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

 

Link to Town Board Meetings

October 27, 2005                                JOINT LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE                              6:30 P.M.

     SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING

 

Committee members present:   Brian Wanasek (chairperson), Bob Willard, Pat Hurley, Chris Johnson, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Dennis Crombie, Dean Stapleton and Mike Weinkauf.  

 

Town Board members present:  Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf.

 

Betty Novy, secretary, was also present.

 

Brian called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and began with a brief report on recent dealings with Walworth County. Walworth County requires a five-acre density on new land divisions in its A-2 zoning, with an 80% open space requirement; 50% if commonly owned.  They approach required open space with a set of priorities, the first being preservation of agricultural lands; the second being preservation of environmental corridor; the third being preservation of natural resources; additional preservation objectives are then prioritized from there.  Brian offered this information to illustrate how the Land Use Plan Committee’s density and open space requirements compare to what neighboring Towns and Counties are doing.

 

Minutes.  Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Dean Stapleton to approve minutes of the September 28, 2005 meeting.  Motion carried.

 

Progress Update and Direction on Requested Amendments to Land Use Plan:  Town of Rochester Board

 

Gary Beck, Town Chairman, addressed the committee.  Gary reported on receipt of a petition for map amendment to remove a strip of land, approximately three hundred feet wide, existing to the south of Washington Avenue in the area west of its intersection with STH 20, from both Planned Sewer Service and Urban Reserve designations in the Land Use Plan.  The request is to amend this area to a rural density classification.  He further explained the request was submitted at the direction of the Town Board to create consistency between the Land Use Plan and a recent development proposal.  It was clarified this area is not currently in the sewer district, rather an area that was identified for future expansion of the district.  The Board feels the area would best be developed at low residential densities vs. the higher densities that would result if sewer extension was required.

 

Gary also noted the Land Use Plan committee has been stuck on the rural density issue for a long time and questioned how soon the committee would get to addressing requests for map amendment.

 

Brian reported the committee is close to a recommendation to amend rural density options.  At the September meeting, two options were agreed upon.  They were:

 

  • Five acre average density with a maximum lot depth to width requirement (2.5:1); or

  • Three acre average density if:

    • the proposed development meets the current definition of a cluster subdivision; or

    • the proposed development maintains 50% open space by the use of building envelopes; deed restrictions or outlots.

 

No vote was taken on the recommendation because some committee members felt a definition for open space was needed before they would feel comfortable doing so.

 

Gary Beck stated the Town Board would like an indication of when this issue will be settled.  Additionally, he stated the Town Board has never side-stepped committees and values their input.  However, in this instance, the committee appears to be stagnant on the rural density issue.  He requested the committee move forward.

 

Continued discussion on Rural Densities; and an Open Space definition and Intent statement: 
“A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”

 

Open space intent and definition statements submitted by Mike Weinkauf, Chris Denman, Chuck Haubrich, Brian Wanasek and Dennis Crombie were discussed. 

 

Chris Denman moved, 2nd by Bob Willard to recommend amendment of the Land Use Plan to incorporate the two rural density options reached by consensus at the September meeting and adopt the open space definition submitted by Chuck Haubrich (as follows):

 

  • Five acre average density with a maximum lot depth to width requirement (2.5:1); or

  • Three acre average density if:

    • the proposed development meets the current definition of a cluster subdivision; or

    • the proposed development maintains 50% open space by the use of building envelopes; deed restrictions or outlots.

 

Open Space Definition:

 

Open space is defined as one or more out lots (separate tax parcels) in a subdivision, with undeveloped land that has been deed restricted or protected by conservation easement from development.  A deed restricted or conservation easement protected outlot may be owned by one person or multiple people in common. 

 

The outlots will be large contiguous areas suitable for agriculture, recreation, or environmental habitat.  They will be maintained for the preservation, restoration, and management of agricultural, environmental, or historic features. 

 

Open space shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historic structures and/or recreation and/or agricultural facilities approved by the municipality. 

 

Examples of acceptable open space (based on 80 acre parcel):

  • Seller retains 40 acres for farming

  • One resident or all home owners in common own a 40 acre outlot and restore it to native prairie and trees

  • All residents own two 20 acre non-contiguous outlots in common; both outlots are restored to native prairie and walking trails established

  • All residents own a 400 foot by 4300 foot outlot (40 acres) in common which rings the subdivision and buffers it from an environmental corridor; outlot is planted with native trees similar to those in the corridor

 

Not acceptable for open space:

  • 250 foot strip behind most homes which are owned by individual lot owners

  • Several less than 10 acre non-contiguous outlots scattered throughout the subdivision

  • Four ten acre outlots

 

Discussion on the outlot concept brought up a question on whether outlots require separate tax key numbers.  Paul Beere noted Racine County discourages multiple tax key numbers for land under single owner ship.  Betty Novy noted existence of at least one subdivision where some lots have an associated outlot attached under one tax key number.  Brian Wanasek indicated this issued should be clarified with Racine County in the future.

 

Votes were:   Crombie: Aye;  Denman:  Aye;  Willard:  Aye;  Haubrich:  Aye;  Stapleton:  Aye;  Wanasek:  Aye;  Hurley:  Aye;  Weinkauf:  Naye;  Johnson:  Naye.  Motion passed.

 

Brian then stated agenda items for next month as follows:

 

  • Consideration of map amendment requests, including the Malison-Hoyer property

  • Further clarify the “Urban Reserve” designation

  • Move forward on Chapter 6.

 

Period for Public Comment:

 

Jim Anderson, Washington Avenue, questioned whether consideration had been given to setting back development from the heron rookery located on the southern border of the Malison-Hoyer properties.  Wanasek indicated this will become a consideration of the Plan Commission as they work through the development.  However, the Land Use Plan Committee is aware of its existence and will be sure not to place the Urban Reserve designation right up to its boundary.

 

Ken Dahlstrom, N. English Settlement Ave., questioned whether the intent of open space was to keep open space accessible to all the property owners of a development.  If so, the ability for one or limited property owners to own it is not consistent with the intent.  Response was such that this is not the intent of open space unless a developer wants to set it up that way.

 

Buzz Hurley, N. Browns Lake Drive, questioned who pays for the required 50% open space that will just lie there.  Brian Wanasek replied if no open space requirement is desired, five- acre average density is still an option.  Buzz stated further concern about how densities in the sewer district will pan out.  Brian noted this is still to be discussed and all the Land Use Plan committee has done at this point is create another option for rural development.

 

The next meeting of the committee was set for Wednesday, November 30th at 6:30 p.m.

 

Bob Willard moved, 2nd by Dean Stapleton to adjourn at 7:54 p.m.  Motion carried.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Secretary

Return to top of page