Laserfiche WebLink
LUEET-2. Land Use, Planning, and Annexation (A) (cont,d) <br />The League recommends: <br />1. That state statutes regulating annexation be changed to make it <br />easier for cities to annex developed or developing land, within <br />unincorporated areas designated as a growth area by the annexing <br />city. It is unfair to city residents to have individuals avoid <br />paying their fair share for municipal services provided by the city <br />govr•nment by living in the fringe area around a city; and <br />2. That the statutes authorizing concurrent detachments and <br />annexations be reviewed to determine whether it is appropriate for <br />individuals to petition the municipal board to institute the <br />statutory procedures. The League recommends providing for veto power <br />over the landowner's petition by the affected cities. <br />The Governor's Advisory Council On State -local Relations undertook a <br />thorough review of the state's planning and zoning laws. The league <br />participated in this study. A subcommittee of local elected <br />officials was formed to review the recommendations developed by a <br />technical committee, composed of planning officials from townships, <br />cities, counties, regional development commissions and the state. <br />Those recommendations have been collected in a report on land use <br />legislation, and draft legislation has been prepared, with <br />intxcduction in the 1988 session probable. <br />/ 1n general, the League supports those sections of the proposed <br />legislation that preserve or provide flexibility for cities to plan <br />and regulate land uses and opposes those sections of the law that <br />limit a city's ability to taik.a procedures and controls to meet <br />local needs. <br />Specifically, the League supports the following: <br />1. Changing the requirement of undue hardship to a more reasonable <br />standard. This would loosen the current standard to reflect common <br />practice in granting variances; and <br />2. Requiring the adoption of a comprehensive plan .in order to have <br />zoning or other land use controls. The comprehensive plan can be <br />used as a statement of goals, objectives, and policies, and present <br />and proposed land use maps. Recent cases have called into question <br />the common practice of passing ordinances without a supporting <br />comprehensive plan. Metropolitan cities have had this requirement <br />for several years; and should continue to be covered by the <br />Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Cities would have a five year grace <br />period, after which failure to adopt a comprehensive plan would <br />invalidate all official :ontrols. <br />The League strongly opposes: <br />1. Requiring the creation of a separate board of adjustment. This <br />requirement would unnecessarily limit the authority of a city to <br />- 39 - <br />