January 15, 2001
Land Use
John Julius stated his group working on
farmland preservation will have a meeting on January 18th with Ed
Minihan. Everyone is
invited to attend.
Jim Ecker is working with environmental
issues. He has been working with
East Central and Dave Tebo on a poster for informational use.
The poster includes maps for such things as groundwater, surface water,
geology/soils, woodland areas and the sewer service area.
They will be fine tuning the map soon.
******************************************************************************
Draft Ordinance to address the 80/20
development ratio
The regulatory group is working on the
implementation of strategies. Dave
Tebo reviewed the steps taken to get to this point.
The group looked for ways to be flexible by allowing a parent to create a
lot for a child, construction of conservation subdivisions and traditional
subdivisions. In a traditional
subdivision, land would be set aside for a conservation easement for open space
either adjacent to the subdivision or somewhere else in the town.
The group tried to tie numbers for lot creation to a historical record.
They are trying to create a safety net so we don't have massive
development outside the sanitary district.
Attorney Rich Carlson then wrote the
ordinance with these guidelines in mind. Rich
stated the advantage is that it is discretionary – lot creation can be looked
at on a case by case basis. The
disadvantage is there is a potential for unfairness.
There is less focus on the award/reward system and more focus on the
80/20, which is more 75/25, ratio with a safety net. He has built in exemptions. The ordinance basically amounts
to a crude transfer of development rights.
A compromise of the ordinance is simple administration, fairness, equity
and preserving open space.
Dean Culbertson questioned approval of
lot creation in the order in which they are received.
Dean stated we could have people waiting in line on January 2nd
each year to be the first in line so their lots are approved. Rich Carlson feels that is the most equitable way.
Dean suggested possibly a period of days to submit plans and then decide
at the end of each period. Attorney
Carlson did not like that idea.
Rich Carlson felt the ordinance allows
for subdividing almost the same way they did in the past ten years. The law requires that subdivision plats be acted on within 90
days of submission. At that time,
written notice is to be given for approval or denial along with the reasons.
Rich stated our subdivision ordinance
needs to be beefed up to coincide with the new ordinances and standards that are
being created. If a developer does
not like the decision made by the Planning Commission and then the Town Board,
the next step would be the circuit court.
Paul Tassoul questioned the fact that
the ordinance is back down to two zones. Paul
is concerned with development in the future sewer service area. We do not want real large lots or large tracts of open space
in this area that will someday have to be served by sewer and water.
It is costly to have to run utilities across large acreage.
Dave Tebo explained that the planning areas can still be used.
Attorney Carlson felt that maximum lot size within so many feet of the
sanitary district can be addressed in the criteria.
Rich Carlson is not comfortable with
zones. Subdivision approval is
viewed as non-discretionary whereas an administrative decision can be
discretionary even less so than a rezoning or special use.
Anyone who submits a subdivision and meets the requirements set forth is
entitled to have it approved. It is
similar to a building permit. It
cannot be denied if it meets all the requirements.
It is a ministerial duty. Citizens
should have a good idea of what is required of them.
Erik Fowle from East Central agrees that
the overlay districts might be difficult to administer.
Erik questioned if a new district could be created to address this area.
Mr. Carlson does not like that idea.
He feels it can be addressed by a variety of standards.
We are starting a point 0 for
development. We have 125 lots for a
five year period. There are 25 lots
to start out with. These can be
lots of any type. After the initial
25 lots, the exemptions can be used for lot creation.
Stan Buman questioned if land swapped
for a conservation easement can be swamp land.
The way the ordinance is written now, it could be.
It was decided it should probably be tillable land.
The developer would be required to
either set aside some of his own land for the easement or to purchase the
easement from someone else. This
easement would require that the land forever stay in open space.
Rich Carlson said he will have to define what type of land is suitable
and appropriate. Erik Fowle stated
this could backfire. People may
want to build around an area just because it is being preserved.
It was suggested that we could possibly designate land we want purchased
for things such as trails. That
would not necessarily be a good idea because the land owner could ask any price.
John Julius felt we are not helping the
farmers. Rich Carlson stated that
all hopes and desires have to be put into law.
It needs to be fair and equitable for everyone.
We have some conflicting values. Some
farmers want to subdivide and some do not.
Erik Fowle felt the ordinance does not
give us a lot of control. We are
still scattering lots and not achieving our goal.
Open space could also be scattered.
Shirlee Schuette feels the ordinance has
to many exemptions. She would like
to see point C for the traditional subdivisions eliminated.
Stan Buman questioned the 10 lots. Every
parcel would allow for the creation of 10 lots whether it is 40 acres or 20
acres.
The Planning Commission gave their
comments. Ken Zilisch agrees
with Shirlee Schuette and would like to see point C eliminated.
Ken questioned the 10 lot requirement.
Roger Weihing stated we have to keep the plan as flexible as possible so
we aren't stuck with something forever. We
want to be able to correct errors. Shirley
Solem felt this was a good start. She likes point C. Shirley
feels we need to be flexible. Jim
Ecker stated that the initial 25 lots are being allowed to be any type of
development and after that the exemptions. 25 lots was our target, now it is almost the base.
Jim feels we are not sticking to the math we agreed on.
Rich Carlson stated we may
want to limit the exemptions more. Jim
felt maybe the first 25 or 40 could be the exemptions.
That way we would get 25 of the good ones.
Jim Ecker would be willing to go with a larger number of the good lots.
Rich Carlson stated we could have quotas of the different types of lots.
Stan Buman questioned if the land can be
split into smaller parcels. Stanley
stated development is market driven. You
get what the market drives. The
last 10 years have shown us that.
Paul Tassoul understands that things
have to be black and white. Everyone
is talking flexibility. How do we
protect environmental areas? Rich
Carlson stated we could have a separate zoning district for them.
Paul questioned from an attorney's point and a legal point – how do we
enforce this? Rich Carlson stated
that we take it one step at a time. This
ordinance addresses only the 80/20 ratio.
Dean Culbertson stated we need to give
Rich some direction. Ken Zilisch
made a motion to remove exemption C. There
was no second. Paul Tassoul stated
he wanted the wording changed on the land swap.
Jim Ecker felt we needed to decide where we want those acres for a
conservation easement to be. Rich
Carlson stated we can put a bank of lots out there – a pool of them.
That way a developer could deal with different land owners for the land
to be set aside. We would need a list of people that can be approached for
conservation easements.
Rich Carlson will re-do the exemptions
and put a limit on the creative lots. He
will look at having two levels of things.
Another meeting has been set for January
29th at 6:00 to continue discussion on this topic.
Paul Tassoul made a motion to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting. Ken
Zilisch seconded the motion and it was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. |
