| | | | | | | | | 
| Ordinance | NO. 05-2018 |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | A proposed Ordinance to repeal and replace Ch. 1288 Nonconforming Uses and Structures. | | | |
| | | | | | | | | BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN - 4/17/2018 | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
The City of Battle Creek Ordains:
Section 1. An Ordinance to repeal and replace Ch. 1288 Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 2. Should any section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.
Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinance in conflict with any of the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed, saving any prosecution, criminal or administrative appeal pending on, or violation cited on or before the effective date of this ordinance, which shall remain subject to the ordinance provision existing at the time of the alleged violation.
Section 4. Except as otherwise provided by law, this Ordinance shall take effect seven (7) days from the date of its publication, in accordance with the provisions of Section 401 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.
I, Victoria Houser, City Clerk of the City of Battle Creek, hereby certify the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Ordinance introduced by the Battle Creek City Commission at a Regular meeting held on April 17, 2018.
Victoria Houser
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | Battle Creek City Commission
4/17/2018
Action Summary | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Staff Member: | Christine M. Zuzga, AICP, Planning Mgr | | Department: | Planning |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | SUMMARY
| A proposed Ordinance to repeal and replace Ch. 1288 Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
| BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
| | Other than staff time for administration, there are no City funds, services, or infrastructure needed with the adoption of this ordinance. |
HISTORY, BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
| A legal nonconforming use or structure is a use of land or structure which was legally established according to the applicable zoning and building laws of the time, but which does not meet current zoning and building regulations. To remain consistent with the intent of State statute to eliminate nonconforming uses and structures, the current ordinance allows for rebuild of nonconforming structures only when not more than 50% of its insured value is destroyed. The use of insured value is difficult to measure, and is not always equitable as it is based on the existence and/or the value of insurance.
Staff is proposing to use the current year’s assessed value of a building to determine when a damaged or destroyed nonconforming building may be rebuilt. This standard ensures decisions are consistent and fair throughout other properties in the City.
The proposed ordinance also provides opportunities for residential buildings that are within a 300’ radius comprised of at least 50% of other nonconforming residential structures to be 100% rebuilt in case of destruction. There are a number of residential properties throughout the City that are in residential neighborhoods, but are zoned commercial. The inability to rebuild in the event of a fire or other calamity could potentially cause issues with the ability of that property owner to purchase/sell or insure their home.
Finally, the proposed ordinance amendment will allow a legal nonconforming residential building that has been destroyed, to be expanded up to 25% of the original ground floor area providing it is in compliance with other zoning standards. This is consistent with existing ordinance language that allows expansion of legal nonconforming structures in the City. In addition to the above items, other minor clerical corrections were made to the ordinance.
The revisions to the ordinance were made after researching other community regulations concerning legal nonconforming ordinances, and discussions with lenders and realtors. The attached report to the Planning Commission provides additional analysis of the proposed amendment.
| DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
|
| POSITIONS
| The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance at multiple public meetings, and held one public hearing. At their February 28, 2018 meeting, they unaminously recommended approval to the City Commission. |
| | | |
|