TOWN OF ROCHESTER
Racine County, Wisconsin
Municipal Office Phone:  (262) 534-5742;  Facsimile:  (262) 534-4084
Mailing Address:  203 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 352, Rochester, WI  53167

Link to Town Board Meetings

[ Home ]

Home
Up

Link to Town Board Meetings

April 14, 2003                                     REGULAR BOARD MEETING                             7:30 P.M.

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.

Colleen Holder, Treasurer, and Betty Novy, Clerk were also present.

Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to approve minutes of the March 4, 10, 13, and 24 meetings.  Motion carried.

Gary moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve April disbursements as follows.  Motion carried.

Treasurer’s Report.  Colleen read the report as follows:

Clerk’s Report:  Betty indicated need to set a date for tour of the new Fox River Prairie Subdivision lift station.  Scheduling was delayed until after the meeting.

Sheriff’s Report.  Sgt. Kacmarcik reported the following statistics for March:  twelve speeding citations, one parking citation and twenty-nine warnings were issued.  There were two misdemeanor/ ordinance arrests and one arrest for operating while intoxicated.  Complaint statistics are as follows:  twenty-three originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department,  Deputy Prochaska assisted with 15 additional complaints, performed follow up on five more and originated twenty-seven on his own.  Twelve foot patrols were conducted.

Deputy Prochaska reported that he was kept busy addressing numerous complaints last month and that bike patrol started again this past weekend.  He will be working a later shift during Spring Break to help curtail any youth problems.  The list of properties with junk violations is significantly less than last year.  Board members should let him know of any concerns.   Sgt. Kacmarcik reported statistics from last year do not warrant scheduling special enforcement for Alpine Valley concerts this year.  Additional enforcement will only be scheduled at the board’s direction.  Mike questioned how much fine money the Town actually gets from citations.  The Clerk indicated a total of approximately $4,000 last year; this year’s revenues are already at that level.   Sgt. Kacmarcik will e-mail a copy of the Bond Schedule showing how citation monies are split up for the Board’s review.     There was some question on accident data presented at the Annual meeting.  Deputy Prochaska explained that data on any accident causing more than $1,000 in damage/ or injury is compiled by the State of Wisconsin.  This data is available for any road and helps determine whether incidents occur on a more than average basis in any area.   Accident data for Washington Avenue showed a decrease from ten accidents in 2001 to four in 2002.  All other roads showed a decrease with the exception of Academy Road.  However, the increase on this road was due to car vs. deer accidents, of which no impact can be attributed to increased patrol.

Gary indicated to those present that any complaints regarding junk or any other matter should be referred to Deputy Prochaska.  Efforts are made to keep the originator of complaints discreet.

Kennel License Application:  Douglas Rupert, 507 Abbey Lane

Deputy Prochaska reported inspecting the property that day and had some concerns.  He recommended action on the license be tabled until next month’s meeting.  Gary moved, 2^nd by Mike to table the application until May’s meeting.  Motion carried.

Tri-County Public Health Bio-terrorism Consortia Letter of Agreement:
Western Racine County Health Department

Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve the agreement subject to clarification of liability issues and satisfactory review by the Town Attorney.  Motion carried.

Extension of Land Division moratorium expiring May 8, 2003
(to allow completion of the Land Division Ordinance)

Chuck reported that at the last Land Division Ordinance meeting, it was agreed to change two or three items.  Those amendments are ready to be made.   At this point, the committee recommends putting the ordinance to public hearing for additional input.  Mike questioned whether the full committee agreed the ordinance was ready to go to public hearing.  Chuck indicated there is not full agreement, but a majority.  It was explained the ordinance is still open to change until adoption.  The public hearing will offer time to work out any remaining differences.  Chuck stated confidence they can be worked out.  There was discussion on what amount of time would allow for a public hearing, further revision to the ordinance and final review by the Town attorney before adoption.  Wayne Schrader indicated committee members have put in a tremendous amount of time developing the ordinance and want time to finish it right.  It was agreed the ordinance is only in draft form at this point and that public viewpoint is critical before the ordinance can be put in final form.   Paul moved, 2^nd by Gary to extend the moratorium 60 days with no further extensions after that.  Motion carried.

A public hearing date was set for Wednesday, April 30, 2003 at 7:00 pm.  The Clerk is to send post cards to all Town property owners notifying them of the hearing date.  Local newspapers should also be informed.

