Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission approves smaller rear setback where properties abut public multi-use paths
Summary
The Madison Plan Commission on Dec. 15 approved an amendment to Chapter 28 of the Madison General Ordinances allowing a reduced 5-foot rear-yard setback where property adjoins a publicly owned multi-use path. A neighborhood resident urged larger setbacks and raised tree-protection concerns during public comment.
The Madison Plan Commission voted Dec. 15 to approve a code amendment allowing properties that abut publicly owned multi-use paths to reduce the required rear-yard setback to 5 feet.
Staff told the commission the change (Legistar 90908) is intended to create consistent setback rules for mixed-use, commercial and downtown zoning districts where lot configurations have created uneven requirements “so development can better meet the path,” and offered the Capitol City Trail as an example. Staff also said the amendment clarifies existing side-yard language and removes redundant provisions.
At the public hearing, registrant Linda Lennerts said she opposed the change, arguing it would enable ‘‘privatization of public property’’ along bike paths and would increase encroachments into public right-of-way. Lennerts cited the city's encroachment code (MGO 10.31) and said conditions placed on a prior approval at 302 South Patterson were intended to protect the public right-of-way; she urged the commission to require a larger setback — ‘‘perhaps 10 feet’’ — or define ‘‘publicly owned multi-use path’’ in the zoning code to avoid ambiguity.
Staff responded that trees in the right-of-way would be covered under the city's recent tree-protection ordinance changes and that staff would follow up to check the specific example Lennerts raised. Commissioner questions focused on the policy rationale: staff said the amendment aims for consistency across districts and to allow development to activate adjacent paths where appropriate.
Commissioner Salaam moved approval; Commissioner Wisniewski seconded. The chair asked whether there was any objection to unanimous approval; seeing none, the motion was recorded as passed. The transcript does not provide a numeric roll-call tally.
What happens next: the amendment was approved by the Plan Commission at the meeting. The transcript does not specify a subsequent effective date or whether additional Council action is required for this specific text amendment.
