|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
May 12, 2003 BOARD OF REVIEW 7:25 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. with Board members Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present. Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn the Board of Review to reconvene Saturday, July 19, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. Motion carried.
Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn at 7:28 p.m. Motion carried.
May 12, 2003 REGULAR BOARD MEETING 7:30 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with Board members Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.
Betty Novy, Clerk, and Jim Schilling, Engineer, were also present. Colleen Holder, Treasurer, and Gary Chart, Public Works Supervisor, were absent.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve minutes of the April 14, 17, 26 and 30, 2003 meetings of the Board. Motion carried.
Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to approve May disbursements as follows. Motion carried.
Department Reports. Treasurer’s report was presented as follows:
Sgt. Kacmarcik reported the following statistics for April: ten speeding citations, ten traffic citations and twenty warnings were issued. Complaint statistics are as follows: twenty-one originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Prochaska assisted with 8 additional complaints, performed follow up on nine more and originated thirty four on his own. Twelve foot patrols were conducted.
Deputy Prochaska reported he will be adjusting hours in summer according to activity. He plans on working a later shift. There was question about covering Alpine Valley concerts. Their website is checked regularly and hours will be adjusted based on any perceived need. There was question on whether any campsites in close proximity to Rochester will be serving Harley fest attendees. Union Grove is the closest known site. Deputy Prochaska will be kept aware of any camping areas serving the event that come up in the future. Kennel License Application: Douglas Rupert, 507 Abbey Lane Deputy Prochaska reported on inspection of the Rupert property that day. They meet all requirements and he recommended the license be approved. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve the application. Motion carried.
N. Honey Lake Road construction concerns: Mike Bequest, 509 N. Honey Lake Road.
Betty reported that Mr. Bequest called and stated he could not make the meeting. Jim Schilling reported on previous contact with Mr. Bequest in which he indicated opposition to the project because two trees needed to come down in front of his property. Jim was not sure if Mr. Bequest had other concerns. He received personal notice of two public informational meetings, but had not attended either. The trees of concern are in public right of way.
Mike Weinkauf questioned a letter received from Dave Albrecht, 110 N. Honey Lake Road, on this matter. He expressed concerned about a jog in road construction plans that was created because the road was too close to one home. Mr. Albrecht indicated preference to keep the road straight and to reduce the speed limit after reconstruction. Gary indicated the issue of speed limits is for the Board to discuss in the future when the project is done. Cecil Mehring, Director of Planning and Engineering Services (Racine County), was present in the audience. Cecil indicated specific criteria is required in the State Statutes for reduction of speed limits on Town roads. Either driveway spacing must meet a certain density or a traffic study must be done and reduction approved by the State’s Department of Transportation.
Additional correspondence received from Richard Mianecki, 123 N. Honey Lake Road, indicated he would not sign a temporary construction easement because he is also opposed to the road layout. It was explained one of three farm accesses requested by Mianecki cannot be constructed if he fails to sign the easement. The clerk was directed to send correspondence giving him a chance to reconsider.
N. Honey Lake Road: recommendation to award construction contract
Jim Schilling reported on five bids received for the project as follows: Payne & Dolan, Inc: $270,734; Musson Bros. Inc.: $271,505.75; Mann Bros., Inc.: $274,676.35; Custom Grading, Inc: $334,001.90; and Reesman’s Excavating and Grading: $342,456.20. His recommendation was to award the contract to Payne and Dolan. Before rewarding the contract, Gary requested confirmation that concerns expressed at previous informational meetings were incorporated into the plans. It was explained that surveying done for the project displayed the road as being eight feet off center in the right of way. The road will be reconstructed 10 feet to the west because centering it in the right of way will provide additional space needed for widening the paved surface and constructing shoulders. A permanent easement was received of one property owner to accommodate the final plans. This was so that a request made by the majority of property owners to jog the road further west in one area (across from 249 N. Honey Lake Road) could be granted. Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to accept Payne & Dolan’s bid submittal of $270,734 for reconstruction of N. Honey Lake Road. Motion carried.