Ordinance #5-2003 amending Chapter VII “Animals, Fowls and Birds”
(to require that all animal bite incidents be reported to the Western Racine County Health Department within 24 hours)

Gary moved, 2^nd by Mike to approve Ordinance #5-2003.  Motion carried.

Gravel Pit Permit Renewal Applications:
Racine County Public Works:   Academy Road.  Mike expressed concern about a 40-foot drop off in an unused area of the pit and how long it will be before restoration begins.  Consensus of the Board was to request a representative from Racine County Public Works attend the May meeting to discuss the issue.  A copy of their reclamation plan should be requested.

Illinois Mining Corp./Parkview Sand & Gravel:   31844 Washington Avenue

Payne & Dolan, Inc.:   N. Browns Lake Drive

Payne & Dolan, Inc.:   Washington Avenue

Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve renewal permits for Illinois Mining, both Payne and Dolan sites and to table the application for Racine County until restoration and safety issues have been addressed.  Motion carried.

Reduction in letter of credit request:  Golden Fields Development

Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to approve Golden Fields Development request to reduce their letter of credit to $369,750 as recommended by the Town Engineer.  Motion carried.

Rochester Memorial Day Committee Contribution Request

Gary moved, 2^nd by Mike to contribute $50.00 to the Memorial Day event.  Motion carried.

Board of Review:  Set Date and Appoint Alternate Member

Gary moved, 2^nd by Mike to schedule Board of Review for Saturday, July 19, 2003 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.  Motion carried.   Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to appoint Nancy Klemko as the alternate member.  Motion carried.

Appoint Board member to Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District

Gary appointed Mike Weinkauf to the position.

Appoint Board member to Western Racine County Health Board

Gary appointed Paul Beere to the position.

Period for Public Comment.

A resident of the Honey Lake subdivision appeared with concerns about a neighbor who intends to build a large outbuilding on his property for storage of some heavy equipment.  Gary referred the concern to Racine County Zoning.  No permits have been issued yet.

Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to adjourn at 9:05 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted:

Betty J. Novy
Clerk

April 17, 2003                                 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING                               4:00 P.M.

Meeting was held at the Fox River Prairie Lift Station, 29610 Riverview Parkway, with Board members Gary Beck and Paul Beere present.  Mike Weinkauf was absent.

Also present:  Betty Novy, Clerk, Brandon Foss and Dean Logerman, Crispell-Snyder Engineering, Wayne Schrader, former Supervisor, and Gary Chart (for approximately 10 minutes).

Purpose of the meeting was to tour the new lift station and obtain understanding of operational and emergency procedures.

Station Controller SC2000:  A digital display on the controller indicates the level of sewage in the wet well.  The pumps are set to operate when the level in the wet well rises to between 3.5 and 4.0 feet.  Although a float system engages pumps as a back up, an alarm call will be generated if the primary level sensing system exceeds the preset limits or becomes inoperational.  If visual survey of the wet well level causes concern, attempt to operate a pump manually by switching either pump to the ON position.   An electrician should be called to troubleshoot/ rectify the controller problem.  A septic hauler can be called in for standby.  There are two pumps in the well which work on an alternate basis.  Each pump is capable of pumping up to 200 gallons a minute and is suspended on a cable and rail system- enabling pull out for service.  If one pump fails, the other pump will take over while the first is being repaired.

Failure lights on the panel indicate the following pump conditions.

Any of these conditions will cause the telemetry warning system to start dialing the call list.  The system will state “pump failure #1 (or #2)” alarm. 

When a failure call is received, wait for a warble tone and dial “9”.  This acknowledges the alarm call and stops the system from proceeding down the call list.

Response to any alarm should be to physically check the lift station.  If the alarm lights are on for the pumps, the first response is to press the reset button.  If the light goes out, it was only a temporary condition and does not warrant more attention.  If the light remains on, call a plumber for service. 

Each pump has three switch positions.  ON, OFF AND AUTO. 

ON manually runs the pump;

OFF cuts power to the pump (generally used when servicing); and

AUTO ties the pump to the sensing system and runs the pump based on wet well levels. 

Switches should always be set to AUTO (except during service).

Telemetry Warning System (Dialer):  The dialer will continue to dial out every two hours if the system is still not operational (after alarm was originally acknowledged).  If correction of the problem will take longer than that and you don’t want the system to continue calling- pull the phone connection out from the bottom of dialer unit.   DO NOT SWITCH OFF- OR TOUCH- THE POWER UNIT INSIDE THE DIALER.         Make sure phone is PLUGGED BACK IN when service is complete.

