• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Setbacks on substandard lots

michaelskis

michaelskis

Sawdust Producer
Messages
25,813
Points
74
I am thinking about a text amendment in our ordinance to address setbacks on substandard lots. We have a couple of areas where lots were created before that area was annexed into the City and the lots don't conform to the assigned zoning. Our ordinance still requires them to meet all the applicable setbacks in most of the time they can still build what they need to build within that envelope. Although we do have a current situation where the a builder is challenging it.

Having said that, I was wondering what other communities do in situations where the lot dimensions are less than what is required in that zoning district. I am pondering allowing a percentage reduction in setbacks based on the percentage difference from the lot minimum. (ie, if a lot is 20% narrower than the required minimum, they can have a 20% reduction in side yard setbacks...)

What does your community do in these cases?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We hand out variances like candy.

You could also consider a zoning overlay to specifically address the neighborhood issues. Set lower setbacks just for that community.
 
Leave your code as is.

It is common for legally platted substandard lots to be buildable, but the applicable bulk regs of the underlying zoning district still apply.

If that 'prohibits' development of a lot by regulation due to it being too 'small' then that's too bad. Probably why the lot was 'cost effective'.

It's highly unlikely the current owner is the same owner of said lot when annexed. These types of allowances help preserve the annexed owner's 'rights' but if you're the second, third, tenth owner and want something different, then away to the zoning variation arena for you.

Good luck. ;)
 
from my fair city code:

On lots smaller than 40 feet in width, the boundaries of which were established by conveyance or plat before the enactment of this title, a percentage computation will apply: Every lot shall have a side yard on each side, each of which shall be at least 10 percent of the width of the lot and the aggregate width of both side yards on any lot shall be at least 25 percent of the width of the lot.
 
michaelskis said:
I am thinking about a text amendment in our ordinance to address setbacks on substandard lots. We have a couple of areas where lots were created before that area was annexed into the City and the lots don't conform to the assigned zoning. Our ordinance still requires them to meet all the applicable setbacks in most of the time they can still build what they need to build within that envelope. Although we do have a current situation where the a builder is challenging it.

Having said that, I was wondering what other communities do in situations where the lot dimensions are less than what is required in that zoning district. I am pondering allowing a percentage reduction in setbacks based on the percentage difference from the lot minimum. (ie, if a lot is 20% narrower than the required minimum, they can have a 20% reduction in side yard setbacks...)

What does your community do in these cases?
Click to expand...
How many parcels are we talking about? If it's a sizeable number, I like your text amendment approach or the overlay district approach. Why burden the ZBA with the same request over and over and make it more difficult to build housing? If it's only a handful of parcels, though, just leave it to the variance process.
 
Code amendment to permit legal non-conforming lots to have a percentage reduction of the current zone setback. If they say they can't build, tell them to change house plans. This is why a variance is not the right action because any number of plans can be built on a given lot, regardless of setback. May not be the first choice of the owner but that is not a component of zoning.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Code amendment to permit legal non-conforming lots to have a percentage reduction of the current zone setback. If they say they can't build, tell them to change house plans. This is why a variance is not the right action because any number of plans can be built on a given lot, regardless of setback. May not be the first choice of the owner but that is not a component of zoning.
Click to expand...
"But honorable members of the ZBA...we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
 
Back
Top