Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Sanitary District Issue: A 30 Million Dollar Question?
What about the sewer system for this development? Has anything come before the sanitary district yet? I don't think that area percs for a conventional development, does it? I know the ABA has its own sewer plant that is very old and couldn't possibly handle a development of this size. What is the answer to this?
REMINDER APRIL 12 MEETING
TOWN OF BROOKLYN PUBLIC HEARING & NOTICE OF JOINT PLAN COMMISSION & TOWN BOARD MEETIN
April 12, 2007 7:00 PM
Location of Meeting: County Board Room at Green Lake County Courthouse
e-mail: broklyn@dotnet.com Web: www.tn.brooklyn.wf.gov
NOTICE OF TOWN BOARD MEETING Members of the Town of Brooklyn Board will attend the Town of Brooklyn Joint Plan Commission and Town Board meeting at the above-specified time and place. The Plan Commission and the Town Board will take action taken on following item:
AGENDA Call joint meeting to order.
Pledge of Allegiance
Certification of Open Meeting Law's
Public Hearing notice and agenda Roll call of both Town Board and Plan Commission members lawsonia fnc and American Baptist Assembly Rezoning
Owner: Lawsonia, Inc. and American Baptist Assembly clo Ken Giacoletto Agent: Davel Engineering, Inc. Tax Parcel #and Description: Parcel; numbers 004-1776-0000, 004-1777-0000, 004-0731-0000, and 0040732-0000, Located in Section 25, T16N R12E, and Section 30, T16N R13E. All parcels located in the Town of Brooklyn Location of Premises Affected: Generally located south of State Road 23, site known as Green Lake Conference Center Explanation: Owner/applicant is requesting multiple zoning changes on the site in question -
1 being a change from R-1 Single-Family residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District and changes from RC Recreational District to R-1 Single-Family Residence District. a. Public hearing b. Review from Strand Engineering c. Committee discussion and deliberation d. Committee decision e. Execute determination 6. Lawsonia Inc and American Baptist Assembly Preliminary Plat O T16N R12E, and Section 30, T16N R13E. Town of Brooklyn Location of Premises Affected: Generally located south of State Road 23, site known as Green Lake Conference Center Explanation:
Preliminary plat for Estates of Lawsonia.
a. Public hearing
b. Review from Strand Engineering
c. Committee discussion and deliberation
d. Committee decision
e. Execute determination
7. Adjourn Requests from persons with disabilities that need assistance to participate in this meeting or hearing made to the town office at 294-6600 with as much advance notice as possible. 1. 2 3 4. 5
Respeclfully submitted,
Marian Mildebrandt, Clerk
April 12, 2007 7:00 PM
Location of Meeting: County Board Room at Green Lake County Courthouse
e-mail: broklyn@dotnet.com Web: www.tn.brooklyn.wf.gov
NOTICE OF TOWN BOARD MEETING Members of the Town of Brooklyn Board will attend the Town of Brooklyn Joint Plan Commission and Town Board meeting at the above-specified time and place. The Plan Commission and the Town Board will take action taken on following item:
AGENDA Call joint meeting to order.
Pledge of Allegiance
Certification of Open Meeting Law's
Public Hearing notice and agenda Roll call of both Town Board and Plan Commission members lawsonia fnc and American Baptist Assembly Rezoning
Owner: Lawsonia, Inc. and American Baptist Assembly clo Ken Giacoletto Agent: Davel Engineering, Inc. Tax Parcel #and Description: Parcel; numbers 004-1776-0000, 004-1777-0000, 004-0731-0000, and 0040732-0000, Located in Section 25, T16N R12E, and Section 30, T16N R13E. All parcels located in the Town of Brooklyn Location of Premises Affected: Generally located south of State Road 23, site known as Green Lake Conference Center Explanation: Owner/applicant is requesting multiple zoning changes on the site in question -
1 being a change from R-1 Single-Family residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District and changes from RC Recreational District to R-1 Single-Family Residence District. a. Public hearing b. Review from Strand Engineering c. Committee discussion and deliberation d. Committee decision e. Execute determination 6. Lawsonia Inc and American Baptist Assembly Preliminary Plat O T16N R12E, and Section 30, T16N R13E. Town of Brooklyn Location of Premises Affected: Generally located south of State Road 23, site known as Green Lake Conference Center Explanation:
Preliminary plat for Estates of Lawsonia.
a. Public hearing
b. Review from Strand Engineering
c. Committee discussion and deliberation
d. Committee decision
e. Execute determination
7. Adjourn Requests from persons with disabilities that need assistance to participate in this meeting or hearing made to the town office at 294-6600 with as much advance notice as possible. 1. 2 3 4. 5
Respeclfully submitted,
Marian Mildebrandt, Clerk
Monday, April 9, 2007
Relevant Links
At the bottom of this page are a few relevant links to these articles. Please feel free to add to them as you feel necessary.
AP Chestnut Article
By ELLIOTT MINOR The Associated Press
Friday, May 19, 2006; 8:05 PM ALBANY, Ga. --
A stand of American chestnut trees that somehow escaped a blight that killed off nearly all their kind in the early 1900s has been discovered along a hiking trail not far from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Little White House at Warm Springs. The find has stirred excitement among those working to restore the American chestnut, and raised hopes that scientists might be able to use the pollen to breed hardier chestnut trees. "There's something about this place that has allowed them to endure the blight," said Nathan Klaus, a biologist with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources who spotted the trees. "It's either that these trees are able to resist the blight, which is unlikely, or Pine Mountain has something unique that is giving these trees resistance."