Jim further explained the construction contract calls for an October 30, 2003 completion date. Once the contractor starts work, he must have the project complete in 30 days or a penalty is incurred.
Request for extension of completion deadline for Camelback Farms Subdivision: Patricia Hurley
Pat reported conflict between approved subdivision plans and current requirements stated by the Town Engineer. Original plans stated a total of two and one-half inches of asphalt for the roads; specifications stated for completion call for three inches. It was confirmed review of the plans verified the discrepancy. The Town will accept 2 ½ inches. Pat continued that in 1998, a request to install the final lift of asphalt in the subdivision was denied because they had not reached the 80% developed mark. Last year, a final deadline was established as May 31, 2003. Pat requested extension of that deadline until Fall or next Spring. Two houses, currently under construction, will finally cause the subdivision to reach the 80% completion mark. Jim Schilling (engineer) indicated roads in Phase 1 of the development are in poor condition and need to be pulverized. It does not matter how much more they deteriorate. Phase 2 does not yet require pulverization, but further deterioration may cause this. Extension of the deadline is not at the Town’s risk, since the developer must pay the cost of completion. However, consideration must be given to the amount of time needed if the Town has to draw on the developer’s letter of credit to finish the project. If this scenario comes to play, the Town will have to adhere to public bidding laws. He will need notice of this by mid July to complete the project in this year’s construction season. Pat indicated there will be no need to publicly bid the project. They are not refusing to pave. The money is in a money market account waiting to complete the project. She presented one bid obtained from Black Diamond Paving as proof they intend to finish the project. Her primary concern is about damage to the roads being caused by heavy construction equipment. She would like to wait until the majority of homes are constructed before installing the final layer.
Discussion turned to the thickness requirement. Jim Schilling indicated the Town cannot deviate from the two and one-half inches required in the developer’s agreement, but may want to consider chipping in to install asphalt to a 3 inch thickness. This will increase the pavement’s life. Mike Weinkauf reported on conversation with the Town’s Association. They stated standards for a residential area as 2 ½ inches of asphalt. He was told the thicker the installation, the more narrowing at the top. This is likely to cause deterioration at the shoulders. Cecil Mehring, Director of Planning and Engineering Services (Racine County), indicated most towns in Racine County specify three inch thickness; some are as high as four or five inches. If the Town was to chip in to achieve a three inch thickness, Mike questioned whether other areas in the subdivision need work. Jim Schilling stated he could check, but there are many town roads that need work. Pat indicated she did not object to installing three inches of pavement. Her main request is to allow extension of the deadline until fall. She specifically requested extension to October 31st. Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to extend the deadline for completion to October 15, 2003, and added that bids should be reviewed by the Town Engineer before acceptance. Motion carried.
Pat questioned progress on a completion bond requirement. She knows this has been discussed before and indicated contractors often destroy ditch lines in subdivisions. She stated contractor’s should be liable for the destruction they do. Two options of an occupancy or erosion bond were briefly discussed. The Clerk is to check with the Town attorney as to status on a previously proposed ordinance addressing these issues.
Gravel pit renewal application and review of restoration plans: Racine County Public Works: Academy Road
Cecil Mehring and Glenn Lampark were present on behalf of Racine County Public Works. Mike questioned how far the pit will be mined to the west. An aerial map was shown. The parcel ends about 500 feet east of Heritage Road. The original agreement allows mining up to the property line in all directions except for west, where a 200-foot setback is required. On the west side, mining will stop at least 700 feet back from Heritage Road. The pit is currently mined at a depth of 20 – 25 feet. Mining is expected to continue for another 30 – 35 years. Original permits call for reversion to agriculture as an end use. There was question on whether land on the east side will be restored before mining farther to the west. When mining is finished in any area, that area will be filled. They will not allow any of the working pit area to be farmed. Concern was expressed about recreational use of four wheelers in the area and whether the pit is properly signed to warn trespassers of the drop off. Glen Lampark will check the signage in place. It is known that “No Trespassing” and “Drop Off” signs are currently on the property with approximate 150 – 200 foot spacing along the perimeter. They will add more signs if it is deemed necessary. There was question on property to the north. Cecil indicated agreements are in place that allow mining right up to the fence line, but that a 200 foot transition area is normally observed. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to renew the gravel pit permit for Racine County Public Works. Motion carried.
