|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
August 26, 2004 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Pat Hurley, Bob Willard, Dean Stapleton, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Mike Weinkauf, Dennis Crombie, Chris Johnson and Lloyd Frye present.
Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Continued discussion on proposed language changes and green space requirements to address rural densities in “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”
Lloyd Frye stated a goal for committee members to come to consensus on allowable densities for those areas now subject to a five-acre average density requirement in the Land Use Plan.
Mike Weinkauf stated concerns about future divisions of five-acre lots; that a house, outbuildings and septic space requirements would take up only 2% (3,620 square feet) of the land on a five acre parcel. He feels this land will most likely be divided in the future and that three acre parcels present less of that likelihood. He further commented that the State’s ruling which denied consolidation of the Town and Village confirms the State’s standing that Town lands are to be annexed and used by other cites and villages based on which entity can provide the highest level of services. Mike feels if the Town continues to require a five acre density on new land divisions, those interested in developing their properties will most likely ask to be annexed elsewhere when the opportunity presents itself. Mike moved, 2nd by Pat to change every reference to five acre densities in the Land Use Plan to a three acre density.
Chris Denman questioned the notion of green space percentage requirements discussed at last month’s meeting. At the end of the meeting, it was agreed that everyone would address this concept and come up with examples of how it would work.
It was noted “green space” is a term that must be defined in order for it to be effective. The question arose, what is the difference between green space and a weed patch? Definitions were attempted to include areas not built up; with no dwellings; ponds; nature or natural areas; or parks. The total of these spaces to be included in a percentage of a property that would never be built on (deed restricted).
Chris Denman stated ultimately Town and Village Plan Commissions and Boards decide how best to provide for/ or maintain open space. He likes the three acre density, but feels open space percentage requirements will help encourage developers to cluster; that the committee needs to decide on a green space percentage requirement. Relative consensus was reached by the group stating an approximate two-acre parcel is adequate-or preferable- for the size of a residential lot in a non-sewered district.
Lloyd Frye expressed continued concern over weeds or care of large open green space areas. Options for care were stated as contracting the land for agricultural use; deeding the land to the Town or County; wildlife preserves; or neighborhood association management.
Chuck Haubrich indicated that the Town of Dover requires developers to present a plan on how to maintain open space with provisions that care be funded and/or provided by a homeowners association or land trust. The Town maintains the right to take over maintenance and assess those costs to the property owners should care provisions created by the developer fail.
Mike expressed concern about the tax exempt nature of open space areas. However, it was agreed the value of parcels that are built on will far exceed the value of raw undeveloped land.
Bob Willard returned discussion to the density topic. He feels much thought went into the five-acre density requirement when the Land Use Plan was first drafted. Problems seen with allowing greater densities were defined as increased population; more government; more taxes and less freedom. He does not feel increasing allowable density to a three-acre average will make things better for the Town, or make it less likely for lands abutting a city or village to annex that way.
Chris Johnson expressed his thoughts that freedoms lost by creating neighborhood associations are equal in effect to the freedoms Bob is referring to that might be lost due to an increased population.
Bob indicated neighborhood associations are entered into by choice so he does not feel this represents a loss of freedom. In concept, there will be many different kinds of associations for developments specific to common interests, such as golf courses, horses, all terrain vehicle trails, these are good things that may come about.
Lloyd Frye stated the Baumeister farm consists of 250 acres butting up against the City of Burlington. This land will most likely become the subject of annexation to the City of Burlington because of land division restrictions imposed by Rochester. Lloyd feels Rochester must be fair to its landowners so it is not as attractive for them to annex their properties to other municipalities.
It was not felt by all committee members that allowable densities are the only factor people may consider when developing their land. Some may want larger lot sizes or want to stay in Rochester because of cheaper taxes, etc.
Further discussion on annexation issues brought about consensus of the committee that consolidation of the Town and Village should be pursued further by working through boundary agreements with abutting municipalities . When, and if, boundary agreements are entered into, loss of lands to annexation will be less of a consideration.
There was discussion on open space percentage requirements and whether there should be different requirements for small, medium or large sized parcels. Chuck reported some towns treat minor divisions via density requirement only and don’t ask for common space in those instances.
Discussion returned to the density and lot size issue. Chuck stated the Town of Caledonia does not allow land divisions on any parcels less than ten acres. Chris Johnson did not feel that was an accurate statement of Caledonia’s land division practices. He stated he feels a three-acre density or lot size will make future land divisions of those parcels more difficult in the future. The argument was reiterated that allowing a 3-acre density will potentially increase the population 40% over that generated by the five-acre density requirement. An opinion was then stated that two to three acre lot sizes are more fair for both the elderly and young. The elderly because of care requirements; and the young because of cost.
Lloyd Frye stated concern about sewered developments in that waste water generated by these properties is routed away. He prefers septic systems where water filters down and replenishes the groundwater. He feels it is important to keep water on site.
Chris Denman stated he would like the committee to explore green space percentages. Mike Weinkauf commented that, using the estimated figure of 3,620 square feet used up by houses, outbuildings and septic on any given parcel, 98% of the land is left open as green space on a five acre parcel, and over 60% on a three-acre parcel. This was further defined as areas that are not blacktop, garage or house.