Experts say it could be that the chestnuts have less competition from other trees along the dry, rocky ridge. The fungus that causes the blight thrives in a moist environment. The largest of the half-dozen or so trees is about 40 feet tall and 20 to 30 years old, and is believed to be the southernmost American chestnut discovered so far that is capable of flowering and producing nuts. "This is a terrific find," said David Keehn, president of the Georgia chapter ofthe American Chestnut Foundation. A tree of this size is one in a million."
Friday, May 19, 2006; 8:05 PM ALBANY, Ga. --
A stand of American chestnut trees that somehow escaped a blight that killed off nearly all their kind in the early 1900s has been discovered along a hiking trail not far from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Little White House at Warm Springs. The find has stirred excitement among those working to restore the American chestnut, and raised hopes that scientists might be able to use the pollen to breed hardier chestnut trees. "There's something about this place that has allowed them to endure the blight," said Nathan Klaus, a biologist with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources who spotted the trees. "It's either that these trees are able to resist the blight, which is unlikely, or Pine Mountain has something unique that is giving these trees resistance."
Experts say it could be that the chestnuts have less competition from other trees along the dry, rocky ridge. The fungus that causes the blight thrives in a moist environment. The largest of the half-dozen or so trees is about 40 feet tall and 20 to 30 years old, and is believed to be the southernmost American chestnut discovered so far that is capable of flowering and producing nuts. "This is a terrific find," said David Keehn, president of the Georgia chapter ofthe American Chestnut Foundation. A tree of this size is one in a million."
American Chestnut Trees
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articlef2006/05/19.._ The chestnut foundation has been working for about 15 years to develop a blight-resistant variety. The goal is to infuse the American chestnut with the blight-resistant genes of the Chinese chestnut. American chestnuts once made up about 25 percent of the forests in the eastern United States, with an estimated 4 billion trees from Maine to Mississippi and Florida. The trees helped satisfy demand for roasted chestnuts, and their rot-resistant wood was used to make fence posts, utility poles, barns, homes, furniture and musical instruments. Then these magnificent hardwoods, which could grow to a height of 100 feet and a diameter of 8 feet or more, were almost entirely wiped out by a fast-spreading fungus discovered in 1904. "There are no chestnuts roasting on an open fire, and if they are, they're Chinese," Keehn said.
Maartens Letter to Conference Center Board
February 27, 2007 !Vir.
Orville Biesenthal
Green Lake County Supervisor
W450 Riese Drive Markesan, WI 53946
Re: March 7, 2007 Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
Items V and VI: Estates of Lawsoma Preliminary Plat and Related Rezone Requests
Dear Supervisor BiesenthaI:
My wife and I own the home at W2965 Hillside Road in the Green Lake Conference Center. I am writing this letter as a concerned homeowner who is also an attorney concentrating on municipal and zoning issues. I am unable to attend the hearing on March 7, 2007, due to a meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals for one of the municipalities I represent. Because I am unable to attend the Green Lake County meeting, I have taken the liberty of describing in this letter some of the legal issues raised by the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat and related rezoning requests.
The first issue which your Committee will decide is whether to layover the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat. There are four key reasons for delaying over the preliminary plat.
The proposed single entry/exit road system serving over 100 homes (including the existing homes on Carpenter Lane) through four cul-de-sacs is unsafe and other layouts must be explored with staff, the developers and the existing homeowners affected by the proposed road system. . The developer should be given the opportunity to petition the appropriate authorities for expansion of the Green Lake Sanitary District's corporate boundaries to include the northern portion of the proposed development . The developer should be given the opportunity to designate land in the subdivision for park purposes.
The developer should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the land proposed for subdivision is not suitable by reason of flooding or potential flooding, soil limitations, inadequate draining, incompatible surrounding Land Use, or any other condition likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents or uses of the area or harmful to the community or the County. We therefore strongly urge you and the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee to layover the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat. If, however, the developer insists that your Committee make a decision on the proposed preliminary plat, we urge you to reject this plat. There are four key reasons for rejecting the proposed preliminary plat.
Reason #1. The developer has failed to satisfy the standards required for granting the requested variations pertaining to the proposed road system. The developer has requested that the County grant numerous variations from the County's subdivision requirements to permit the proposed non-compliant road layout. Before the County Board may grant a variation from the requirements of the Land Division and Subdivision Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), the developer must demonstrate that each requested variation meets all three of the following standards:
Unnecessary Hardship: The developer must demonstrate that compliance with the applicable standards would be unnecessarily burdensome;
Hardship by Unique Limitations: The developer must demonstrate that physical limitations such as, but not limited to, steep slope, wetlands, and/or boundary configuration prevent compliance with the applicable subdivision requirements;
and
No Harm to the Public Interest: The developer must demonstrate that the requested variations(s) do not harm the public interest. To demonstrate how the developer has failed to satisfy the standards required for granting the requested variations, I will address three sections pertaining to street design in the Ordinance. Requested Plat Variations - Cul-de-sac Section The developer seeks variations from Section 315-25B ("Street design standards") which states: Cul-de-sac streets designed to have one end permanently closed shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length to the center of the turnaround. Such streets shall terminate in a circular turnaround having a minimum right-of-way radius of 60 feet and a minimum road surface radius of 40 feet. Specifically, the developer seeks three variations from this section's requirement that cul-de-sacs not exceed 1000 feet as follows: .Shore Drive, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 4,500 feet long; Woodland Terrace, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 1,500 feet long; and .2r.Stone House Road, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 3,500 feet long. The developer has failed to demonstrate that it was unable to comply with the 1,000 foot requirement.
