|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
June 24, 2004 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Lloyd Frye, Bob Willard, Pat Hurley, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Chris Johnson and Dennis Crombie present. Judy Karweik, Dean Stapleton and Mike Weinkauf were absent.
Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Chris Denman to approve minutes of the May 27, 2004 meeting noting references to the “Espinall” parcels are to be corrected to read “Aspinall”. Motion carried.
Discussion on recommended revisions/ updates to Chapter 6 of “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”
Under Page 61, OBJECTIVES, the following revisions were submitted:
Revision request #13, by Chuck Haubrich, requested that Chapter VI, second bullet point and sub points be changed to read:
§ Encourage orderly development which maintains the rural character and small village atmosphere of the community
- Direct development to areas identified for specific land use
- Where feasible use mixed residential and commercial (banks, shops, restaurants, etc.) development to maintain village atmosphere
- Small scale, not big box, commercial development
- Low density rural residential development outside sewer district
- Industry and large scale businesses in an industrial park
- Consider local development in relation to land use plans and patterns of surrounding communities
- Development compatible and integrated with community historic and aesthetic features and infrastructure resources
Revision request # 10, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, did not propose a specific language replacement, but commented “this plan does nothing to maintain agriculture as a significant activity and way of life”.
General discussion followed on efforts to save agricultural lands and whether the five-acre rural density requirement actually preserves active farmland. After further discussion on economic trends, etc., consensus of the committee was to change paragraph 3 as follows:
“Preserve and conserve irreplaceable resources
¨
Preserve productive farmland and
maintain agriculture as a
¨ Preserve environmental and open space lands including woodlands and marshlands
¨ Protect quality of the ground <INSERT> and surface water”
Page 63 revisions:
Under “DELINEATED WATERFORD/ROCHESTER SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA”, consensus of the committee was to make the following changes:
¨ In paragraph 1, reference to SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 141 (2nd Edition), Sanitary Sewer Service Area for the Waterford/Rochester Area, “April 1996”; “April 1996” should be updated to read “December 2003”.
¨ Per revision request #12, delete paragraph 2 (the area has already been added to the sewer service area).
Page 64 revisions:
Under “FUTURE POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD LEVELS”, population and household level statistics are to be updated with current data.
Page 65 revisions:
Under “PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS”, information should be updated after meetings are held.
Page 66, 69, 70, 62 and 82 revision requests:
Revision request 5, submitted by Lloyd Frye, refers to page 66, paragraph 2. While not proposing specific language replacement, the request provides the comment “remove five-acre requirement”.
Revision request 6, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, referring to the middle of page 69, requests that the statement “difficult to provide with basic public services and facilities” be deleted.
Revision request 7, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, refers to page 66, paragraph 2. The request is to change the rural density requirement from five acres to three acres.
Revision request 8, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, refers to page 70, paragraph 2. The request is to change reference to rural densities outside of the sewer service area needing to be 5 to 30 acres to increase the likelihood of proper wells, building pads, driveways and proper sewage disposal systems.
Revision request 9, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, refers to the top of page 62. While not proposing specific language replacement, the request provides the comment “I do not believe the community’s will is 5-acre densities. This plan does nothing but take away landowners rights”.
Revision request 11, submitted by Mike Weinkauf, refers to the top of page 62. While not proposing specific language replacement, the request provides the comment “only one other community has a five-acre density requirement and that is being challenged in Raymond. Burlington is 1.5 acres; Caledonia is 1 acre; Dover is 3 acres; Norway is 1 acre; Waterford depends on SEWRPC ratings, but most is 1 acre; Yorkville is 3 acres”.
Revision request 14, submitted by Chris Johnson, refers to page 82 (Chapter 7), under Rural Density Residential Development, paragraph 1. The request is to reduce the density requirement from one dwelling unit per five acres of land.
General discussion on the rural density topic resulted in identifying concepts and issues as follows:
¨ A concept that two to three acre parcels are better than five acre parcels because of property owner maintenance issues, required length of road, use of open land, etc.
¨ Clarification of the average density factor and cluster design concept. Cluster design allows parcel sizes as low as one acre (minimum zoning) and allows the most flexibility in design. Under the five-acre average density requirement, a 100 acre land division nets 20 parcels; any parcel could be as small as one acre or as large as 80-acres depending on how lots are arranged on the plat.
¨ Concern was expressed over the joint ownership of open space concept. The perception exists that most people want to own their own 2 - ? acres and do not want to deal with joint open space use and maintenance issues.
¨ Concern was expressed about creation of numerous five acre parcels throughout the Town; that when and if densities are reduced in the future many existing five acre parcels will be divided again into smaller parcels.
¨ A high demand for lots in the country was identified. A common objective of the group was clarified as preserving the rural atmosphere while creating options for land divisions.
¨ All committee members agreed that, overall, 5-acre parcels are not a good thing; that converting five-acre pieces of land to residential use is a waste of land.
¨ The committee does not agree on whether 160 acres should net 80 homes or 40 homes; and whether the property owner still gets the money he needs under either option.
¨ It was noted it can’t be assumed that any property will net the maximum allowable parcels; plan commissions and boards have a large influence on what is approved as the final density.
¨ Map 29 must be reviewed and updated after densities are determined; a significant issue that must be addressed are uses for Urban Reserve areas; this was a specific direction to the committee.
Public Comment Period (7:45 p.m.):
Ken Dahlstrom commented he does not like rules limiting public comment to one time period. He would like the public to be allowed to participate freely in the committee’s discussion. Earl Squire commented he feels the five-acre average density is wrong. He feels all people have different ideas of where they want to live and it is unfair to the general public that they should have to pay for a 5-acre lot to live in Rochester. No further public comments were offered.
Return to committee discussion:
Lloyd Frye presented illustration of a 40-acre land split creating eight five-acre parcels. He showed how the combined back acreage of eight 5-acre lots becomes unusable for farming because of different property owner’s preferences.
It was agreed that whatever density requirement is finalized, five-acre lots are not the desired outcome. A misperception exists in the community because of continued “five-acre” references in the Land Use Plan. The concept must be reworded so it gets rid of emphasis on a five-acre requirement. Some thoughts expressed were using a green space requirement in its place.
Each committee member was given the assignment of re-wording the concept to emphasize green space calculations. This could be done by use of charts, etc. A positive emphasis on what committee members want (vs. don’t want) should be taken. A land division of 100 acres should then be shown as an example of how calculations affect land divisions. Any special restrictions wanted, i.e. “can’t split off less than a 10-acre parcel”, etc., should be noted. The concepts should be broad; the Land Use Plan is not meant to be too detailed.
Chuck Haubrich reported Caledonia has a 60% open space requirement for conservation subdivisions; and Yorkville is also going to mandatory conservation subdivisions with five-acre density requirements.
Denman moved, 2nd by Crombie to allow public participation in committee discussion when they have viable information. The motion was withdrawn when it was explained that per committee rules, this must be scheduled for a vote at the next meeting.
Action items identified for the next meeting:
Amendment of committee rules to allow free public participation during the meeting.
Requested Revision Request #13 submitted by Chuck Haubrich.
Committee Assignment:
Present a proposed language change to the Land Use Plan which addresses rural land division densities and supports the preservation of open space/ rural character objectives of the committee. Apply this to a 100-acre parcel as an illustration.
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, July 29th at 6:30 p.m.
Bob Willard moved, 2nd by Chris Johnson to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Novy Clerk |