Case/Eagle Park License Agreement for baseball diamonds: Racine County
The proposed agreement (replacing a current agreement) would allow the Town to take over scheduling use of the ball diamonds. Mike questioned several items on the agreement dealing with liability insurance. The Town is required to list Racine County as an additional insured on their policy. Gary explained that baseball diamonds were identified as a need of the community several years ago. At that time, the Town entered into an agreement with Racine County to utilize Case/Eagle Park for this purpose. The Town attorney reviewed the proposed agreement, but there has not been adequate time for the Board to review his comments prior to the meeting. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to table action on the Ball Diamond agreement until the June meeting.
Several updates were given on Racine County projects scheduled for completion this year. CTH “A” will be resurfaced from its intersection with CTH “J’ to CTH “W”. The Burlington-Wind Lake bike trail will be completed to STH 36/20. Shoulders will be paved along CTH “W” from Vergon Drive to the entrance of Case Eagle Park to allow connection of the trail to that subdivision. Landscaping will occur at the Case Eagle Park entrance and design work has begun on placement of restroom facilities. Current indications are that Western Racine County Sewerage District will enter into an agreement to allow access to their interceptor. The County is hoping to plan a grand opening celebration on Labor Day. A 2nd shelter area may be installed just west of what was River Road. They are also considering installation of playground equipment.
Presentation on reflective two-sided house number signs: Mark Lange, Lange Enterprises
Mark explained options for flag-type house number signs as follows: Dura-signs. A protective film over the top of the sign allows graffiti to be cleaned easily and cuts down on UV damage to extends the life of the sign. The 18” x 6” sign has 4” numbers. The 20” x 8” sign has 6” numbers. The Town may order its name printed over the house numbers. Varied colors help non-locals identify which community they are in. Another option is to have the road name printed on top. The base charge for an 18” x 6” sign is $14.70 a sign. Adding the road name or community name on each sign costs extra money. Post options. A latex post is available at $3.80 each; this option tends to rust. A powder coated post will run $4.30 each; this will also rust within a year in areas, but not to the same extent as latex coated. These can be provided in any color; darker colors are recommended because they help camouflage rust. To eliminate any rust, galvanized steel posts are available at $5.65 each. No color choices are available with this option. Installation. Lange requires that all installations be marked by diggers hotline. Posts are installed 18 inches in the ground at a uniform location 15 feet from the edge of the driveway, at the edge of the road right of way. Cost is $6.25 per installation. This includes removal of existing post-type signs. They will not remove signs posted on homes. From authorization and supply of numbers, 45 days are needed to get the order ready. They require a list of numbers to manufacture off of (preferably in EXCEL® format). Mark indicated these prices are good through 12/31/2003. Prices on posts may vary slightly next year.
Deputy Prochaska reported these signs are being used in Burlington and are recognized as a benefit to emergency services. Nancy Klemko indicated she would prefer location of these signs by either mailboxes or paper boxes; mainly closer to the road. Mark indicated need for uniform location in order for the signs to serve their purpose.
Gary explained options for financing such a project as follows: the Board could wait until budget time and then determine whether to provide for 2004 installation, or take out a short-term loan and then provide payment for the loan in the 2004 budget. Consensus of the Board was to wait until budget time. Gary thanked Mark for giving the Board an idea of how much money would be needed in next year’s budget. Mark suggested contacting the Town of Burlington’s building inspector, Jack Daams, if there were any questions.
Shoreland Contract to construct 2,600 square foot detached garage: Gary Kempken, 35510 Ravine Drive (Parcel #014-03-19-18-142-000)
Gary Kempken questioned a previous requirement made by the Building Inspector to provide storm water calculations. His engineer wanted to know what storm water calculations were supposed to show to meet approval. Jim Deluca (building inspector) agreed to provide this information. Secondly, Gary wanted assurance that no additional requirements will be added after this.