Any hardship has been created by the developer in designing a subdivision with only one point of access. This configuration is unsafe for current (Carpenter Lane) and future residents, because it traps and isolates residents in the event that a road becomes impassable due to a natural disaster or other reasons. Requested Plat Variations - Curves (Radii) and Straightaways (Tangents) Sections The developer also seeks variations from Section 315-25(D) which states: Radii of curvature. When a continuous street center line deflects at anyone point and requires a circular curve, the minimum circular curve shall be 200 feet or that radius deemed appropriate by the local road jurisdiction and from Section 315~25 (F), which states: A tangent at least 100 feet long shall be introduced between reverse curves on all streets. These sections of the Ordinance are complicated, taking us back as they do to our high school geometry classes, but these requirements are vitally important to the safe design of streets. If the curve of the street, as measured by the radius of the curve, is too sharp (200 feet or less), it is not safe to drive. The smaller the radius, the sharper the curve. Similarly, if there is a sharp turn in the road, there should be a straight stretch or straightaway (tangent) of at least 100 feet of road before there is another turn. The straight section allows drivers to get their bearings before making another turn. It also allows drivers in both directions to have clear sight lines to anticipate each others movements. When you look at the center of the roads on the preliminary plat, you will note that the radius is marked at the curves. (We found that a magnifying glass helps.) The developer is requesting the following variations:
Opposite Lot 11 there is a curve on Shore Drive which is marked "R=166.56." This sharp curve violates the ordinance which requires that the radius be at least 200'. Just north of Lot 11 is another sharp curve (see C18) which is marked R=100', half the required 200'. This "s" curve is even more hazardous because there is no 100' tangent, or straightaway, going into the R=lOO' curve (at C18) or 3,. " between this curve and the next one (R=166.56'). especially for two-way traffic. Similarly, just south of this S curve, opposite the common lot line between lots 6 and 7 is a curve where the radius is R=100'. The tangent at this curve does not satisfy the ordinance. This is a dangerous condition, (.The "bubble" or ellipse in Woodlands Terrace, opposite lots 32-34 on the north and 35-38 on the south, contains radii of 100' and 177' with no tangents or straightaways. Again, this is a dangerous condition which violates the curvature .and tangent sections of the Ordinance. The "S"curve which goes into Stone House Road (C46-C44 on the north and C39-C42 on the south) has a sharp curve (R=118.5') and lacks three tangents or straightaways. . The "cul-de-sac" on Stone House Road is shaped more like a triangle, with radii of 85.00' (opposite lot 94) and 37.00' (opposite the cornman lot line between lots 91 and 90). These sharp turns make this cul-de-sac unsafe. The developer has failed to demonstrate that it was unable to comply with the curve (radii) and straightaway (tangent) requirements of the Ordinance. Any hardship has been created by the developer by designing a layout and street system for this 80 acre tract which is unsafe for emergency vehicles, school buses, cars and trucks. Please also note that there are insufficient sight lines for safe travel at a number of locations including the entrance/exit at lot 55 to Buck Rowand the "8" curve along lot 84. Similarly, the sharp turn at Shore Drive and Stone House Road presents a traffic danger as well as queuing problems. Reason #2. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Sewer Easements. Section 315-26 (A) of the Ordinance requires: ... Utility easements shall be identified on the subdivision plat as to type and width. Although the developer states in note 1 on sheet one of four of the preliminary plat that the '''Subdivision [is] to be served by public sanitary sewer," the developer has failed to show- sanitary sewer easements on the plat. Moreover, approximately a quarter of the proposed Jots cannot be served by the Green Lake Sanitary District, because these lots, 4"'I located in the north quarter of the proposed development, lie outside the corporate borders of the District. Reason # 3. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Parks, Playgrounds Or Other Public Green Space. Section 315-13 B of the Ordinance states: Parks, playgrounds, public access facilities, school sites, drainageways and other public green spaces. The Committee may require that not more than 10% of the total area of the subdivision plat be offered for dedication to the County, school district or town to provide appropriate sites for parks, playgrounds, public access points, school sites, drainageways and other public green spaces that will be needed to serve the needs of residents of the proposed subdivision plat. The Committee shall specify the unit of government that shall be offered the dedication of lands for such purposes. Contrary to this provision, the developer had failed to provide any parks, playgrounds or other public green space in its proposed development. Reason # 4. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Data And Information Necessary To Make A Determination Of Land Suitability.
So far as we know, the developer has failed to submit a Stonewater Management and Erosion Control Plan to the County as required by Section 315-27 of the Ordinance. Without such a plan, this Committee is unable to determine whether the land proposed for subdivision is suitable for subdivision as set forth in Section 315-14 ("Land Suitability") of the Ordinance. Subsection A of this section provides: Except as provided herein, the Committee shall determine such unsuitability at the time the subdivision plat is considered for approval. We request that the Committee obtain from the developer all data and information necessary to make a determination, including information about the environmental impacts of the proposed development. We are aware, for example, that a portion of the land proposed for subdivision contains habitat and roosting trees for numerous bald eagles, currently a Threatened Species, during the winter months.
