 |
| Evelyn Smith |
Tonight I speak in opposition to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 349 in its present form, in that it appears that it:
·
Exceeds
authority granted by the state in RIGL 45-24-49 (Zoning) to conduct development
plan review of applications for uses requiring a special-use permit, a
variance, a zoning ordinance amendment and/or a zoning map change, in that
state law requires that in these instances, development plan review by the
planning commission “shall be advisory to the Zoning Board of Review.” The proposed ordinance would confer upon the
Planning Commission permitting authority which is currently vested by state law
in the Zoning Board of Review.
·
Exceeds
authority granted by the state in RIGL 45-24-49 (Zoning) to conduct development
plan review of applications for uses permitted by right, in that state law
requires that such review “shall only be based on specific and objective
guidelines which must be stated in the zoning ordinance.” The proposed ordinance includes standards for
review of some applications by the Town Planner, but does not apply those
standards to development plan reviews conducted by the Planning
Commission. The proposed ordinance
instead directs that Planning Commission reviews be guided by standards
contained in the Subdivision Regulations, and further directs that uses
reviewed by the Town Planner shall also be required to meet the standards
contained in the Subdivision Regulations.
The proposed ordinance would confer upon the Planning Commission
legislative authority to enact development plan review guidelines, which is
currently vested by state law in the Town Council through the adoption of the
local zoning ordinance.
·
Exceeds
authority granted by the state in RIGL 45-23-27 to make local subdivision
regulations applicable in all cases of development plan review “as provided for in (RIGL) 45-24-49 of the
Zoning Enabling Act of 1991, where a municipality has established, within their
zoning ordinance, the procedures for planning board review of applications,” in
that the proposed ordinance does not comply with RIGL 45-24-49 as previously
discussed, and that the proposed ordinance does not establish within the zoning
ordinance the procedures for planning board development plan review, including
the fees for same.
·
Is
in conflict with its own definition of Land Development Project (which is, as required by state law,
consistent with the definition of same in RIGL 45-24), in that it sends to the
Planning Commission, for their review as Major Land Development Projects,
projects that do not meet the definition:
“a project in which one or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land are to
be developed or redeveloped as a coordinated site for a complex of uses, units,
or structures, including, but not limited to, planned development and cluster
development for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial,
recreational, open space, and/or mixed uses as is permitted by this Ordinance.”
(218-5)
·
Exceeds
authority granted by the state in RIGL 45-24-49 (Zoning) by attempting to
exercise the authority granted by the state in RIGL 45-24.1 (Historic Area
Zoning) in a manner inconsistent with the statutory requirements of 45-24.1,
which vests in an appointed Historic District Commission the authority to
review the appropriateness of “the general design, arrangement, texture,
materials, and siting” of applications
to construct, alter, repair, move or demolish structures within the historic
district. The proposed ordinance would
confer upon the Planning Commission historic district review authority
currently vested by state law in an Historic District Commission, which the
Town has yet to appoint in order to be able to exercise the authority it sought
by the creation of Historic Village Overlay Districts.
I also
am opposed to the adoption of Ordinance No. 349 in its present form because:
·
It
fails to list items which are currently exempted from development plan review,
namely, the “construction of one or two family dwellings, ordinary accessory
structures and related activities;” and “alterations or additions to an
existing residential structure which do not change its nature or use;” These
activities should remain clearly exempt from development plan review and not be
subject to the possible interpretation by officials or complainants that
permitted accessory uses or accessory structures constitute a “non-residential
activity.”
·
It
also fails to continue to exempt “interior alterations that do not change the
nature of use in a commercial or industrial structure.” This change would prohibit the issuance of a
building permit for innocuous modifications to existing business establishments
until they have received development plan approvals. Such an intrusionary position puts our
business community and our nonresidential institutions at risk of needless
delay and expense, when a quick response to perceived needs may be the
difference between survival and extinction.
·
New
language, including numerous references to standards contained in the
Subdivision Regulations is not identified as a change to the existing
ordinance. An entire section, 218-71E,
has been included with no specific notice of its addition. This section subjects development review by
the Planner, remaining in the Zoning Ordinance, to all requirements contained
in the Subdivision Regulations.
·
The
published ordinance fails to give adequate notice of the nature of the changes
to the existing zoning ordinance, and of the impact of removing Planning
Commission review to the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Regulations, not the
least of which is the difference in fees that would be charged.
For these reasons, I urge the Council not to
adopt Ordinance No. 349 as it is presently constituted.
Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn J. Smith