MOBILE GENERATOR.   Loss of power will cause the telemetry warning system to start dialing the call list.  The system will state a “power failure” alarm.  A mobile 50 kw (100 amp output) generator is housed in the structure for emergency power back-up. 

It is preferred that the generator be pulled outside of the building for operation.  If not, make sure the overhead door is open to its full extent.  Plug the cable from the generator into the outlet located on the outside of the building (next to the entrance door). Flip the power switch located on the box on the wall to the right of the telemetry warning box.  The switch is located on the right side of the box.  You do not have to open the box the turn the switch.    The switch can be turned on before or after you start the generator. 

 The fuel tank on the generator offers about 24 hours of run time.  The fuel gauge is located on the outside of the generator cabinet.  The unit runs on DIESEL fuel.

A toggle switch is located inside the generator cabinet.  This turns the generator on.  A second switch sends power to the cord.

There should never be reason to turn off the main power coming into building.  The second power switch unit eliminates concern about power feedback.

Once the generator is engaged, everything becomes operational

It was suggested to practice hooking up and running the generator every three months.  This helps keep operational procedures fresh and also burns the diesel fuel (which gets old).  A yearly oil and filter change should be performed.  The Town could contract for this service.

The trailer for the generator has a 2” ball hitch; this can be changed based on which vehicle is pulling the trailer.   The generator can be transported to any location.  Standard outlets on the generator make it available as a portable power source for other town uses.

Building Issues: 

• It was suggested a padlock be placed on the outside power plug in to prevent vandalism. 

• A standard phone should be purchased and installed in the lift station.  

• The thermostat in the building should be kept at 50 - 55º when the building is not in use.  

• A cart should be purchased and kept in the Station to keep parts and tools in one place. 

• A spare key for the wet well should be kept in the Station.

• An emergency flashlight was also suggested for when power is out.

Informational:  The floor drain under the pipes drains back into the wet well.

Submitted by:

Betty J. Novy

Clerk

April 26, 2003                                     SPECIAL BOARD MEETING                            12:00 Noon

Meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon with Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.

Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.

Sewer Connection Agreement:  29503 and 29511 Evergreen Drive (Tax Parcels 014-03-19-02-001-003 & 014-03-19-02-001-004).

Betty explained that the parcel at 29511 Evergreen was recently split off of 29503 with understanding that connection to the sewer would be obtained by tapping into a lateral directly across the street.  After site inspection by the Building Inspector, it was discovered that the lateral across the street already served two residential units.  Tapping into the lateral would violate State code by placing more than two residential units on a 4 inch pipe.  While the Town’s utility is technically exempt from this code and could order the connection, the Town would become liable should any failures occur.  This particular lateral has known problems.  Consultation between property owners, the engineer, lawyer and building inspector verified tapping into the adjacent parcel’s lateral would be the best alternative.  An agreement between the Town of Rochester (as oversight) and the two property owners must be executed and recorded on the deeds of the properties to allow this connection.   Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve entering into the sewer connection agreement between the Town and owners of 29503 and 29511 Evergreen Drive.  Motion carried.

Resolution #3-2003 to extend moratorium on land divisions to July 7, 2003

As directed at the April 14, 2003 meeting, the Town Attorney drafted the resolution necessary to extend the moratorium.  It must be approved before the next regular meeting of the Board in order to avoid lapse in the moratorium.   Gary moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve the extension contingent that language be added stating “There shall be no further extensions” (exact wording follows).  Motion carried.

“NOW, THEREFORE, “BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the foregoing, the moratorium established by Town Board Resolution dated December 9, 2002, and extended by Town Board Resolution dated February 20, 2003, is hereby again extended for an additional period of sixty (60) days so as to expire on July 7, 2003, or upon the Town Board sooner adopting a comprehensive revision to Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Rochester, Racine County, Wisconsin.  There shall be no further extensions.  All other provisions of the moratorium as established in said resolution are ratified and shall remain in full force and effect.”

Gary moved, 2^nd by Paul to adjourn at 12:17 p.m.  Motion carried.

Submitted by:

Betty J. Novy

Clerk

April 30, 2002                    PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND DIVISON ORDINANCE                        7:00 P.M.

