There are differences and similarities between new nonconformance ordinance and old nonconformance ordinance. Working and conforming to the provisions of both new nonconformance ordinance and old nonconformance ordinance. An ordinance refers to a decree or legislation established by an institution or a local authority to regulate its affairs. It is the by-law that has an authoritative order. In most cases, as the map changes or new locations and zones established, majority of structures, buildings and uses are rendered noncompliant as new provisions are applied. Structures, buildings, lots and uses that were initially compliant with the location laws are sometimes rendered noncompliant. For instance, some initially legal lots, uses and structures may no longer adhere to the new zoning provisions leading to the establishment of nonconformance ordinance. The new nonconformance ordinance seeks to specify legislation that apply to these legal, but non-conforming structures. Both the old nonconformance ordinance and the new nonconformance ordinance bear various similarities. As a matter of fact, the general principles apply in both the new and the old nonconformance ordinance. Both ordinances reflect on the view of eliminating existing structures, uses and buildings that are not in compliant with the provision of the regulation. It also intends to eliminate those existing structures that bring to the discussion the subject of safety, health, and matters of welfare.
In addition, the old and new nonconformance ordinance prevents the establishment of new structures and uses to would contravene the provisions and regulations of the plan. The purpose of the ordinances is to promote proper land use and conformities. It also indicates that the existence of the non-conforming conditions that were before the effective date of the Ordinance or any adjustments thereto shall be allowed to continue (Schwartz & Erdly, 2004). Moreover, a non-conforming condition shall be barred from becoming more non-conforming except where it is provided so by the ordinance. Both ordinances administer the removal of the non-conforming structures in order to evade from an unreasonable invasion of developed private property rights. In terms of expansion of non-conforming structures and uses, the ordinances stipulate that any non-conforming business or industrial use can expand its operations. These have an actual continuance of the activities that are permitted and were conducted prior to the change of the zoning legislation. Additionally, both the new and the old ordinances provide that existing nonconforming uses and structures shall never be enlarged, moved, extended or structurally altered unless as specified herein by the ordinances.
All nonconformance structures shall be under normal maintenance, and any other repairs or alterations intended for structural safety. Both ordinances note that the maintenance can only be done if it does not lead to the expansion of the nonconformity, and such maintenance is conducted as required by law. On the other hand, the old and new ordinances differ substantially in their applicability. For example, under the new nonconformance ordinance, if the structure is abandoned for twelve consecutive months, then the right to use a nonconforming structure is terminated. In the old nonconformance ordinance, the issue is different. When a nonconforming use of any building or structure lasts for a period of six months, then it should never be re-established or change into another nonconforming use. The new nonconformance ordinance is regulated by the provisions of the Land Development Regulations. On the other hand, the case of old nonconformance ordinance the regulations are carried out by the zoning Ordinance (Harveys Lake (Pa.), & Associated Planning & Development Services, 1974). In old nonconforming ordinance, any damage to nonconforming use or building caused by wind, fire, floods or acts of man can only be reconstructed and used as before, if reconstruction takes place within the first twelve months of such damage. However, a reconstruction and reuse of the building as before would be impossible if the damage is to the extent of more than fifty percent.
In the new nonconformance ordinance, the ability to continue a nonconforming use or structure is terminated if the building is destroyed by any cause. The cost of the damage is fifty percent higher than the structure’s cost to rebuild at the time the event occurred. In fact, the old nonconforming ordinance does not take into consideration any site characteristics of the lot. The new Ordinance however provides that landscaping, parking and other non-structural characteristics shall be considered to be nonconforming site characteristics.
In the general perspective, there are various similarities and differences between new nonconformance ordinance and old nonconformance ordinance. The general principle applies to both ordinances. Critical analysis show that both ordinances reflect on the view of eliminating existing structures, uses and buildings that are not in compliant with the provision of the regulation. The recognition and elimination of structures that does not conform to the previous provisions seem to be the intention of both ordinances. The elimination of non-conforming users and structures tends is believed that it avoids irrational invasion. The new nonconformance ordinance focus on the ability to continue structures that are nonconforming comes to an end when it is destroyed, and on the other hand old nonconforming ordinance does not take into consideration any site.
References
Harveys Lake (Pa.), & Associated Planning & Development Services. (1974). Zoning ordinance, Borough of Harveys Lake, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Harveys Lake, Pa: The Borough.
Schwartz, T & Erdly, J. (2004). Building Façade Maintenance, Repair and Inspection. New Jersey: Bridgesport