The land proposed for subdivision may also contain mature American Chestnut trees (in or near lots 67 and 68). This species was nearly eradicated by a blight in the early 1905. A copy of a newspaper article from the Washington Post about the discovery of several American Chestnut trees in Georgia last year is attached for your information. Also attached is a copy of a newspaper article from the Green Lake Reporter about the American Chestnuts in the Green Lake Conference Center.
We ask that, pursuant to Section 315-15(G) of the Ordinance, the Committee require that the developer submit a draft of protective covenants explaining how the developer intends to regulate land use in the proposed subdivision plat and otherwise protect the proposed development. We understand, for example, that the developer is promising boat slips for all homeowners who desire them. It is difficult to understand how this would be possible, given that the preliminary plat shows approximately 1200 feet of lake frontage, most of which is protected wetlands.
Summary of Reasons for Rejection of Preliminary Plat.
In summary, the proposed preliminary plat should be rejected because it depicts an unsafe road layout. The developer has not satisfied the standards for the three cul-de-sac variations it seeks (one of which is four and one~halftimes the permitted length of a culde-sac) and the numerous variations it seeks for the sharp turns (we count 12 radii less than 200') and inadequate straightaways (we count 13 tangents which are less than 100') betvveen curves. These are unsafe conditions for emergency vehicles and the traveling public. The proposed preliminary plat should also be rejected because it fails to show sanitary sewer easements or dedicated green space as required by the Ordinance. Moreover, the developer has failed to demonstrate that the land proposed for subdivision is suitable for the proposed use. TIlls Committee cannot make a determination that the land is suitable, because the developer has failed to provide a Stonnwater Management and Erosion Control plan and other critical documents. The Developer's Reguests for Rezoning In addition to all the problems in the Preliminary Plat with roads, sewers, parks, requested variations, and incomplete plan documents, I would now call your attention to another set of issues, raised by the developer, which your Committee will also be considering - the developer's requests for rezoning. 6 ...,
In the paragraphs directly below, I have listed the relevant criteria for decision-making in rezoning requests. I will then address the two requests for rezoning from the developer and will demonstrate how both requests do not meet the criteria.
The Rezoning Criteria In considering a request for a zoning change, recent court cases have cited the following decision-making criteria: a) Consistency with long range planning (comprehensive plan) b) Nature and character of parcel c) Use of sUITOlmding land d) Overall scheme or zoning map e) Consideration of interest in public health, morals and safety f) Promote public welfare, convenience and general prosperity The Develo};1er's Request for Rezoning #1 The developer has requested that portions of eight proposed lots be rezoned from RC Recreation District to R-l Single Family Residence District. The sole reason for the rezoning is to pennit the developer to make more money by squeezing in six more lots into the 80 acre tract proposed for this subdivision. The developer's wish to make more money is not a reason to rezone property or amend the County's Zoning Map. The proposed rezoning ofpoctions of eight lots from RC Recreation District to R-I Single Family District does not meet the above rezoning criteria, as follows: a) The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the long range planning (comprehensive plan) for the land proposed for rezoning_ The Town of Brooklyn's Future Land Use Plan, contained in its Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003, shows the future use of the land proposed for rezoning as "'Recreation/Commercial," not residential. b) The parcels are currently forest lands which are shown as part of the RC Recreation District in the Town of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map contained in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. c) The surrounding land is also forest lands. The Woodlands Golf Course is in the vicinity. This entire area is shown as RC Recreation District in the To\\rn of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map. 7~~ (d) The overall scheme in the Town's Current and Future Land Use Plans is to retain the current use of Recreation/Commercial - that is retain the woods and the golf course. The zoning map, which predates the Town's Comprehensive Plan, shows the area east of the property proposed for rezoning as R-I Single Family Residence District and the area west of the proposed rezone area as RC Recreation District. e) The proposed rezoning would reduce the overall area of recreational zoned lands; these lands benefit the community as a whole and any reduction in these lands would be a loss to the community as a whole. £) The proposed rezoning would tend to reduce the habitat for wildlife, increase congestion in the area and reduce green space. There is an additional reason to deny the developer's request for rezoning from RC Recreation District to R-I Single Family Residence District. Zoning districts are generally delineated by straight lines or natural features, such as a lake or river. This developer is asking that a straight line which separates the RC Recreation District from the R-l Single Family Residence District at this location be changed to an irregular, ill defined line. The developer's desire to make more money is not a reason to alter the County's Zoning Map in this fashion. The developer has failed to meet the criteria for rezoning certain land from RC Recreation District to R-l Single Family Residence District, therefore we strongly urge that the rezoning request be denied. The Develo}2er's Request for Rezoning - #2 The developer is also requesting that a .9 acre parcel near Highway 23, at the northeast corner of the Green Lake Conference Center grounds, be rezoned from R-l Single Family Residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District. Section 350-33 ("C-2 Extensive Commercial District") describes this district as follows: The C-2 Extensive Commercial District is intended to provide an area for business and commercial needs of a much broader natwe than the C-l General Commercial District. This includes those businesses that may require fairly large area of land, or for which it is desirable that 8.