characteristic of a use, building, structure or other development of land that was lawfully established (or for which a vested right had been established) prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the Intensity Regulations of Article 13 or the Design Standards of Article 14 applicable to such use, building, structure, or development of land. Nonconforming features include, but are not limited to, physical features and characteristics of development that exceed allowable maximum standards (floor area, height), and those that lack or fall short of required minimum standards (outdoor space, livability space, recreation space, setback, building spacing, access and circulation arrangement and design, sight line triangle, off-street parking and loading spaces and design, water supply and sewage disposal arrangement and design, utility design, refuse storage and collection facilities and design, buffer width and landscaping design, screening height and design, landscaping maintenance, outdoor lighting design).
22.4.2 Regulations
Nonconforming features may be continued subject to the following limitations:
a) No action shall be taken which increases the degree or extent of the nonconforming feature. Any enlargement, extension or structural alteration shall conform to all current requirements of this article.
b) For development existing (or for which a vested right had been established) prior to the effective date of current regulations, nonconforming features created by a change in regulations may continue to exist, and structures with such nonconforming features may be reconstructed if demolished or destroyed.
b) When a building, structure, or other development of land
having a nonconforming feature is damaged or demolished to the extent of fifty
percent (50%) or more of its current assessed taxable value, such building,
structure, or development of land may be reconstructed only if the
nonconforming feature is eliminated and the building or structure shall
thereafter conform to the provisions of this chapter.
22.4.3 Discontinuance
Any sign having a nonconforming feature shall be either eliminated or made to conform with the provisions of this chapter when any substantial alteration to the sign is proposed.
Any
building, structurally independent or free‑standing structure other than
a sign, or other development of land (lighting, fencing, parking area, or
accessory structure) having a nonconforming feature and having a replacement or
correction cost of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) shall be either
eliminated or made to conform with the provisions of this chapter within five (5)
years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.7.
22.5 Nonconforming Signs
22.5.1 Definition
A nonconforming sign is a sign that was lawfully established prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the Design Standards of Article 14 applicable to such sign.
22.5.2 Regulations
Nonconforming signs may be continued subject to the following limitations:
a. No nonconforming sign, including its permanent message or its structure, shall be extended, enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless such sign is made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.
b. When a nonconforming sign is demolished or damaged to the extent where more than fifty percent (50%) of its display area requires replacement, such sign shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.
c. When the repair, maintenance, or replacement cost of a nonconforming sign exceeds five hundred dollars ($500), such sign shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.
22.5.3 Amortization of Nonconforming Signs
Any nonconforming sign shall be either eliminated or made to conform to current regulations of this chapter in accord with the following schedule:
a. Any nonconforming sign that does not conform to the requirements of Subsection 14.13.5, Traffic Safety Precautions, shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within ninety (90) days after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.
b. Any nonconforming sign that is exempt from regulation under Subsection 14.3.4, but that does not conform to the temporary sign limitations in Subsection 14.13.4(f) - (k), shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within ninety (90) days after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.
c. Any nonconforming sign other than those to which a. or b. above applies shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within three (3) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.
22.6 Nonconforming Outdoor Skateboard Ramps
22.6.1 Definition
A nonconforming
outdoor skateboard ramp is an outdoor skateboard ramp which was lawfully
established prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent
amendment thereto, but which does not conform to the regulations applicable to
such outdoor skateboard ramps and is not a public nuisance.
22.6.2 Regulations
Nonconforming
outdoor skateboard ramps may be continued subject to the following limitations:
a. No nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp shall be extended,
enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless such outdoor skateboard ramp is
made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.
b. When a nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp is demolished or
damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its value, such
outdoor skateboard ramp shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current
regulations of this chapter.
c. When the repair, maintenance, or replacement cost of a
nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp exceeds one hundred dollars ($100), such
outdoor skateboard ramp shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current
regulations of this chapter.
22.6.3 Amortization of Nonconforming Outdoor Skateboard
Ramps
Any
nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp shall be either eliminated or made to
conform to current regulations of this chapter in accord with the following
schedule:
a. Within three (3) years after the date of the notice of
nonconformity required in Section 22.8.
22.67 Nonconforming Parking areas in Front
Yards
Within designated Historic Districts any nonconforming parking area in a front yard shall either be eliminated or made to conform to current regulations of this chapter within six (6) months after the date of notice of nonconformity.
22.8 Repairs and Maintenance
Minor
repairs to and routine maintenance of land, buildings, structures, or other
development of land or portion thereof, devoted to a nonconforming use or
having nonconforming features are permitted, provided the cost of such repairs
and maintenance within any twelve (12) month period does not exceed ten percent
(10%) of the current assessed taxable value of the land, buildings, structure,
or other development of land, or portion thereof.
Any
structure or other development of land, or portion thereof, devoted to a
nonconforming use or having a nonconforming feature, that is declared unsafe by
the Building Inspector because of lack of repairs and maintenance shall not be
restored, repaired, reconstructed, or used except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter.
Any
structure or other development of land, or portion thereof, devoted to a
nonconforming use or having a nonconforming feature, that is declared unsafe by
the Building Inspector, but not because of lack of repairs and maintenance, may
be repaired and restored subject to the requirements of subsections 22.3.2 and
22.4.2.
22.9 Nonconformity Survey and Notice
Within
eighteen (18) months after the effective date of this chapter, or subsequent
amendment thereto, the Town Manager shall make an inventory of all nonconforming
uses, signs having nonconforming features, and other significant nonconforming
features existing within the Town jurisdiction.
On
completion of the inventory, the Town Manager shall notify the owner(s) of the
property on which each nonconformity is located of the determination of
nonconformity, the reasons therefore, and the deadlines, where applicable, for
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
The above
requirements shall not preclude the further inventory and subsequent notices of
nonconformity.”
“5.4.2 Application of Resource Conservation District
Ordinance to Lawfully Established Development Existing on October 21,
2002 (or for which a vested right has been established) March 19, 1984
Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.
This Article
shall not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any lawfully
established development (outside of the regulatory floodplain) existing, or
for which construction had substantially begun, on or before October 21,
2002 (or for which a vested right had been established)March 19, 1984.
With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be
considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.
5.4.3 Exemptions for Expansion, Reconstruction,
Rehabilitation, or Renovation of Lawfully Established Development
Existing on October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested right has been
established) March 19, 1984 Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.
a) This Article shall not apply to use, operation, maintenance, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, or renovation of any lawfully established development
(outside of the regulatory floodplain) existing, or for which construction had
substantially begun, on or before October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested
right had been established) March 19, 1984. With respect to the
requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered as
nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.
b) Within the part of the Resource Conservation District that is outside of the regulatory floodplain, expansion of development is allowed only under the following circumstances:
1) With respect to the requirements of this Article any single family or two-family dwelling or single dwelling unit within a townhouse development may be expanded. With respect to the requirements of this Article, the dwelling or dwelling unit as expanded pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22;
2) With respect to the requirements of this Article,
development, other than single-family or two-family dwellings or single
dwelling units within a townhouse development, on any single zoning lot may be
expanded to the extent of ten percent (10%) or less of its footprint as it
existed on October 21, 2002February 11, 1985; however, this
exemption shall not apply in cases where a development has been expanded one or
more times since October 21, 2002 February 11, 1985, and where
the past and proposed expansions, considered together, would increase the
development's footprint by a total of more than ten percent (10%) of its
footprint as it existed on October 21, 2002February 11, 1985.
With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development as expanded
pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered as nonconforming within the
meaning of Article 22.”
Section 3. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 21st day of October, 2002.