The property owner to the north, present in the audience, expressed concern that her house is ten feet from Gary’s lot line, with her septic and leech field in between. In her view, this is a commercial structure in residential area. She is greatly concerned it will bring her property value down. She stated that Gary already has numerous big vehicles around his property. Another resident of Honey Lake expressed concern about this size of garage in a residential area. This garage will be twice as big as most houses are. He stated the average house as 1,600 square feet and average garage 1,000 square feet.
Mike questioned whether there were any other tin buildings in the area? The resident indicated there is one two blocks up, but the building has been there at least 40 years. There have been no others of that size built in the past 35 years. He feels this size of building should require a variance when placed in a residential area. That it has the potential to change the area to commercial.
Jim Deluca, building inspector, was present. He reported previously hearing these issues and completing some background work on the issue. He indicated there are no grounds to require a variance under the County’s zoning code. However, the Town Board can challenge interpretation of zoning language stating “Detached accessory structure cannot exceed 20% of rear yard”. The staff has interpreted the ordinance a certain way, but it is a fairly new ordinance. Frank Risler (Racine County Planning) was not sure of the intent of the code as it applies to a corner lot. Placement of semi-colons and commas in the code section may have a legal impact. Jim suggested requesting an official interpretation by Racine County Corporation Counsel. This will provide legal interpretation and clarification before opening the gate for other buildings of this size. In the future, corporation counsel interpretation would rule. John Lutz, Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District, stated concern about the proposed building causing more water run off down the road and into the creek. Gary Kempken stated his main concern is to get a clear definition on requirements. After that, he will move forward. Paul moved, 2nd by Gary to table this matter until information comes back from Racine County Corporation Counsel giving legal interpretation of exactly what the ordinance says. Votes were: Gary: Aye; Paul: Aye; Mike: Nay. Motion passed.
Mike explained disagreement in that he felt Gary should have been notified of the meeting date and time when this item was discussed by the Planning Commission.
Request for anticipated amendments to Sewer Service Area: Western Racine County Sewerage District; and associated request by parcel abutting Fox River Prairie Subdivision to be included in such district (#014-03-19-14-02-025-020 14.8 acres)
Gary reported the Plan Commission went on record against addition of Mamerow Farms to the sewer service area. Concerns were expressed about the ability of the Waterford’s new interceptor to handle increased flows, whether the Sewer District’s main interceptor (running through Rochester) has the ability to handle this increase and whether adding this property to the district creates additional burden to the district’s current upgrade plans. There was also question as to how this addition would impact Rochester’s capacity down the road. There is only so much capacity and it is not specifically reserved for any one municipality.
Secondly, the Plan Commission did not recommend adding the parcel abutting Fox River Prairie to the sewer district. Gary questioned Bob Willard (Plan Commissioner) why the Plan Commission did not feel the parcel should be added when it is a proposed addition to a sewered subdivision. Bob indicated the Plan Commission felt density was already sufficient in the area and would rather see a neighborhood plan developed before approving sewer to the parcel. They want to see how it will fit in with adjacent parcels and existing homes. There will always be a boundary line to the sewer district.
Gary indicated the sewer system does not encompass Mather Lane and he knows several parcels in that subdivision have had septic problems. It may be a good time to incorporate that area into the district. Jim Schilling brought a sewer study along with him from 1999 that showed where lines are supposed to be installed. The Lift station currently in place on N. River Road is set up to serve a larger area. Consensus of the Board was to table this issue for further consideration at the June meeting.
Request for Reconsideration of Sanitary Sewer
Requirement: Land Division creating twelve additional parcels: English
Settlement Drive and STH 36. Owners: Daniel and Geraldine Schwabe/ Agent:
Attorney Jeff Santaga
Atty. Santaga started by refreshing the Board on what has taken place up to this point. Dan Schwabe worked with the planning and zoning commission to come up with an agreeable layout for his subdivision. Along the way, some hurdles were encountered regarding a sewer hook up requirement. The Town Board felt they could not sway from a previous precedent set when requiring sewer hook up on the Squire property (now Fox River Prairie Subdivision). Atty. Santaga indicated State Statutes specify hook up can only be required when reasonable opportunity is present. Mr. Schwabe asked for a waiver to the Board’s requirement because hookup costs are in excess of $1,000,000 to serve his parcel. The previous Board denied this request. If this Board would reconsider, Atty. Santaga indicated Schwabe would not be adverse to his parcel being entirely removed from the district.