TOWN BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION AND LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following present.  Town Board:  Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf.  Planning Commission:  Ken Dahlstrom, Brian Wanasek, Jane Babik and Bob Willard (Maureen Eckert was absent).  Land Division Ordinance Committee:  Chuck Haubrich, Jane Babik, Pat Hurley, Rhoda Runzheimer, Bob Willard, Dennis Crombie and Ed Stone.

Also present:  Betty Novy, Clerk, Colleen Holder, Treasurer, and Bill Phenicie, Attorney. 

There were approximately 70 property owners in the audience.

Jane Babik opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.  A brief statement was given indicating the land division ordinance is currently in draft form and that the purpose of the hearing was to obtain input from citizens.  The meeting was then turned over to Chuck Haubrich for a presentation on both background and main points of the land division ordinance.  Presentation slides are attached and adopted as part of these minutes.

The hearing was then opened to the public for comments and questions as follows:

Mike Weinkauf, 1310 Heritage Road.  Mike questioned plan requirements on minor land divisions.  His concern is that even to accomplish a minor land division, individuals will have to bear the cost of hiring an engineer.  There was some confusion over requirements stated in 27.103 “Intent”.  Chuck clarified the statement of intent is general and applies broadly to all divisions; specific requirements for minor land divisions are listed in 27.603.  Mike reviewed that section and his comment still applied.  Supplying hydrology information, identifying environmental corridors, soil types, etc. will create a burden for simple land divisions.  Jane Babik stated the committee confirmed with Racine County that this type of information is readily available from Racine County Planning, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as S.E.W.R.P.C., or the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as D.N.R.  The word “KNOWN”, as used in the ordinance,  is specifically defined to mean information obtained through contact with S.E.W.R.P.C., the DNR or other easily obtained sources.   It was defined that way so it would not require hiring a consultant.

Jeff Ksobiech, 29518 Evergreen Drive.  Jeff questioned whether a pole barn could be built in a cluster development.  Bob Willard replied lot sizes in a cluster would most likely not accommodate that type of structure, however people don’t have to buy into a cluster development.  They can still buy a larger parcel; or divide 5 acres off from a larger parcel if that is their intent.

Bob Steidl, 300 N. River Road.   Bob expressed concern over infrastructure costs and questioned who will pay for the roads, sewer, schools, etc. impacted by development.  Bob Willard replied most infrastructure costs are borne by the developer, including sewer infrastructure.   Developments in the sewer district are required to hook up.   Bob (Steidl) has seen costs of development cause tax increases in other communities.   He stated that tax rates stay low until development occurs.  He moved into a rural community and would like it to stay rural.  He does not want to pay for development.  There was some discussion on  Western Racine County Sewerage District’s required upgrades.  Pat Hurley indicated 90% of the sewage entering that plant comes from Waterford.  Wayne Schrader stated it is Waterford’s growth that has caused the greatest need for this upgrade.

Richard Mianecki, 123 N. Honey Lake Road.  Richard questioned whether impact fees could help offset costs.  Chuck replied that the committee purposefully kept any fees out of ordinance. They instead refer to a fee schedule.  Atty. Bill Phenicie indicated the Town Board has considered impact fees in the past.  Impact fees themselves have been subject of great litigation in this State.  A municipality must show they are related to providing services.  The sewer connection fee is $2,000.00.  This is equivalent to an impact fee.    Chuck indicated that the Town of Caledonia charges some type of impact fee to help develop neighborhood plans.  There was some question as to whether this is now subject of litigation.

Kathy North, 528 N. Maple.  Kathy questioned the 2:1 depth ratio requirement on new parcels.  Will this land lock land if a parcel is deeper than it is wide?  Chuck replied a variance would be considered if there was no other way to develop the land.  Bob Willard also commented that if a parcel of this type was being developed as a subdivision, a road would be required.  This would change those calculations (ratio).  Kathy then questioned whether a parcel over 20 acres would have to be divided as a major subdivision?  Bob indicated it depends on the number of parcels created, not the acreage.  Kathy questioned whether conventional subdivisions are allowed under this ordinance.  Chuck replied the way the ordinance reads now, subdivisions must be clustered.  Conventional subdivisions can only be used by grant of variance.

Kathy referred back to a previous meeting (with a conservation developer).  This ordinance requires 70% open space for cluster design.  The developer at that presentation indicated 60% is more practical so that a developer can recoup his costs. 