There was further discussion on defining “green space”. One definition offered was “continuous large areas not to be developed in the future accomplished through deed restrictions or conservation easements”. It was stated open space loses its environmental value when it is chopped up in separate parcels. In order for these areas to support wildlife, they must be organized as common open space. These spaces could also continue with agricultural use if that was determined to be the best use for the land. Ultimately, Plan Commissions and Boards will work with developers to determine how to handle open space, whether that be through homeowners associations, town or village ownership, etc.
Some examples of percentage requirements were discussed:
§ A 100-acre development yielding 33 one-acre lots (3-acre density) would leave 66% open space. If lots were two-acres, that would leave 33% open space.
§ A 100-acre development yielding 20 one-acre lots (5-acre density) would leave 80% open space. If lots were two-acres, that would leave 60% open space.
§ On a fifty-acre development yielding 16 one-acre lots (3-acre density), 34 acres or 68% would be left as open space. If lots were two-acres, 18 acres or 33% would remain open.
§ On a fifty-acre development yielding 10 one-acre lots (5-acre density), 40 acres or 80% would be left as open space. If lots were two-acres, 30 acres or 60% would remain open.
§ On a ten-acre land division yielding 3 one-acre parcels (3-acre density), 7 acres or 70% would be left as open space. If lots were two-acres, 4 acres or 40% would remain open.
§ On a ten-acre land division yielding 2 one-acre parcels (5-acre density), 8 acres or 80% would be left as open space. If lots were two acres, 6 acres or 60% would remain open.
There was discussion on handling percentage requirements on small land divisions differently. It was stated that smaller land divisions result in less efficient layouts when using percentage requirements.
It was agreed topics for discussion next month are:
§ the open space percentage concept;
§ creating a definition for green space (one was stated as continuous, contiguous large area);
§ defining what the Town and/or Village expects of green space;
§ how to handle open space requirements for smaller developments; and
§ whether open space management options will allow ownership by a single person.
Pat moved, 2nd by Dean to table further discussion on the Mike/Pat motion stated at the beginning of the meeting until next month. Motion carried.
Additional discussion verified committee rules that any motion stated in September cannot be acted on until October.
Period for Public Comment:
Richard Vanszckle, 2535 Langmaid Street, commented he keeps hearing references to lot sizes and density as if they mean the same thing. He doesn’t feel the group should focus so much on density or lot size. His concern is that increasing the population density will increase the tax burden on residents already here. He would like that minimized as much as possible. Last month figures were presented stating a potential of 4,000 additional people if reducing to a 3-acre density requirement. Richard would like to limit tax burdens and is personally in favor of a five-acre density.
Lloyd Frye, chairman, stated his knowledge of a new subdivision that went up in Eagle. Existing residents were fearful of increased taxes, but it turned out the increased value actually caused taxes to go down. Individuals in the room expressed some concern over to this statement because it is known residential development often causes the need to increase schools and other services. A comment was made that commercial development will hopefully help offset costs for these services.
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, expressed surprise at much of this discussion on the Land Use Plan. She feels some of the most essential parts are being thrown out. She stated the existing plan is a good plan that was the result of much discussion and she doesn’t understand why the guts are being taken out. She indicated the original Land Use Plan Committee looked over graphs, charts, etc. and this was not done in two hours. She urged committee members to please consider what was done to begin with. She questioned why time is being looked at as a factor in reviewing this plan. She stated the five-acre average density imposed by the existing land use plan was not created trying to please anyone with a particular interest. She stated original committee members know land is valuable and will be sold. The original committee was looking at what was best for the community.
Chris Denman stated anyone can look around to see how surrounding communities are growing; the greater community has changed. The original Land Use Plan process started in 1994 and was finally adopted in 1999. He feels many things have changed in the past five years.
Bob Willard stated he hasn’t seen any negatives that suggest this plan should be changed.
Virginia Vanszkle, 2535 Langmaid Street, questioned the mission of the Land Use Plan committee. What is their frame of reference? She wanted to know who has read the Land Use Plan and knows the time that went into it. She feels the Plan is worth putting time into. She questioned “Did you read, research, or understand what the first Land Use Plan Committee did”? She indicated feeling that the guts are being ripped out; and stated this is not updating.
A response was made that nothing has been changed yet.
Mike Weinkauf stated the Town must be practical as other areas are growing fast and adding to the schools. There will be continued pressure to develop. He stated we must find the middle of the road. He feels five acre parcels are too large and are not being taken care of. He indicated an intention to update the plan for the future.
An opinion was stated that if the Land Use Plan is left alone, developers will annex to abutting municipalities. Some incentives must be built in to the plan to have development stay in the Town.
Debra Schwinn, 2529 Langmaid Street, commented on annexation. She stated the Town can’t do anything that will make border properties stay in the Town. She identified that as a lost battle already. She questioned if Waterford could turn back time, would they still develop as intensely as they have? She stated Rochester has the opportunity to look at the big picture and cut losses. It needs to be accepted that annexation will happen. Rochester needs a solid core plan that developers can’t pick apart. She stated she has seen communities torn apart by developers with big bucks.
There was no more public comment.
The next meeting was set for Monday, September 27th at 6:30 p.m.
Bob moved, 2nd by Dennis Crombie to adjourn at 8:01 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J.Novy Clerk
|