(they be located awl{}' from other activities, or that they be located adjacent to a highway or other major thoroughfare. Among the permitted uses in the C-2 District are a number of stores and shops, including book stores, drugstores and food and drug establishments (retail). The sale of alcoholic liquor is often licensed in food and drug establishments. Adult book store owners will argue, sometimes successfully, that they are a permissible use as a book store. The developer states that it intends to use the vacant house (House of Seven Gables) on the proposed C-2 parcel as a sales office for the proposed subdivision. There is, of course, no guarantee or requirement that the proposed C-2 parcel will be used in this way, especially as circlUllstances change over the years. The developer could have applied for an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance to add "sales offices for new subdivisions for not more than five years" as a conditional use, similar to the existing conditional use for contractor's trailers. Concurrent with the request for this text amendment, the developer could have asked for approval for a conditional use for a sales office on the .9 acre parceL Instead, the developer has asked for a map amendment (R-l to C-2), which should be denied, because it does not meet the six criteria for a map amendment. a) Consistency with long range planning (comprehensive plan). The proposed rezoning of the .9 acre parcel to C-2 Extensive Commercial District is not consistent with long range planning (comprehensive plan). The Town of Brooklyn's Future Land Use Plan, contained in its comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003, shows the future use of this parcel as "RecreationJCommercial" (e.g. forest and a golf course), not Extensive Commercial, as requested by the developer. Please note that the To"WIl has a separate and distinct classification for "Commercial" in its Future Land Use Plan. C-2 Extensive Commercial District is within this "Commercial" classification; it is not within the "Recreation/Commercial" classification. b) Nature and character of parcel. The.9 Acre parcel is currently improved with a vacant house (House of Seven Gables). This parcel is part of the RC Recreation 9. -;-- -~ . District in the Town of Brooklyn' s Current Land Use Map contained in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. c) Use of surrounding land The surrounding land is forest lands. The Woodlands Golf Course is in the vicinity. This entire area is shown as RC Recreation District in the Town of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map. Across Highway 23, a state highway, is a parcel which is shown as "Commercial" on the Town's Future Land Use Plan and "C-2 Commercial" on the Town's Current Land Use Map. d) Overall scheme or zoning map. The overall scheme in the Town's Current and Future Land Use Plans is to retain the current use of Recreation/Commerical for the.9 Acre parcel, that is, retain the woods, existing house and nearby golf course. The zoning map, which predates the Town's Comprehensive Plan, shows this.9 acre parcel as R-l Single Family Residence District. e) Consideration of interest in public health, morals and safety. Rezoning the .9 acre parcel ITom R-l Single Family Residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District is not in the public interest. It constitutes spot zoning, a practice often found illegal by the courts, because it singles out a small parcel for a change in zoning classification that is out of harmony "With comprehensive planning for the good of the community. f) Promote public welfare, convenience and general prosperity. While the proposed rezoning of the .9 acre parcel to C-2 Extensive Commercial District may benefit the developer, it does not promote the public welfare for the community as a whole. The developer has failed to meet the criteria for rezoning the .9 acre parcel from R-t Single Family Residence District to C -2 Extensive Commercial District. Consequently this rezoning request should be denied. 10 I'/ . Develonment Done Right Contrary to what some might have you believe, the interested neighbors in the Green Lake Conference Center are not anti-development. After all, many of us bought our lots from the ABA/GLCe We simply want any development to be done right. Our watchwords are: "Development Done Right." The Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat and related rezoning requests are not done right. We urge you to reject the Preliminary Plat or to require substantial revisions to comply with state and local law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda C. Martens
cc: Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee Members Al Shute, Land Development Director Interested Neighbors Steve Sorenson 11
Orville Biesenthal
Green Lake County Supervisor
W450 Riese Drive Markesan, WI 53946
Re: March 7, 2007 Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
Items V and VI: Estates of Lawsoma Preliminary Plat and Related Rezone Requests
Dear Supervisor BiesenthaI:
My wife and I own the home at W2965 Hillside Road in the Green Lake Conference Center. I am writing this letter as a concerned homeowner who is also an attorney concentrating on municipal and zoning issues. I am unable to attend the hearing on March 7, 2007, due to a meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals for one of the municipalities I represent. Because I am unable to attend the Green Lake County meeting, I have taken the liberty of describing in this letter some of the legal issues raised by the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat and related rezoning requests.
The first issue which your Committee will decide is whether to layover the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat. There are four key reasons for delaying over the preliminary plat.
The proposed single entry/exit road system serving over 100 homes (including the existing homes on Carpenter Lane) through four cul-de-sacs is unsafe and other layouts must be explored with staff, the developers and the existing homeowners affected by the proposed road system. . The developer should be given the opportunity to petition the appropriate authorities for expansion of the Green Lake Sanitary District's corporate boundaries to include the northern portion of the proposed development . The developer should be given the opportunity to designate land in the subdivision for park purposes.
The developer should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the land proposed for subdivision is not suitable by reason of flooding or potential flooding, soil limitations, inadequate draining, incompatible surrounding Land Use, or any other condition likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents or uses of the area or harmful to the community or the County. We therefore strongly urge you and the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee to layover the proposed Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat. If, however, the developer insists that your Committee make a decision on the proposed preliminary plat, we urge you to reject this plat. There are four key reasons for rejecting the proposed preliminary plat.