Don Collins, 200 English Settlement Drive.   Don described his property as being near Hwy. A.  He noted development is getting closer to his property and that it is served by public sewer.   His question was “If sewer comes within one-half mile of his property, will he have to pay for sewer?”  Atty. Phenicie indicated he will not have to pay for sewer unless he hooks up.

Chris Johnson, 2733 N. Maple.  Chris questioned the term environmental corridor.  If a property has qualities that could be identified as environmental, could that property be developed?  Who will designate what is corridor?   Chuck replied there are specific areas of land mapped and identified by S.E.W.R.P.C. as environmental corridor.  The town will not determine what is environmental corridor.  These are usually areas of significant wetlands or woodlands.  Probably 25% is wetland.  Atty. Phenicie indicated environmental corridor can be classified based on slope, wooded areas or wetlands and is mapped on a big scale.  By terms of this ordinance, a surveyor would need to clearly designate those areas on any land division map.

Joanna Storm, 850 N. Brown Lake Drive.  Joanna questioned whether this ordinance requires five acre parcels to build on.  The five-acre average density concept was explained.  She then questioned creation of  20 parcels out of 100 acres, but leaving 80 acres in conservancy.  She wanted to know what will stop someone from developing the additional 80 acres in the future.  Chuck explained that deed restrictions would be recorded on the 80 acres.  The only way they can be developed is if all 20 property owners, the Town Board and Racine County agree to lift the restrictions.  The burden to change is high.  Joanne still expressed concern because the motivation will be profit.  Joanna feels the Town should try to get away from smaller lots.  Chuck stated the goal of cluster subdivisions is to try and preserve open space.

Atty. Jeff Sontaga, present representing Daniel Schwabe, 1154 N. English Settlement Drive.  Atty. Sontaga stated for the record that Dan Schwabe is opposed to cluster development.  He does not want to see it mandated.

Michelle Ksobiech, 29518 Evergreen Drive.  Michelle questioned the 2:1 depth ratio requirement in that it would prohibit piano-key type lots.  She questioned whether the ordinance makes existing lots of this type non-conforming.  Response was that what is existing is grandfathered.  The ratio would only apply to future divisions.

Kathy North, 528 N. Maple.  Kathy questioned “Since the Land Use Plan already meets the nine elements mandated by Smart Growth, why is an ordinance needed that is more restrictive?”  Chuck replied the Land Use Plan meets the requirements, but it is a general document; there are a lot of “shoulds” and recommendations, but it is not very specific.  The goal of the committee is to make the Land Use Plan more consistent with the ordinance.  The existing ordinance does not support the Land Use Plan.   The two do not mesh.  The Smart Growth Initiative is looking for consistency.  Further explained, the Land Use Plan is a general document with a low level of detail.  The ordinance provides more specific details.  To address the issue of the ordinance being more restrictive, Chuck explained most of the language was obtained from a State model ordinance.  In the Land Use Plan itself nothing is required, just recommended.

Bob Willard stated a good recommendation in the Land Use Plan is the cluster concept.  It indicated that 5-acre lots may not be the best use of land.  The cluster concept addresses this problem.  If the Town does nothing, there will be many 5 acres lots in subdivisions dotted across the landscape.  The question arose that if it is not Bob’s land, why should he care?  Bob replied it is a concern of the community.

Richard Schwinn, 2529 Landmaid Street.  Richard stated he supports this ordinance.  He feels the plan helps decrease taxes and maintains property values.  Many costs go into sewer, roads, and schools.  Haphazard development will cost people additional money down the road.  If we don’t take the time to plan now, our children will pay later. 

Ed Stone:  Ed wanted clarification of why Richard thinks cluster subdivisions will cost the community less than 5-acre parcel subdivisions.  What costs will be different?   Richard replied school busing and road costs.  Ed still did not understand how

schools would be impacted differently if parcels were developed consistently at the 5-acre density, either by conventional subdivisions or cluster subdivision design.   There was further discussion explaining that conventional subdivisions will call for more roads.  While developers pay for initial road construction, the Town will then have to pay for maintenance (such as snowplowing, repair, and resurfacing). 

Richard (Schwinn) indicated he does not want to see Rochester develop like Delafield where there are sprawling five-acre lots, but no sense of community.

Howard Zabler, 222 N. Maple Lane.  Howard explained he does not want to see disorganized sprawl and uses the intersection of Maple and CTH FF (Academy Road) as an example.  Just over the town line, houses are on all different size lots and pointed in all different directions.  He adds that as a school bus driver, he is aware that the school board negotiates each and every bus stop with the bus company.   In addition, there is a 45 minute time limit on routes.  (There are additional transportation costs when bus stops are more spread out).

