Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Supplement ITEM 4.1 SUPPLEMENTAL 1 To: Members of Planning Commission 5/3/2016 From:J.Couperus Please find below a revised version of part of the document I produced for our last meeting. I have omitted all the material discussing the origins of the whole "substandard lot" problem, as I see no need to repeat it, it hasn't changed. Below however, I present an expansion and re-organization of some thoughts on how the issue of"grandfathering" might be approached.At this the intent is not to advocate any particular position or approach, but merely capturing on paper some issues or discussion points which might help to establish some common ground on which to focus further discussion. Some Considerations On The Matter of "Grandfathering" The Council directed the Planning Commission to address the concept of"Grandfathering"certain rights.This is an issue for property owners with existing developments on sub-standard lots that violate one or more of the town's ordinances. Currently,a property owner in this situation may face a problem in redeveloping the property, in being unable to even replace what existed there before—because it would violate the ordinances. (An anomaly arises here—if the current structure has to be re-built due to an "Act of God"such as fire or earthquake,the owner may do so. But if the owner wishes to redevelop and tear down the old structure of their own volition,the replacement is subject to the current ordinances of the town.That the rules thus encourage"accidental fires" is never discussed in polite company.) The"Who"of Grandfathering Suggested Definition: Any substandard lot that had a habitable structure on it at the time that it became subject to the town's ordinances. (If there is no structure,there is nothing to be grandfathered) AND which at the time that its lot lines were established—was clearly intended to be a buildable lot. The above paragraph refers to"substandard Lot"—what does that mean?At first one might think that any lot under one acre is such a lot. BUT—there is good reason to suspect that there are a large number of lots in town that are around 0.98 of an acre. How come?Such lots are the result of a subdivision which carefully arranged a number of lots to be just a little over one acre—but due to changes in the way the Town now treats"Right of Way"and drives towards roads of 60ft width,these lots now become defined as 0.98 acre.So the effect of defining"substandard"as"anything under one acre" potentially gives such lots a privilege not enjoyed by one acre lots—it is in fact an advantage to those people with a 0.98 lot. Open to suggestions? The"Why"of Grandfathering. By"Grandfathering"any(some?)attributes which exceed what the ordinances would ordinarily allow, the intent is to guarantee that a property-owner can redevelop their property to at least a level that matches the existing development—i.e. not suffer any loss in value or flexibility. There was a suggestion that we merely identify those qualifying properties that we know of today,and identify them on a list and that would be it. But such an approach does not solve future problems— when further areas within the Town's Sphere of Influence become annexed at some time in the future. Whenthis happens at some point(and it will...) and a new set of properties fall into this category, we will be once again where we started. The"What"of Grandfathering. The most simple and straightforward approach might be to take the existing(old)floor area of the structure on the site in question,and "grandfather"this as the new MFA—essentially telling the developer that they can build a new house that is at least as big as the old one. But clearly this approach can run into problems if the town nevertheless maintains(for example) its setback requirements—there may not be enough room to build a house of that size if it is guaranteed an MFA exception but otherwise has to conform to other code restrictions such as setbacks, height etc. Trying to keep the rules simple,you could get around this particular hurdle by in addition taking one of the following approaches: a) Grandfathering in the right to build within the old footprint and height—no matter where these happen to fall in terms of needing a variance or exception b) Grandfathering in a guarantee that the Planning Commission will grant sufficient variances or exceptions to make it possible to build a new house with the grandfathered MFA—but without specifying any further what these might be—leaving each case to the discretion of future Planning Committees If we don't like to leave it"to the discretion of..." (i.e. reduce subjectivity)then there is the question of "what" is grandfathered.The main and most obvious candidates are setback incursions. But this raises a number of sub-issues: a. Do we include any type of setback incursion —including e.g. non-habitable structures(stables, sheds,etc.)or even non-structural kinds of incursions such as grading or patio or parking turn- arounds etc. b. Do incursions into riparian setbacks qualify?(Riparian set-backs did not exist when the original structure was permitted—can one grandfather something that never existed?) c. What and how much of an incursion gets grandfathered? Is it the value of square footage alone? For example: Can I transfer an old 4ft incursion that was 36ft long into a new incursion of 12ft and that is 12ft long?They are both 144 sq ft in area(i.e. may appear to have equivalent replacement worth), but the new incursion into the setback is 3 times deeper than the old one. r d. Does the"nature"of the incursion play a role. For example can I use an old incursion that was used for a parking turn-around (i.e. of essentially zero height)and now useit instead to contribute to a two-story structure(effectively 27ft high) e. Do any and all setback incursions qualify—no matter how egregious. E.g. incursions that go all the way to the boundary with the neighboring property. (Yes—there are some of these...) Then besides the whole matter of setback incursions,what other kinds of variances or exceptions might qualify as being grandfathered?Consider the following(incomplete) list a. Building Height(e.g. including but not limited to"Stilt houses" perched on steep slopes...) b. MFA and MDA c. Cut and Fill grading d. Hilltop/Ridgeline siting e. Open Space and Riparian Easements(i.e. lack thereof in previous development) f. Fences,walls,gates and columns An approach based on the rules applicable at the time of the original lot creation A completely different approach to the whole"Grandfathering" issue might be to base the"what"of what is being grandfathered on the original site development ordinances that applied to that lot at the time that it was created. A little bit of research shows that this could get complicated in a hurry. For starters,there have been multiple changes within the county rules over time—a major one occurred in May 1941(Titled "Protective Land Use Regulations—Sixth Unit of the Zoning Plan"). Greatly distilled and simplified,this version of the ordinances provided for the following: Lots between Y2 and 1 acre—Height 35ft,Setbacks Front 30ft,Side 20ft, Rear 20%of lot depth Lots under Y2 acre-Height 35ft,Setbacks Front 20ft,Side 10ft, Rear 20%of lot depth But before then,different rules applied—so a building approved in e.g. 1937 would have different rules to one created in 1945—and the latter rules themselves also contain some grandfathering provisions(!) And that's just for starters in terms of complexity.There were also rules changes based on changing the definition s of a"lot"versus a "parcel". (Trivia challenge: Do multiple parcels under a single ownership make up a lot—or do multiple lots under a single ownership make up a parcel?) The above thoughts are provided merely as a starting point for further discussions on the whole issue of"Grandfathering" certain rights for site development on sub-standard lots existing within the town at the time it was incorporated, or sub-standard lots that existed at the time they were annexed into the town subsequent to its incorporation.