Reason #1. The developer has failed to satisfy the standards required for granting the requested variations pertaining to the proposed road system. The developer has requested that the County grant numerous variations from the County's subdivision requirements to permit the proposed non-compliant road layout. Before the County Board may grant a variation from the requirements of the Land Division and Subdivision Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), the developer must demonstrate that each requested variation meets all three of the following standards:
Unnecessary Hardship: The developer must demonstrate that compliance with the applicable standards would be unnecessarily burdensome;
Hardship by Unique Limitations: The developer must demonstrate that physical limitations such as, but not limited to, steep slope, wetlands, and/or boundary configuration prevent compliance with the applicable subdivision requirements;
and
No Harm to the Public Interest: The developer must demonstrate that the requested variations(s) do not harm the public interest. To demonstrate how the developer has failed to satisfy the standards required for granting the requested variations, I will address three sections pertaining to street design in the Ordinance. Requested Plat Variations - Cul-de-sac Section The developer seeks variations from Section 315-25B ("Street design standards") which states: Cul-de-sac streets designed to have one end permanently closed shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length to the center of the turnaround. Such streets shall terminate in a circular turnaround having a minimum right-of-way radius of 60 feet and a minimum road surface radius of 40 feet. Specifically, the developer seeks three variations from this section's requirement that cul-de-sacs not exceed 1000 feet as follows: .Shore Drive, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 4,500 feet long; Woodland Terrace, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 1,500 feet long; and .2r.Stone House Road, which is a cul-de-sac, is over 3,500 feet long. The developer has failed to demonstrate that it was unable to comply with the 1,000 foot requirement.
Any hardship has been created by the developer in designing a subdivision with only one point of access. This configuration is unsafe for current (Carpenter Lane) and future residents, because it traps and isolates residents in the event that a road becomes impassable due to a natural disaster or other reasons. Requested Plat Variations - Curves (Radii) and Straightaways (Tangents) Sections The developer also seeks variations from Section 315-25(D) which states: Radii of curvature. When a continuous street center line deflects at anyone point and requires a circular curve, the minimum circular curve shall be 200 feet or that radius deemed appropriate by the local road jurisdiction and from Section 315~25 (F), which states: A tangent at least 100 feet long shall be introduced between reverse curves on all streets. These sections of the Ordinance are complicated, taking us back as they do to our high school geometry classes, but these requirements are vitally important to the safe design of streets. If the curve of the street, as measured by the radius of the curve, is too sharp (200 feet or less), it is not safe to drive. The smaller the radius, the sharper the curve. Similarly, if there is a sharp turn in the road, there should be a straight stretch or straightaway (tangent) of at least 100 feet of road before there is another turn. The straight section allows drivers to get their bearings before making another turn. It also allows drivers in both directions to have clear sight lines to anticipate each others movements. When you look at the center of the roads on the preliminary plat, you will note that the radius is marked at the curves. (We found that a magnifying glass helps.) The developer is requesting the following variations:
Opposite Lot 11 there is a curve on Shore Drive which is marked "R=166.56." This sharp curve violates the ordinance which requires that the radius be at least 200'. Just north of Lot 11 is another sharp curve (see C18) which is marked R=100', half the required 200'. This "s" curve is even more hazardous because there is no 100' tangent, or straightaway, going into the R=lOO' curve (at C18) or 3,. " between this curve and the next one (R=166.56'). especially for two-way traffic. Similarly, just south of this S curve, opposite the common lot line between lots 6 and 7 is a curve where the radius is R=100'. The tangent at this curve does not satisfy the ordinance. This is a dangerous condition, (.The "bubble" or ellipse in Woodlands Terrace, opposite lots 32-34 on the north and 35-38 on the south, contains radii of 100' and 177' with no tangents or straightaways. Again, this is a dangerous condition which violates the curvature .and tangent sections of the Ordinance. The "S"curve which goes into Stone House Road (C46-C44 on the north and C39-C42 on the south) has a sharp curve (R=118.5') and lacks three tangents or straightaways. . The "cul-de-sac" on Stone House Road is shaped more like a triangle, with radii of 85.00' (opposite lot 94) and 37.00' (opposite the cornman lot line between lots 91 and 90). These sharp turns make this cul-de-sac unsafe. The developer has failed to demonstrate that it was unable to comply with the curve (radii) and straightaway (tangent) requirements of the Ordinance. Any hardship has been created by the developer by designing a layout and street system for this 80 acre tract which is unsafe for emergency vehicles, school buses, cars and trucks. Please also note that there are insufficient sight lines for safe travel at a number of locations including the entrance/exit at lot 55 to Buck Rowand the "8" curve along lot 84. Similarly, the sharp turn at Shore Drive and Stone House Road presents a traffic danger as well as queuing problems. Reason #2. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Sewer Easements. Section 315-26 (A) of the Ordinance requires: ... Utility easements shall be identified on the subdivision plat as to type and width. Although the developer states in note 1 on sheet one of four of the preliminary plat that the '''Subdivision [is] to be served by public sanitary sewer," the developer has failed to show- sanitary sewer easements on the plat. Moreover, approximately a quarter of the proposed Jots cannot be served by the Green Lake Sanitary District, because these lots, 4"'I located in the north quarter of the proposed development, lie outside the corporate borders of the District. Reason # 3. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Parks, Playgrounds Or Other Public Green Space. Section 315-13 B of the Ordinance states: Parks, playgrounds, public access facilities, school sites, drainageways and other public green spaces. The Committee may require that not more than 10% of the total area of the subdivision plat be offered for dedication to the County, school district or town to provide appropriate sites for parks, playgrounds, public access points, school sites, drainageways and other public green spaces that will be needed to serve the needs of residents of the proposed subdivision plat. The Committee shall specify the unit of government that shall be offered the dedication of lands for such purposes. Contrary to this provision, the developer had failed to provide any parks, playgrounds or other public green space in its proposed development. Reason # 4. The Developer Has Failed To Provide Data And Information Necessary To Make A Determination Of Land Suitability.