Brian Wanasek, 31111 Washington Avenue.  Brian stated support for the cluster subdivision concept as an option, but does not want to see it mandatory.   He feels the cluster concept is somewhat Utopian in that it assumes everyone will get along.  This often turns into a nightmare.  He does not feel mandatory subdivision design of any one style in a Town this size is appropriate. 

Barbara Beere, 733 N. English Settlement Drive.  Barbara stated that limiting to cluster design is too restrictive.  She would like more options offered in the ordinance.

Joanna Storm, 850 N. Browns Lake Drive.  Joanna stated studies have shown more houses do not generate enough taxes to support themselves.  She would like to see stricter requirements such as 5-acre lots and 500 foot frontage minimums.

Jay Henrichs, 6228 Town Line Road.  Jay disagrees with the concept that development in the sewer district must be hooked into the sewers.  A developer should be able to back out of the district if he agrees to develop with large lots.  The new ordinance requires this.   Chuck indicated the ordinance only puts into words what the Board’s policy already is.

Jeff Ksobiech, 29518 Evergreen Drive.  Jeff indicated his experience with cluster developments in Milwaukee are that houses are so close you can’t even work on them.  Bob Willard replied lots will still have to meet minimum zoning requirements in a clustered subdivision (stated as one-acre).  Jeff agrees that open space will be filling in with houses later on too.  Chuck indicated the idea is they would not be able to divide the open space later.  The process to remove deed restrictions is not easy.  Jeff stated he is against cluster development.

Paula Dreeszen, 29742 Mather Lane.  Paula stated she is in favor of cluster subdivision design.  Uses for open space like agriculture or preservation of wildlife habitat are better for the environment than places like Mukwonago and Eagle where individual 5 acre lots are mowed as large lawns.

Steven Fladwood, 29625 Timber Lane. Steven indicated he has lived here for 30 years and that Rochester has done a good job managing growth over those years.  There has been a good mix.  There hasn’t been an influx of houses crammed on little lots.  He likes the cluster concept because not everyone can afford 5 or 20 acre lots.  He considers the cluster concept a good mix if it is managed well.  He feels it is good to get the ordinance in line with the plan.  Things will be managed better if things are pulled together.

Pat Hurley clarified when you buy a cluster lot, you are buying five acres- not one.  The common land is shared.  The cost is the same. 

Chris Johnson, 2733 N. Maple.  Chris stated he would like to see clustering offered only as a tool in the ordinance.  There are some places where that type of design might fit in.  He does not want to give up the freedom of using conventional subdivision design.  He requests conservation subdivisions be kept a tool only.  He is opposed to mandatory cluster design in the ordinance.

Patricia Hurley commented on the 2:1 depth ratio requirement.  She feels this will be hard to accommodate in a 5-acre parcel.   Chuck stated requirements as minimum 330 feet frontage (x 660 depth) for a 5 acre parcel.  An opinion was stated this will require many variances for lot sizes up to 10 acres.   Ed Stone stated 300 feet of frontage on 10 acres makes a nice lot.

Richard Mianecki, 123 N. Honey Lake Road.  Richard indicated concerns about people who own sectional properties.  Those parcels are 1300 feet long.  They won’t be able to do minor divisions.  This requirement will land lock properties.  It will require property owners to put in roads to accommodate even small divisions.

Jay Henrichs, 6228 Town Line Road.  Jay indicated preference that variety be offered to the land owner; to mandate clusters for everyone is unrealistic. 

Mrs. Harry North, 716 N. Maple Lane.  Mrs. North indicated they owned their farm for 60 years.  She is very upset that these rules and restrictions will devalue her land.   She does not go along with it. 

Don Collins, 200 English Settlement Drive.  Don does not see what advantage this plan has for the farmer.  Farmers are not helped by subdivisions down the road.   Newcomers usually complain about farm operations.

Jane Babik responded this ordinance does not promote subdivisions.  The reality is people with larger parcels that want to sell have the ability to do so.  This is what is driving adoption of the ordinance.  The idea is that when large parcels come up for review, there will be rules in place.  The goal of those rules is to make subdivisions palatable for the community at large.  The consensus of the community at the time the Land Use Plan was adopted was to maintain five acre densities.