Mike noted the proposed plan limits development to twelve additional lots and is favorable because it would protect the land, particularly since there is significant environmental corridor on the parcel. However, land in the district should be sewered. Atty. Santaga indicated that at this time the economic burden is too great to install sewer. The options to cover the cost are either to increase density or sit on the property until the sewer comes closer.
Gary stated correspondence from the sewer district indicates extraction of property from the sewer district is not possible. There is no method provided in State Statutes to do it. Paul indicated a preference for 13 homes vs. a potential 113. Atty. Santaga stated language would willingly be added to the deeds of this development indicating future property owners will have to hook up when sewer comes within a reasonable distance. It was brought up that in the past there was discussion of installing infrastructure which would feed into a communal system. Jim Schilling indicated the lay of land in this development is such that a gravity fed communal system would have to feed into a mound placed away from road. In that scenario, the property will eventually need a lift station. Pat Hurley questioned what the problem is with allowing septic?
Gary stated 20 years from now, or potentially much sooner, the (possible) 5th owner gets stuck with sewer hook up costs. There will be substantial costs down the road and the developer will walk away without incurring any of them. From past experience, he knows the Town will have to deal with these angry property owners. Atty. Santaga was questioned on whether any alternatives to individual septic systems have been explored. He stated Schwabe will not explore alternative systems until he is confident the Town Board will seriously consider them. The question is what alternative systems can he consider? Jim Schilling stated there is no way to install infrastructure ahead of time. Even if pipes were put in the ground, the possibility is always there they could end up in the wrong place. Atty. Santaga asked if Schwabe could escrow money for infrastructure costs that will be incurred in the future. To put today’s infrastructure costs in an escrow or trust account until sewer comes within a reasonable distance. A fair share of the cost could be calculated. Consensus of the Board was to express preference for a low density development, particularly if the developer is willing to put up some escrow monies for future sewer connection. Atty. Santaga was directed to work with the Town Engineer to explore what alternative systems might be available. Infrastructure systems should be explored that would be ready for when sewer crosses STH 36. Any potential design should be taken from that point back to serve the development.
Conditional Use Permit Application to park one semi-tractor truck and at least one dump truck inside building. Lot 2; Fairview Street (Parcel #014-03-19-06-006-020) Jeffrey Radewan
Dean Schmidt was present representing Jeff Radewan. Jeff is a potential buyer of this 5.5 acre parcel. All trucks would be stored within an existing 40’ x 96’ block building. There would be no parking outside. Jeff indicated it is only the semi tractor with no trailer on it 99% of time. The Clerk explained that the application was received after the Plan Commission met, so they had not seen the application. Racine County scheduled the item for a May 19th hearing. Consensus of the Board was to have the Plan Commission review this first. The Clerk was directed to send a letter requesting the County table action on this issue until after the Plan Commission and Town Board are able to issue a recommendation.
Petition for Direct Annexation to Village of Waterford; 33 acres at intersection of Hwys 36 & 20, Parcel #s 014-03-19-01-022-000 & 014-03-19-01-020-000: John and Barbara Kumbier
It was explained the petition was made on the basis of needing municipal water. Consensus of the Board was to send a letter objecting to the annexation, noting that the Town can provide this parcel with sewer and that the annexation should not be granted without specific development plans that substantiate the need for municipal water. It was added this letter should be signed by all Board members.
Resolution #4-2003 to support the location of any proposed regional medical center in close proximity to Burlington Memorial Hospital
Gary moved, 2nd by Paul to approve the resolution. Motion carried.
Addition of voice mail to town phone line
The clerk explained the cost is $9.25 a month. This will provide message service when the Town’s phone line is busy. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve addition of the service. Motion carried.