So far as we know, the developer has failed to submit a Stonewater Management and Erosion Control Plan to the County as required by Section 315-27 of the Ordinance. Without such a plan, this Committee is unable to determine whether the land proposed for subdivision is suitable for subdivision as set forth in Section 315-14 ("Land Suitability") of the Ordinance. Subsection A of this section provides: Except as provided herein, the Committee shall determine such unsuitability at the time the subdivision plat is considered for approval. We request that the Committee obtain from the developer all data and information necessary to make a determination, including information about the environmental impacts of the proposed development. We are aware, for example, that a portion of the land proposed for subdivision contains habitat and roosting trees for numerous bald eagles, currently a Threatened Species, during the winter months.
The land proposed for subdivision may also contain mature American Chestnut trees (in or near lots 67 and 68). This species was nearly eradicated by a blight in the early 1905. A copy of a newspaper article from the Washington Post about the discovery of several American Chestnut trees in Georgia last year is attached for your information. Also attached is a copy of a newspaper article from the Green Lake Reporter about the American Chestnuts in the Green Lake Conference Center.
We ask that, pursuant to Section 315-15(G) of the Ordinance, the Committee require that the developer submit a draft of protective covenants explaining how the developer intends to regulate land use in the proposed subdivision plat and otherwise protect the proposed development. We understand, for example, that the developer is promising boat slips for all homeowners who desire them. It is difficult to understand how this would be possible, given that the preliminary plat shows approximately 1200 feet of lake frontage, most of which is protected wetlands.
Summary of Reasons for Rejection of Preliminary Plat.
In summary, the proposed preliminary plat should be rejected because it depicts an unsafe road layout. The developer has not satisfied the standards for the three cul-de-sac variations it seeks (one of which is four and one~halftimes the permitted length of a culde-sac) and the numerous variations it seeks for the sharp turns (we count 12 radii less than 200') and inadequate straightaways (we count 13 tangents which are less than 100') betvveen curves. These are unsafe conditions for emergency vehicles and the traveling public. The proposed preliminary plat should also be rejected because it fails to show sanitary sewer easements or dedicated green space as required by the Ordinance. Moreover, the developer has failed to demonstrate that the land proposed for subdivision is suitable for the proposed use. TIlls Committee cannot make a determination that the land is suitable, because the developer has failed to provide a Stonnwater Management and Erosion Control plan and other critical documents. The Developer's Reguests for Rezoning In addition to all the problems in the Preliminary Plat with roads, sewers, parks, requested variations, and incomplete plan documents, I would now call your attention to another set of issues, raised by the developer, which your Committee will also be considering - the developer's requests for rezoning. 6 ...,
In the paragraphs directly below, I have listed the relevant criteria for decision-making in rezoning requests. I will then address the two requests for rezoning from the developer and will demonstrate how both requests do not meet the criteria.
The Rezoning Criteria In considering a request for a zoning change, recent court cases have cited the following decision-making criteria: a) Consistency with long range planning (comprehensive plan) b) Nature and character of parcel c) Use of sUITOlmding land d) Overall scheme or zoning map e) Consideration of interest in public health, morals and safety f) Promote public welfare, convenience and general prosperity The Develo};1er's Request for Rezoning #1 The developer has requested that portions of eight proposed lots be rezoned from RC Recreation District to R-l Single Family Residence District. The sole reason for the rezoning is to pennit the developer to make more money by squeezing in six more lots into the 80 acre tract proposed for this subdivision. The developer's wish to make more money is not a reason to rezone property or amend the County's Zoning Map. The proposed rezoning ofpoctions of eight lots from RC Recreation District to R-I Single Family District does not meet the above rezoning criteria, as follows: a) The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the long range planning (comprehensive plan) for the land proposed for rezoning_ The Town of Brooklyn's Future Land Use Plan, contained in its Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003, shows the future use of the land proposed for rezoning as "'Recreation/Commercial," not residential. b) The parcels are currently forest lands which are shown as part of the RC Recreation District in the Town of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map contained in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. c) The surrounding land is also forest lands. The Woodlands Golf Course is in the vicinity. This entire area is shown as RC Recreation District in the To\\rn of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map. 7~~ (d) The overall scheme in the Town's Current and Future Land Use Plans is to retain the current use of Recreation/Commercial - that is retain the woods and the golf course. The zoning map, which predates the Town's Comprehensive Plan, shows the area east of the property proposed for rezoning as R-I Single Family Residence District and the area west of the proposed rezone area as RC Recreation District. e) The proposed rezoning would reduce the overall area of recreational zoned lands; these lands benefit the community as a whole and any reduction in these lands would be a loss to the community as a whole. £) The proposed rezoning would tend to reduce the habitat for wildlife, increase congestion in the area and reduce green space. There is an additional reason to deny the developer's request for rezoning from RC Recreation District to R-I Single Family Residence District. Zoning districts are generally delineated by straight lines or natural features, such as a lake or river. This developer is asking that a straight line which separates the RC Recreation District from the R-l Single Family Residence District at this location be changed to an irregular, ill defined line. The developer's desire to make more money is not a reason to alter the County's Zoning Map in this fashion. The developer has failed to meet the criteria for rezoning certain land from RC Recreation District to R-l Single Family Residence District, therefore we strongly urge that the rezoning request be denied. The Develo}2er's Request for Rezoning - #2 The developer is also requesting that a .9 acre parcel near Highway 23, at the northeast corner of the Green Lake Conference Center grounds, be rezoned from R-l Single Family Residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District. Section 350-33 ("C-2 Extensive Commercial District") describes this district as follows: The C-2 Extensive Commercial District is intended to provide an area for business and commercial needs of a much broader natwe than the C-l General Commercial District. This includes those businesses that may require fairly large area of land, or for which it is desirable that 8.