HomeMy Public PortalAbout3137-1976- AMENDIND ORDINANCE 2325-1968 KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCEAMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 3137-1976
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;
and;
WHEREAS, such ordinance now provides for no exceptions to such prohibition,
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 remons-
trances were heard from all parties interested or affected by this ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the note 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 tKat 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, it may be restored,
reconstructed, or used as before provided that it be done within six (6)
months of such occurrence, bowever4 that the Board, upon application made
within six (6) months of such damage, and in accordance with the provisions
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 reconstruction and
reuse of a nonconforming building or structure damaged more than sixty per-
cent (60%) of its fair market value.
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,W06� day of e_"�1976.
r
President of Common Council
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PRESENTEDBYme to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this;;�6 a --day of
1976.
City ler
APPROVED by me, Clifford J. Dickman, Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this
�O day of 1976.
T .`r
AT7,31:�
r
l
` C
Crt rk
i
to
ce. vi
n
m'
m
m -S
,�
1v
Y
sF p `C7 :•
63 0
.�
c
�C
in
CAl
i
J
c�
o
C
CD
�
4
�a
lO
i
$,7
1113
�
y
I
E
,
i
CITY PLAN COMMISSION
RICHM®ND, INDIANdA
December 2, 1976
Mr. Kenneth Mills, President
Members of Common Council &
Mrs. Jo Ellen Trimble, City Clerk
Municipal Building
Richmond, Indiana 47374
Re: Ordinance No, 3137-1976 -. Plan Commission Case 76-17,
Petitioner: Richmond Common Council; Agent, Robert
Reinke, City Attorney, seeking to amend the zoning
Ordinance Section 16,06,
Dear Mr. Mills, Members of the Council & Mrs, Trimble:
The Richmond City Planning Commission held a public hearing on
November 23, 1976, to hear the request of Richmond Common Council,
Robert Reinke, Agent, to amend the Zoning Ordinance Section 16,06,
All interested citizens were given an opportunity to speak in
favor of or in opposition to this request; however, there was
no one who appeared.
Commissioner Austerman moved for adoption of this Ordinance,
seconded by Commissioner Conley. The vote to adopt was 4 - 4,
no decision, with Commissioners Austerman, Conley, Meredith and
Webb voting to adopt and Commissioners Case, Bartz, Solomon and
Kyle voting to deny Ordinance No. 3137-1976,
Commissioner Austerman then made a motion to deny the petition,
seconded by Commissioner Solomon. This motion passed, 5 - 3, with
Commissioners Austerman, Case, Bartz, Kyle and Solomon voting for
denial and Commissioners Meredith, Conley and Webb voting to adopt,
Commissioner VanPelt and Executive Secretary Goodwin were not pre-
sent for this hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
DEPARMTENT OF CITY PLANNING
�a�'a 44c">�
Robert B. Goodwin
Executive Secretary
/vl
CITY PLAN COMMISSION
RICHMOND, INDIANA,
December 13, 1976
Mr. Kenneth Mills, President
Members of the Cannon Council &
Mrs. Jo Ellen Triznble, City Clerk
Municipal Building
Rictmond, Indiana 47374
Dear President Mills, Council Members and Mrs, Trimble;
The following statement is a summation of the opinion of the Planning
Staff on the Ordinance request by Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance
Section (16.06) on re-establishing non -conforming uses once they have
been 60% or more destroyed,
A non -conforming use is any use which legally existed at the time
Common Council adopted zoning regulations with which the existing use
can no longer conform.
A non -conforming use can be compared to a weed, A weed is any plant
out of place. A rose in a corn field would be a weed, There is
nothing wrong with the rose, it still smells the same and it's still
quite beautiful, but it is not where it belongs.
The same can be said for the non-confo2mdng use. When it's in its
proper place, it blends, compliments and adds to the value'of its
surroundings. However, if it is a commercial use in a residential
zone, it detracts from the character of the neighborhood by encouraging
increased traffic; it detracts visually with paved areas and lighted
signs; it can add offensive odors to the atmosphere and may frequently
generate noise levels incompatible with a residential use,
In my opinion the only goverm=tal Body with the power to zone is
Common. Council.
This proposed Ordinance, in effect, delegates legislative powers to
the Board of Zoning Appeals by permitting the Board of Zoning Appeals
to rezone a particular non -conforming use by variance,
The problems of the S & S case has been pointed out as a reason for
changing the Ordinance and letting the Board of Zoning Appeals handle
this type of problem in the future.
rs��y
CLIFFORD J. DICKMAN
MAYOR
50 N. FI FT.H STREET � RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374•(317) 966-5561
Mr. Kenneth Mills, President
and Members of Common Council
Riclrwnd, Indiana 47374
Gentlemen:
ROBERT B.GOODWIN
PLANNING DIR[CTOR
December 13, 1976
The following is a recap of the status made by Plan ComaLi.ssion mmnbers.
regarding Amending Zoning Ordinance Article 16,06:
PC-76-06 - Amend Zoning Ordinance Art, 16,06 - Ordinance No, 3070,1976
Meeting of April 1.3, 1976, at which time this Ordinance was taken.under
advisement.
