Would anyone have any good examples of case law that limits extra territorial power of Cities, primarily in Wisconsin.
We are currently in the process of doing a residential subdivision in a rural area and have approval from the Township and County, but now the City is flexing it's muscles so to speak and demanding outrageous things before approval. One example is that they are now requiring 120' diameter cul-de-sac roadway widths when their subdivision ordinance states and 80' minimum, which we are meeting.
There has to be some kind of case law that limits their power on this. I don't see how a City can demand such things when the subdivision isn't even within their city limits.
Thanks in advance for any help on this subject.
Around here, in my county, the cities have their municipal planning areas, and then their regional planning areas. Does this subdivision fall in their regional planning area?
There are so many different state & local laws around the country that it is hard to comment, but I have heard of situations where cities have some jurisdictional control within a specified distance of their current boundaries. Might have to do with authorized annexation areas, connections to utilities, regional planning, etc.
I will admit that I'm surprised about the 80' cul-de-sac. Many modern school buses need more than that to turn - especially if cars park in the street.
No Wisconsin experience but,
No Wisconsin experience, here. But...
ETJ, if on record, gives the City power to enforce their development code on lands that fall within that boundary, even when outside of corporate limits.
I'm sure you know and respect that fact.
Unless something is way different than where I work, the 'City' can only enforce their current development regulations within their ETJ. Doesn't mean some City's won't try to get the gold-package upgrade whether it's in or out of the City proper. I think some planners have an "ask for the world" approach.
Regardless, your client is only obligated to give them what is required by law/ ordinance.
I would redo my reading (town's zoning, subdivision and development reg's). If that didn't settle my mind, ask the client to let you talk to his favorite, local land attorney.
Once you're confident they are acting outside of their authority, have a sit-down with you, your client and the requester from the City. Politely tell them you don't feel it's required by code.
If they won't budge, politely say "thank you" and end the meeting. Advise your client that they may have to discuss it with the planning board or City Council.
If your client still can't find traction, they can always litigate. At that point, you may find it's a slam dunk case and, once the papers are filed, the opposition disappears.
Hope it doesn't get that far. If it does and it's the role you're taking for your client: know, be firm and don't let go until they work within their authority.
Locally, they require conformance with "Appendix D" of the fire code (can't recall which national organization writes it but, they adopted it locally within the past 8 years).
I believe there's a 90-ft face-to-face minimum that comes from that document. School buses don't govern for us.
No Wisconsin experience but,
The three mile limit is what I think it is called around here. Fortunately, most haven't been overly intrusive to date.
If The City Provides Fire Protection, They Might...
...require that size cul-de-sac for their fire trucks.
Had a township which we were in request greater size than their ordinance required. I finally got the answer from the fire department, got the fire truck specs and required turning circle from the truck manufacturer, a snorkel with a lot of overhang. Kept the ordinance right of way diameter but increased the curb diameter. Put the sidewalk next to the curb without a planting strip and the required fire hydrant outside the sidewalk so the truck overhang would not clean it off. It was a bulb left and the curb and right of way return radius had to be increased, but that had little effect on buildable lot area. Additional developer cost was minimal, but money is easier to give up than buildable land.
Some times it pays to ask why.
Paul in PA, PE, PLS
