Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout3070-1976 - AMENDING ORDINANCE 2325-1968 KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCEyD ORDINANCE 3070-1976 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2325-1968, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ADOPTED JUNE 3, 1968. WHEREAS, Section 16.06 of Zoning Ordinance No. 2325-1968 now prohibits restoration or reconstruction and reuse of non -conforming buildings or structures upon damage to such buildings or structures under certain conditions, as provided therein, and; WHEREAS, such ordinance now provides for no exceptions to such prohibition, and; WHEREAS, such prohibition can lead to undue and unnecessary hardship to individual property owners, without any corresponding benefit to the community and/or surrounding property, and; WHEREAS, a study of this ordinance was conducted by the Richmond City Planning Commission on the day of , 1976, at which time remonstrances were heard from all parties interested or affected by this ordinance, and; WHEREAS, the vote of the Richmond City Planning Commission was to in favor of recommending the passage of this ordinance No. , NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDAINED that: SECTION 1. Zoning Ordinance No. 2325-1968, be, and the same hereby is, amended so that Section 16.06 thereof shall read as follows, to -wit: REPLACING DAMAGED BUILDINGS: Any nonconforming building or structure damaged more than sixty (60) percent of its then fair market value, exclusive of foundations, at the time of damage by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other calamity or act of God, shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as before such occurrence, but if less than sixty (60) percent damaged above the foundation, that it be done within six (6).months of such occurrence. Provided, that the Board, upon application made within fifteen (15) months of such damage, and in accordance with the provi- sions of Article 61 and upon a consideration of the conditions set forth in Section 61.04 of said article, and a consideration of: (a) the extent to which the property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located has adapted to the non -conforming use, and; (b) the difficulties and problems encountered in attempting to relocate the non -conforming use in some other location; may authorize the restoration or recon- struction and reuse of the damaged building or structure. SECTION 2. Ordinance.No. 2325-1968 be, and the same hereby is, amended by the addition of the following subparagraph to Section 61.05 of Article 61 thereof, to wit: (L) to permit replacement of damaged buildings of non -conforming character as provided in article 16. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as by law required. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this day of , 1976. President of Common Council ATT EST : City Clerk PRESENTED BY me to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this day of , 1976. City Clerk APPROVED by me, Clifford J. Dickman, Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this day of , 1976. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY PLAN COMMISSION RICHMOND, INDIANA July 29, 1976 Mr. Kenneth Mills,'President Members of the Common Council & Mrs. Jo.Ellen Trimble, City Clerk Municipal Building Richmond, Indiana 47374 Re: Ordinance No..3070-1976 - Plan Commission Case 76-6, Amending Ordinance No. 2325-1968, Section 16.06 - REPLACING DAMAGED BUILDINGS Dear Mr. Mills, Members of the Council & Mrs, Trimble: On Tuesday, July 27, 1976, the City Plan Commission voted unanimously, 7-0, to recommend denial of Ordinance No. 3070-1976 to the Common Council. The vote tally is deceptive inasmuch as at least one (1) of our members voted to recommend denial so the Ordinance could be brought before the Coun- cil for a vote. It is important to'remember that this Ordinance was introduced by the Plan Commission for a particular case. It is drafted in such a way that it applies specifically to that case, and it was rejected by the petitioner on the floor of the Council Chambers when it was introduced, This Ordinance was voted on by the Plan Commission at its March, April and May meetings and each time resulted In no decision. No vote was taken at the June meeting because several Plan Commission members were absent. The recommendation before you tonight is a recommendation to deny this Ordi- nance. Those Plan Commission members who vocalized their opinions at thee, public hearings voted 'no' because they felt the Ordinance defeated the pur- pose of having non -conforming classifications, and that it would be contrary to the best interests of planning in the City of Richmond. Still another mem- ber expressed the opinion that the Ordinance as drafted was unacceptable but could be handled in a more comprehensive manner in the new Ordinance, Respectfully submitted, pEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Robert B. Goodwin Director RBG:vI