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