Public Comment. There was none.
Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Clerk
May 19, 2003 SPECIAL JOINT TOWN BOARD, PLANNING 7:00 P.M. COMMISSION AND LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
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, Jane Babik and Bob Willard (Maureen Eckert and Brian Wanasek were absent). Land Division Ordinance Committee: Chuck Haubrich, Jane Babik, Pat Hurley, Rhoda Runzheimer, Bob Willard, Wayne Schrader, Dennis Crombie and Ed Stone.
Chuck presented a report of comments heard at the public hearing on the proposed land division ordinance. Comments were broke into two major concerns: the first about requiring 2:1 depth to width ratio on newly formed lots (there were nine comments for and two comments against this concept); the second about cluster subdivision design (there were 13 for, three against and fourteen approving this type of design only as an option). It was decided to focus on these two aspects of the ordinance.
2:1 Depth to Width Ratio Requirement.
Ed Stone and Pat Hurley indicated they were recorded incorrectly as being in favor of this ratio. This changed reported figures to seven for and four against.
Concern was expressed about lots greater than five acres. Ed indicated 10-acre parcels would require a minimum of 467 feet of frontage under this formula. Paul indicated many lots won’t conform and there should be exceptions written into the ordinance. Some flexibility should be built in. Some suggestions were to change wording to require a 2:1 ratio up to five acres; with a 330 foot minimum; or going to a 3:1 depth to width ratio.
Ken indicated a 2:1 ratio forces the individual to look at the whole parcel. One small lot taken off a larger parcel would be exempt from most requirements of this ordinance, but could eat up a lot of frontage. It would force consideration of future plans for the rest of the parcel- or encourage creation of neighborhood plans. There was question on who would pay for neighborhood plans. Ken indicated the Town would have to pay.
Gary stated neighborhood plans in general are good for the community. However, they sometimes cause a perception that the Town is encouraging development vs. being prepared and protecting the neighbors.
Rhoda Runzheimer indicated preference for neighborhood plans. Whole areas can be laid out wisely; what is left is a better planned, more desirable community. Chuck stated separation between parcels helps maintain value vs. 5-acre lots where houses are right next to each other on long strips.
Since the objective seems to be spacing between parcels, a resident present in the audience suggested specifying driveway spacing requirements as so many feet vs. the width to depth ratio concept.
Ken stated farmers need to know the impact of selling off parcels and using up their road frontage. They need to create a greater plan.
Opinion was stated that the five-acre density requirement coupled with zoning that requires 150 foot minimum frontage is causing the problem. It was explained that the five-acre average density requirement does not require five-acre lots, that smaller lots can be created. However, it was agreed that a general perception is held by the public that five acres are required to sell off a lot.
The 2:1 depth to width ratio requirement requires 150 (zoning minimum) - 330 foot frontage on one to five acre lots. 330 feet was agreed upon as acceptable separation. There was question on how 2:1 average depth would apply to cul de sacs. 2:1 average depth would apply to a pie shape. Methodology is built into the ordinance to figure this out.
The major impact of a 2:1 ratio would be on a minor subdivision and the amount of road that would have to be built to accommodate the ratio.
Chuck summarized options as follows: 3:1 ratio, a 3:1 ratio with exceptions built in; 2:1 ratio, 2:1 ratio with exceptions built in. Options were further narrowed when consensus of the group was expressed that there would have to be exceptions built in no matter which option was chosen.
A vote was called for those in favor of a specified 2:1 depth to width ratio with exceptions built in. Dennis, Chuck, Jane, Rhoda, Ken and Bob voted in favor.
A vote was called for those in favor of a specified 3:1 depth to width ratio with exceptions built in. Gary, Paul, Mike, Ed and Pat voted in favor.
It was noted that Town Board members all voted in favor of the 3:1 depth to width ratio with flexibility built in the language. Since they will take final action to approve the ordinance, it was agreed to modify the ordinance with that type of language.
Cluster Subdivision Requirement.
