Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Regulating front yard setbacks outside of a planning jurisdiction

  1. #1
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,779

    Regulating front yard setbacks outside of a planning jurisdiction

    My client's comprehensive plan wants to have additional front yard setbacks to preserve the rural character of the community. I am updating the zoning ordinance which will have additional setbacks along certain arterials and collectors above and beyond the setback requirements for each zoning district. For example, Highway "A" will have a setback of 75', "County Line Road" will have a setback of 100', etc.

    Most of the land within the corporate boundary is already developed. New developments are being annexed to the community. Much of the remaining land within the municipality's 2.5 mile planning jurisdiction is existing farmland. However, the Illinois Compiled Statutes note that municipalities can only enforce zoning requirements within the corporate limits, which is already built out.

    There are plenty of roads within the planning jurisdiction which could have additional setbacks in order to meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. Can this be accomplished through the zoning ordinance, and if so, how? Are there alternatives (PUD requirements, subdivsion regs, annexation agreements, etc.).

    Thanks-

  2. #2
    Cyburbian Plan 9's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    194
    How about getting the County to adopt the document as well?
    "Future events such as these will affect you in the future."

  3. #3
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally posted by Plan 9 View post
    How about getting the County to adopt the document as well?
    Plan 9, how can the county adopt sections of the municipality's zoning ordinance if those requirements are not granted to the municipality by the state?

    I spoke with my mentor regarding this and he had a few ideas:

    1. Modify the subdivsion ordinance, which will include requirements for roads. The compiled statutes in my state allows the subdivision ordinance to have additional setbacks for roads within the 2.5 mile plan jurisidiction outside of the corporate limits. However, coordination with the state DOT and county DOT is required for state and county roads, respectively.
    2. Annexation agreements and PUD ordinances can also be used. However, no two are exactly the same, so it becomes harder to maintain consistency. A review checklist can be used to speed up the process.
    3. On a separate note, the county may grant courtesy reviews, which depend heavily on the relationship and level of trust between the county and the municipality. Basically, if there is a proposed development within an unincorporated area of the county, the county may grant the nearest municipality the right to review and comment the development proposal. The municipality uses the subdivision ordinance and comprehensive plan as guideance (I just don't know if it's the municipal or the county documents used to review). Sometimes, the county may approve of the municipalities' recommendations.

    Does anyone have any other ideas, especially courtesy reviews?

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Plan 9's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    194
    I don't know what state you are in, but the County may be able to adopt it as a specific/area plan of some flavor. Possibly an overlay zone, or maybe just create a new zone(s) that match what the city has adopted, including road standards.

    If it is only roads, the county might be able to adopt public works standards that "match" the city. Another option might be an memorandum of understanding with the County that they would require those lands to develop according to city standards (but there may be some legal ramifications to that). Of course it the County has no interest in cooperating than it will never happen.

    Annexation agreements would only work if the property owners want to come into the city, otherwise there is no incentive for them to enter into the agreement. Particularly if they feel annexation would be more of a burden than a benefit.
    "Future events such as these will affect you in the future."

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    9,893
    I belive there was a court case this past year that rules that a community could not impose a minimum lot size within its extra-territorial jursidiction. A setback would be similar. As far as ideas go, has there been any exploration of intergovernmental agreements?
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Lot width and front yard setbacks
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 4
    Last post: 20 Feb 2008, 8:32 AM
  2. Yard setbacks
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 10
    Last post: 15 Aug 2007, 4:43 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last post: 17 Sep 2006, 1:26 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last post: 20 Jan 2006, 11:17 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last post: 15 Aug 2005, 8:24 AM