Article 7 Nonconformities of Uses, Lots, Structures, Sites

Input Statement from the Government Street Collaborative

Because most of the language in the Nonconformities section was pulled in from the current Ordinance or the DDD, it is familiar and addresses most concerns. The GSC comments that this rewrite is an opportunity to improve health, safety, and the general welfare, by bringing it closer to the vision of Map for Mobile. Therefore, we ask the following questions and make the following comments:

1. Is it a correct interpretation of Table VII -1 that allowing a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, has the intent of only allowing a change that reduces the intensity of use? The language of this table is open to misinterpretation. In no case should a nonconformity change to a more intense nonconformity. Further, any change to a nonconformity use, lot, site, or structure should require an application and approval process as a Conditional use approval.

2. Expansion of nonconforming structures: “may expand on land owned.”

What is the actual intent here? If it is to allow expansion to other land/lots owned, GSC requests clarity: “may expand on contiguous land owned” or “land owned with shared adjacencies” or “only within the premises.” The point being an expansion on a disconnected lot should be disallowed or considered a new nonconformity. Could also be addressed by defining a “new nonconformity” to include one established on a separate, noncontiguous parcel of land owned.

3. Abandonment of Nonconforming structures/lots/uses: The 2-year rule is in use now. However, in light of the Map for Mobile goals of elevating quality of life through safer neighborhoods, and what we know of crime and safety hazards on abandoned properties, we ask that our Zoning law provide for our health, safety and general welfare by reducing the abandonment period to one year, with an appeal option for an additional year. This is consistent with the 1 year timeline for repairing nonconforming structures.