Middlesex okays new road setback requirements
by Tom Chillemi
Setbacks on small roads do not need to be as large as on big roads.
That sums up a county zoning ordinance change approved Tuesday by the Middlesex Board of Supervisors.
In 1997, county supervisors increased the minimum lot size to 2.5 acres in Low Density Rural (LDR) zoning districts, and increased the minimum building setbacks in LDR zones.
In the 12 years since this change, there have been 40 variances granted to allow reduced setbacks in the front yards of homes in LDR, said county planning director Matt Walker.
In 2009, supervisors directed the planning staff to find ways to reduce or eliminate the need for variances. A specific concern was the 125-foot setback for houses on private subdivision roads.
One of the criteria for granting a setback variance is that the conditions are not shared by other properties in the district, said Walker. “If you grant the same variances over and over, then the code says you should amend it.”
On Tuesday, supervisors adopted new LDR front property line setbacks that require structures to be at least 100 feet from the rights-of-way on primary streets, 75 feet or more from rights-of-way on secondary streets, and 50 feet or more from all other streets or easement rights-of-way.
The 100-foot setback from primary roads is the same as the old ordinance, which required a 125-foot setback from the center line of those streets with rights-of-way of 50 feet or less.
Under the new ordinance, this setback has been reduced to 75 feet on secondary roads, and 50 feet on other streets or easements.
“We are trying to achieve a reasonable setback based upon the type of roadway a parcel is on as opposed to using one requirement for the entire zoning district,” Walker explained earlier this week.
Middlesex County’s new setbacks are similar to those in Essex and Lancaster counties, said Walker.
Walker added that the new ordinance is an incentive for builders to locate structures on private or subdivision roads, rather than primary roads. This will help prevent “strip development” and encourage the use of “collector roads,” so there will be fewer entrances onto primary roads.
During discussion by the Middlesex Planning Commission on March 11, member Gordon Jones suggested that the setback on a particular road be determined by the speed limit on that road. He said 100 feet is not enough setback for some major roads, such as Route 602 west of Urbanna, where an out-of-control vehicle could end up in a front yard.
Commission member Marilyn South agreed and said there is a safety issue involved. She suggested a 100-foot setback on secondary roads.
(To get an idea of 100 feet, imagine a baseball infield. The distance from home plate to first base is 90 feet. The pitchers mound is 60 feet from home.)
The planning commission recommended the new setback requirements at its March 11 meeting.
Jones noted that recent discussions about increasing setbacks on major roads drew criticism from some commission members.
At the February planning commission meeting when the Rural Corridor Overlay District (RCOD) proposal was presented, planning commission member Garrison Hart said increased setbacks would be “taking” property from owners.
Hart, who owns land on Route 17, strongly protested the corridor overlay. “It’s condemnation without going to court,” he said.
The RCOD committee has tabled the setback proposal for now and will concentrate on landscaping proposals, said Walker.