Comments at the public hearing seemed to favor the concept as optional. Paul indicated preference for this type of design as an option, but not the only option. Gary stated agreement and indicated the Plan Commission can certainly pursue cluster design with a developer. He could even take it as far as requiring a developer to justify why it won’t work for his parcel before considering conventional design.
Paul suggested making the incentive greater to encourage cluster design, possibly reducing the density requirement to 3 or 3 1/2 acres when using this type of design to make it more palatable to a developer. This might make large property owners more receptive to the idea.
Mike indicated conservation subdivision design is a good tool, but does not favor making it mandatory. Information he gathered from listening to the conservation subdivision developer was that there are many restrictions imposed on subdivisions of this nature and that people only own one acre, but pay taxes on five. He feels there may be a preference out there for people to own their own five acres. Some people might embrace the conservation subdivision concept, but he feels there should be choices.
Wayne indicated a problem with cluster design is ownership of common land. He cannot see five to ten families with common ground agreeing on everything for ever. He sees the best use of open lands as conservation or farming.
Bob stated the town can ask a developer to present a cluster subdivision plan, or be required to show why cluster design is not a practical method.
Ken stated language should be stated that requests a conceptual cluster design. Pat disagreed stating the design tool is not optional if the developer is required to present a cluster design.
Mike stated preference that incentives be used instead; that the allowable density for cluster designs be increased to three acres.
Rhoda stated she is against this concept. Right now the density bonus for cluster design allows four acre density. To lower this to three acre density would be against the conservation concept of reducing density.
Jane expressed concern that the ordinance will be without teeth; nothing will change if cluster design is kept as an option.
Chuck pointed out language in the land use plan that, in the case of subdivisions, requires cluster design unless an exemption is granted by the Plan Commission. He pointed out that the purpose of redoing the land division ordinance was to create consistency between the ordinance and the Land Use Plan. If recommendations in the Land Use Plan are not followed, the Land Use Plan may need to be amended.
The open space requirement brought up by the conservation developer was raised. His model showed profitability when using this type of design based on 60% open space, and this ordinance calls for 70%. Chuck indicated the open space requirement can be changed.
Ed stated he has nothing against conservation design if it is optional, but people do not always like the idea of shared land. He feels the concept is not optional if a cluster plan is required in the ordinance.
Pat suggested the Plan Commission show an example as part of preliminary planning. That when people bring in conceptual plans, the Plan Commission could point out the options. Mike indicated agreement that the Plan Commission has to sell the idea of cluster.
Rhoda and Bob disagreed stating the developer has to sell the concept. It is not the Plan Commission’s job to design land divisions.
Gary stated agreement with having a developer look at the option, particularly since it is specified in the Land Use Plan already. He suggested taking this language out of the plan and inserting it in the ordinance. Use of the design tool should be an option of the Planning Board, not the developer. At the Plan Commission level, some education needs to be done, including examples of what type of design is acceptable. This at least retains an option.
When a developer is not satisfied with results of Plan Commission review, any decisions can be appealed to the Town Board.
Wayne indicated the Town Board makes the final decision. If people are not happy with it, the Board can get voted out.
Gary indicated the Board must make decisions based on what’s best for Town, not the individual property owner.
The Plan Commission could develop some promotional materials up front to encourage conservation subdivision design.
Consensus of the Board was that options in the ordinance should include conventional and cluster subdivisions. The conventional option is to be added. The same plan requirements of a cluster subdivision should be placed on conventional subdivisions to make the options equal partners.
Mike questioned the requirement of a qualified ecological service company providing a habitat assessment for minor land divisions. It was stated that this is only required if within 200 feet of environmental corridor. If only one lot is being split off, it is exempt from the requirement.
The definition of “qualified ecological service company” (27.606c) should be cleared up.
Chuck was directed to make the above changes to the ordinance and submit revisions to the Board by June 2 for review prior to the June 9th meeting. After that, the document shall be submitted to the attorney for final review and a special meeting of the Board scheduled to act on the ordinance before land division moratorium expires (July 7, 2003).
Pat moved, 2nd by Jane to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Clerk
|