Richard Schwinn, 2529 Landmaid Street.  Richard stated that during the conservation subdivision presentation,  80 acres of the developer’s subdivision was deeded agricultural.  He was able to show the value of land was the same whether cluster or conventional subdivisions were developed.  The 70% open space requirement was brought up again.  The developer had stated his example was based on 60% open space.

Bob Steidl, 300 N. River Road.  Bob indicated that after 60 years, farmers have a right to sell their land. In certain circumstances, cluster designs can work. He complained briefly about what a mess Fox River Prairie subdivision is, but then stated everybody has rights.   He prefers to maintain a rural situation.

Bill Ellefson, 327 N. River Road.  Bill just stated agreement that Fox River Prairie Subdivision is a mess.

Sheila Webber, 455 N. Maple Lane.  Sheila indicated there should be more tools to lay out subdivisions.  Something so that what happened on River Road doesn’t happen again. 

Atty. Phenicie stated subdivisions will continue to happen regardless of this ordinance.  The only difference is configurations may be different, and there may be less houses.

Tom Greil, 34108 Washington Avenue.  Tom stated it seems that people are aware that the more residents in the community, the more services are required.  Taxes will go up.  Back in the 1970s, farmers were taxed on land based on its potential for development.  They were overtaxed.   Tom indicated the best way to preserve rural character is to reduce taxes on farmland.  In the mid 90’s when the Town was reassessed, farmland was assessed high and so were wetlands.  The question is how to preserve open spaces and yet pay taxes for schools, roads, and cops.  The large land owners were clobbered in the 1990s.  If this ordinance puts more restrictions on farmers, Tom would like to see something in it which reimburses farmers for the taxes they’ve paid in the past.  Recent changes to the assessment structure took value off of agricultural land, but highered values on buildings, environmental corridors and waste lands.  What was gained on one was lost on another.  He feels the ordinance should take some of the tax burden off farms.

Betty Novy (Clerk) indicated assessment values are regulated by the State and cannot be addressed in this ordinance.

Mike Weinkauf, 1310 Heritage Road.  Mike stated that at a recent Towns Association meeting, Rick Stadelman indicated it was never an intent of  Smart Growth laws to put an additional financial burden on remaining farms.  Mike feels this ordinance puts additional controls on the people who paid the most taxes and contributed the most to the rural community.  He does not  want the value of their land taken away.  Bob Willard stated it is not a given that this ordinance will devalue land.  Mike replied that this ordinance is betting on that with someone else’s money.

Paul Beere, 733 N. English Settlement Drive .  Paul stated agreement with Mike.  This ordinance offers the possibility of taking value away from the farmers.  He values his farmland like a 401K account (retirement savings).  He feels someone else controlling his farmland is the same as to having someone else manage your 401K.

Beverly Borucki,  32723 Academy Road.  Beverly simply stated she is against the Cluster concept.

Jerry Ketterhagen, lot owner, Camelback Farms.  Jerry stated he is against the 2:1 ratio and mandated cluster design.

Earl Squire, 437 Abbey Lane.  Earl stated he is against mandatory cluster design.  At the previous meeting, a developer talked about cost figures; which costs more five acres by itself or five acres in a cluster subdivision.  Costs were stated as  $125,000 a lot and house values at approximately $250,000.  Earl feels the average person cannot afford this type of development.  Forced development of this kind would make Rochester an elite place to live.  He feels Rochester should accommodate common people.  Conservation subdivisions should not be mandated.

Richard Mianecki, 123 N. Honey Lake Road.  Richard indicated there is a need to control what happens.  Set backs should be standard and development should not be helter skelter.  The Town needs to control what development looks like.

Chuck Haubrich indicated setbacks are specified in cluster developments by covenants and deed restrictions.

Richard Schwinn, 2529 Landmaid Street.  Richard asked how implementation of the ordinance will reduce growth.  Chuck indicated the ordinance itself will not affect total density.  Pat Hurley pointed out that cluster design offers the potential for 20% more density.  This type of design could get more houses built.  Richard stated this ordinance does not reduce growth; that the rules forcing cluster development devalue property.  Other people’s values.

Atty. Phenicie clarifies the issue here is more about desirability; whether it is more desirable  to buy 5 acres or 1 acre with a divided interest in green space.   Will a separate five acre lot bring in more money?  It was stated that this will most likely depend on the property.

