Non-conforming sites

[gkmo62u]

Our fair city has hundreds of sites built decades ago that are nonconforming
to current standards--landscaping, paved parking, etc...

Our ZO requires that once a site is vacant for 6 months, ALL new
standards must be in place for a new business to open.
Obviously
those non-conforming sites are ugly and we want to improve the
community aesthetic.

So it also is likely in some cases a small business is faced with
significant paving, landscaping costs associated with starting the
business.

We are faced with sites remaining vacant because of the requirements.
How do you guys handle this.?

Keep the status quo and never improve
old sites or require full compliance and spaces stay vacant.

I need some middle ground
Help.

[mike gurnee]

Nonconformity permits to re-use. Similar to a conditional use, strive to make it more confomring rather than 100%. Little things make a big difference. A new curb, paved parking and some landscaping is better than letting it sit there and rot.

[Seabishop]

I can't imagine the ZEO's 6 month rule has any legal basis.

[gkmo62u]

seabishop

actually South Carolina state law is clear allowing reasonable times frames in which non-conformities may be brought into conformance with current standards.

Now, is six months too strict? maybe. but is still goes to the main question--how to bring sites into conformity at the risk of bring no sites into conformity?

[beach_bum]

We have a similar rule for non-conforming uses. Nonconforming structures and sites are a different story, we have an exempt site plan process that requires plans be brought into compliance to the best ability possible. We are able to pick and chose what standards must be met (screening, paving, etc) and what ones can be left off until a minor site plan is submitted for a major change of use or site operation change. Exempt site plans are only for up to 25% improvement or change of use of the site or an addition of up to 25% more of building.

[Kevin Colin]

Change the rules.

A 6 month abandonment time frame without any option for administrative relief is onerous and overly idealistic. 12 months is far more reasonable but only if you also provide for administrative relief through a variance or conditional use permit.

Take stock of your economic development objectives (jobs!), review/prioritize a list of development standards to be brought into compliance, and calibrate an administrative process to achieve them.

[RichmondJake]

Originally posted by Kevin Colin

Change the rules.

A 6 month abandonment time frame without any option for administrative relief is onerous and overly idealistic. 12 months is far more reasonable but only if you also provide for administrative relief through a variance or conditional use permit.....

I agree that six months is a little short and 12 months is more typical. But I disagree with administrative variances or CUPs. You can't grant use variances in California or in most places for that matter. How does the CUP process solve the use issue?

Look at the board view of nonconforming uses purpose statements: we want them to go away because the community is changing due to particular circumstances.

[gkmo62u]

Take this example:

small site, with small existing vacant commercial structure. Dirt/gravel parking; zero landscaping.

Former used car lot. Vacant for over a year.

Owner finally find tenant--2 chair beauty salon/barber. Market rent expects maybe $600 per month.

To meet current standard, paved parking (5 spaces +handicap) and say 4 canopy trees, and 6 underestory.

I got my own estimates--roughly $20,000 all in for site improvements.

I have a little business sense and know that those numbers don't really work. So the lot stays vacant.

I like the "incremental" improvementment recommendations I have seen.

[beach_bum]

Originally posted by gkmo62u

I like the "incremental" improvementment recommendations I have seen.

This approach works well here, except some businesses are abusing it, doing small changes every so often so they never have to submit a minor site plan to address everything they are supposed to. We are thinking about putting a cap on, maybe one every fiscal year or something. The beauty is the cap, they can only do 25%, so no large scale site changes are taking place under our exempt site plan.