Mr. Austerman said it was his opinion that Common. Council had not shown good.
judgement in their meeting, and they refused to wait on this Amendment, but
because of this, he did not feel this amendment is any less necessary, He
felt it was necessary to have something in the Ordinance to allow harmony
and this amendment would do that.
Mrs. Bartz said she disagreed and felt this amendment was badly written. It
is very difficult to understand and she felt it was written to help one case
and would not be considered good overall planning for the City of Richmond.
Mr. VanPelt said he agreed with both Mr. Austerman and Mrs. Bartz in that it
showed very poor judgement on the part of Common Council, The 6TI figure is
in zoning ordinance itself, The decision City Council made would be far less
acceptable alternative than having, this decision available should the need pre-
sent itself. He agreed that it is designed to fit a particular instance but
should this happen again, we are going; to be in a better position with this
type of an amendment than we were before, He continued by saying be felt
their petition was arbitrary and he felt the proposed amendment also is arbi-
trary.
Mfrs. Bartz said she felt it needed more study and looked into more thoroughly.
Mr. Austerman said he thought Article 16.06 is arbitrary and does not give the
City any alternative and does not let the owner continue. This amendment
gives the petitioner a way to appeal, He did not intend this to be a case
for one individual,
President Case said he was still not convinced in his mind thatitwas a case
of either one or the other. He thought possibly the S&S Garage would change
the character of its b usiness so that it could have fit into the existing,
zoning, C-1 and C-1 Special Use. I would hope their profit would be more on
Mr. Kenneth ItUls, President
and Members of C== Council'
December 13, 1976
Page 3
Mr. Austerman moved for passage of Ordinance No. 3070-1976, but hearing no second
on his motion, he said he would like to move for rejection of Ordinance 3070. .This
was seconded by Mrs. Bartz,
A ROLL CALL VOTE TNAICA= � SEVEN (7) AYES AND ZERO (D) NAYES FOR DENTC. MvESSIONERS
ABSENT WERE MR. SOLCMN AND M. VAN PELT.
i
PC-76-17 - Ordinance'No. 3137-1976 Helmond Catmnan Council, Agent Robert Reinke.,
C.
Attorney, seeking to amend the Zoning Ordinance Section 36,06
-Meeting of
October 26, 1976.
The petition was represented by rir. Reinke with camlents from Commissioners as follows:
Mrs. Bartz asked what the difference.Tms in this amendment, She said she thought this
was taken care of already since the Plan Commission voted unanimously, and then Council
voted on it. She asked why it was back before the Commission, She also said the Board
of Zoning Appeals had always handled hardship cases and this Com fission did not handle
them. She felt it should be`handled as the Ordinance was written, This would be
getting into the field of non -conforming use and she did not feel the Council is.
really considering all the possibilities. Areas are zonedaccording to what is best
for the neighborhood and the City as a whole, and all the Council can concentrate on
is the S & S Garage. She could not see why the Commission was straining so for this.
Mr. Kyle said that S & S Garage got the zoning they wanted, C-4,. to rebuild, and as
of today, they still have not rebuilt,'and this Ordinance does not say how long that
property can remain vacant without a building on it. There is nothing; in the new.
Ordinance specifying they must rebuild within. a certain time.
Mr. Solomon said that in referring to 6p/ of the building destroyed, he believed
that Camms Lumber Company came before the BZA, and the wanted to build a new -build-
ing. The heading here says "Replacing Damaged Buildings', and after we had taken
into consideration more than 60% of the building bad not been destroyed and only one
building destroyed, and if he interprets this clearly, we,are either going to have
to clarify "Buildings' or "Operation°', or"607. of a certain building We questioned
whether or not we were .in the right by granting the variance of the C non Lumber Com-
pany building when it was the one building and not 60% of all the buildings. He fur-
ther stated that he had not seen where the amended Ordinance cleared that point up.'
Mr. Case remarked that under Article 16.06 as it is written, it would seem to him
that there are safeguards for orderly change and orderly updating of neighborhoods.
He felt the ideal reason for 16.06 in the beginning was to provide that neighborhoods
might change in the future and they might become residential, and they may became
something other than what they were in 1936. With this proposed charge, it seamed
to him that the safeguard is still needed. There are certain businesses, certain
structures and certain uses that should not go back in where they are located no
matter what because they are an inherent detriment to their surroundings. He ques-
tioned where the safeguard is with the proposed charge in the Ordinance,
Mr. Kenneth Mills, President
and Members of Common Council
December 13, 1976
Page 5
PC-76-17 - Meeting November 23 1976
MR. AUSTERW MVED FOR ADOPTTON OF PC-76-17, THIS T4AS SEOONDED BY MR. CQNly, AND
A ROLL CALL WTE SHaq D FOUR (4) AYES AND FOUR (4) NAYFS,'
THERE BEING NO VOTE, M.. AUSTM MAN THEN MOVED FOR DENTAL OF PC--76-17. THIS GJAS
SECONDED BY IR. SOIOMON. A POLL CALL VOTE SHOWED FIVE (5) AYES,AND THREE (3) NAYES.
THOSE VOTING NAYE WERE MR, CONLEY, M. MEREDJTH AND MR. WBBB. COMMISSIONER VAN
PELT WAS ABSENT.
Respectfully submitted,
DEPARTMENT CITY PANNING
Robert B. Goodwin
Director
RBG:V1