Karen Borcuki, 33303 Academy Road.  Karen states this type conservation development should not be mandated.  It should be left up to the developer and purchaser.

Chris Johnson, 2733 N. Maple.  Chris stated his biggest concern with this ordinance is the restriction part.   He feels when people buy five acres, they want to see their four corners and know that’s their land.  He stated conservation design should be offered as a tool, but not mandated.  Most people want to own their own land. 

Bob Willard stated diversity is important and right, but that 5-acre lots scattered across the Town may be the only result.  When the conservation development subdivision is included as a tool only, what will cause this option to be used?

Jeff Ksobiech, 29518 Evergreen Drive.  Jeff likened conservation subdivisions to apartment complexes where people are stacked on top of one another.

Bob Willard replied that a conservation subdivision offers one-acre parcels with open space;  apartment buildings are not a valid comparison.  There are a number of conventional subdivisions with one-acre lots that people enjoy.

Paul Beere stated all this sorts out with the buyer.  Let the 5-acre people get what they want.  Let the options be there for them; whether the density is at 1.5 acres in a conservation subdivision or at 5 acres.  Let the buyer decide.  This will still preserve green space, but allow individuals to live in a conventional style subdivision. 

Brian Wanasek indicated the ordinance should offer a carrot vs. a stick in regards to conservation subdivision design.  They could increase the incentive to use this type of development by reducing the open space requirement and  increasing allowable density.   This is a free market society.  Let the market dictate what type of development will take place.

Alex,  Academy Road.   Alex felt conservation subdivisions should not be forced down anyone’s throat.  It would not be smart politics.  Not everyone wants to live like that.   He felt a carrot should be put out there to make it worthwhile for the developer.  Restrictions could be tightened on conventional subdivisions in order to make it something of a compromise. 

Jerry Ketterhagen, lot owner, Camelback Farms.   Jerry feels people should be given lots of choices.   The sewer district provides the opportunity for smaller parcels.  Cluster subdivisions will be competing against the sewer district. 

Mike Weinkauf indicated our Town already has more green space than most other Towns in the way of  State and County owned lands. 

Chuck agreed this green space is a benefit.  However, right now only 1300 acres are developed in the town.  There are 6,000 additional acres with the potential to be developed.  The Town could have four times as many houses as there are right now.  The idea is to plan ahead and have ordinances in place so when those houses are in, Rochester is still a nice place to live.

Howard Zabler, 222 N. Maple Lane.  Howard stated that just because we start with more green space doesn’t mean we need to become more like areas with less green space. 

James Fait, 33335  Washington Avenue.  James stated that years ago there were only two farms between Burlington and Browns Lake.  It did not take long to fill in.  Whether you cluster or create five acre parcels, it won’t be long before those will be divided.  A farmer has the right to divide his land as he wants.  They bought and paid for it, it’s up to them to do what they want to do.  If a farmer wants to develop  his land; it’s wrong to tell people what they can do. 

Howard Zabler, 222 N. Maple Lane.   Howard indicated there are already restrictions.  People cannot just start a mobile home park or business across the road.  They need to comply with zoning.  The community needs rules and all the ordinance is doing is trying to set those up.

Ken Dahlstrom stated that lots of land can be sold off in the Town of Rochester.  To be honest, farmers don’t develop the land themselves, they sell land to a developer.  The farmer is not the developer.  The developer is the one who then changes the land.  The money comes from selling the land.  The rules are in place for the developer.  The developer has no ties to the community.

Tom Greil, 34108 Washington Avenue.  Tom went back to the 6,000 developable acres figure.  Tom stated some parcels will not be developed for a long time.  Those farmers paid high taxes in 1990s which were based on their ability to develop their land.

Ed Ela, 31219 Washington Avenue.  Ed stated Rochester is unique in that the character of its land hasn’t changed too much since when the settlers first came.  We are at a point in history where major changes will occur.   Rochester has enjoyed a particular quality of life that we haven’t had to pay for.  The population keeps increasing.  It is easier to give up money now to preserve a quality environment (for future generations) than to try and recreate it once it is lost.  Those in the future will look back and judge this moment by what rules are put in place.  When the community maintains open space, it maintains options.  Once the quality is gone, its gone.  It is easier to hang on to what we have than to try and get it back.  Ed hopes we can sacrifice now to keep quality in the future.  He sees this as a cost borne by us for people of the future.

No further comments were heard.  Hearing adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Betty J. Novy

Clerk