[sokoloff]

Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety (a greater distance gives less propensity to ignite the neighboring building and provides access with which to fight the original structure fire).

Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.

[ajmurmann]

> Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety

Sure, but is the benefit worth the cost? Manhattan and denser European cities without those haven't burned down since we fireproofed building materials

[Schiendelman]

And yet other areas let buildings be physically against each other if they're built not to spread fire. Just let everyone do that.

[seanmcdirmid]

Ya. My setback is 3 feet, definitely just a margin for fire safety. I wanted to put an awning in but couldn't because it would be too close to the fence of my property boundary (I live in a town home that abuses the 3 foot setback to maximize living space).

[fires10]

I have minimum lot size of 5 acres. Can't see the wisdom in that one. I also have a minimum square footage size. $20,000 impact fee just to build a house and I receive no utilities or city/ county services.

[Spivak]

I wish more than anything we could legislate the fee structures backwards. If the government wants an environmental impact study then the government is footing the bill for it. Putting it on the builder is stupid and just a way of hiding the budget item in other people's wallets.

[seanmcdirmid]

Ok, the government will fund your environmental impact study so you can build, but...oh...given their budget they will have it done sometime in 2100.