(they be located awl{}' from other activities, or that they be located adjacent to a highway or other major thoroughfare. Among the permitted uses in the C-2 District are a number of stores and shops, including book stores, drugstores and food and drug establishments (retail). The sale of alcoholic liquor is often licensed in food and drug establishments. Adult book store owners will argue, sometimes successfully, that they are a permissible use as a book store. The developer states that it intends to use the vacant house (House of Seven Gables) on the proposed C-2 parcel as a sales office for the proposed subdivision. There is, of course, no guarantee or requirement that the proposed C-2 parcel will be used in this way, especially as circlUllstances change over the years. The developer could have applied for an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance to add "sales offices for new subdivisions for not more than five years" as a conditional use, similar to the existing conditional use for contractor's trailers. Concurrent with the request for this text amendment, the developer could have asked for approval for a conditional use for a sales office on the .9 acre parceL Instead, the developer has asked for a map amendment (R-l to C-2), which should be denied, because it does not meet the six criteria for a map amendment. a) Consistency with long range planning (comprehensive plan). The proposed rezoning of the .9 acre parcel to C-2 Extensive Commercial District is not consistent with long range planning (comprehensive plan). The Town of Brooklyn's Future Land Use Plan, contained in its comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003, shows the future use of this parcel as "RecreationJCommercial" (e.g. forest and a golf course), not Extensive Commercial, as requested by the developer. Please note that the To"WIl has a separate and distinct classification for "Commercial" in its Future Land Use Plan. C-2 Extensive Commercial District is within this "Commercial" classification; it is not within the "Recreation/Commercial" classification. b) Nature and character of parcel. The.9 Acre parcel is currently improved with a vacant house (House of Seven Gables). This parcel is part of the RC Recreation 9. -;-- -~ . District in the Town of Brooklyn' s Current Land Use Map contained in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. c) Use of surrounding land The surrounding land is forest lands. The Woodlands Golf Course is in the vicinity. This entire area is shown as RC Recreation District in the Town of Brooklyn's Current Land Use Map. Across Highway 23, a state highway, is a parcel which is shown as "Commercial" on the Town's Future Land Use Plan and "C-2 Commercial" on the Town's Current Land Use Map. d) Overall scheme or zoning map. The overall scheme in the Town's Current and Future Land Use Plans is to retain the current use of Recreation/Commerical for the.9 Acre parcel, that is, retain the woods, existing house and nearby golf course. The zoning map, which predates the Town's Comprehensive Plan, shows this.9 acre parcel as R-l Single Family Residence District. e) Consideration of interest in public health, morals and safety. Rezoning the .9 acre parcel ITom R-l Single Family Residence District to C-2 Extensive Commercial District is not in the public interest. It constitutes spot zoning, a practice often found illegal by the courts, because it singles out a small parcel for a change in zoning classification that is out of harmony "With comprehensive planning for the good of the community. f) Promote public welfare, convenience and general prosperity. While the proposed rezoning of the .9 acre parcel to C-2 Extensive Commercial District may benefit the developer, it does not promote the public welfare for the community as a whole. The developer has failed to meet the criteria for rezoning the .9 acre parcel from R-t Single Family Residence District to C -2 Extensive Commercial District. Consequently this rezoning request should be denied. 10 I'/ . Develonment Done Right Contrary to what some might have you believe, the interested neighbors in the Green Lake Conference Center are not anti-development. After all, many of us bought our lots from the ABA/GLCe We simply want any development to be done right. Our watchwords are: "Development Done Right." The Estates of Lawsonia Preliminary Plat and related rezoning requests are not done right. We urge you to reject the Preliminary Plat or to require substantial revisions to comply with state and local law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda C. Martens
cc: Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee Members Al Shute, Land Development Director Interested Neighbors Steve Sorenson 11
Bishop Letter to Conference Center
IMarch 2, 2007
To: Members of the Green Lake County Planning and Zoning Board
From: Richard C. Bishop
Re: March 7 Consideration of the Application by Lawsonia, Inc. and the American Baptist Assembly For Approval ofa Preliminary Plat for the Estates of Lawsonia and Associated Zoning Changes
SUMMARY
My purpose in writing to you is to urge you not to approve the preliminary plat and rezoning petitions for the Estates of Lawsonia, a proposal being brought forward by Lawsonia, Inc., and the American Baptist Assembly (ABA) submitted on January 3,2007 and later amended on February 2. I recognize that preliminary plats are often accepted conditionally, even when there are some loose ends to be cleared up. However, for reasons I will spell out below, I believe there is a strong case that approval of the preliminary plat would be premature given the number and importance of the questions that have yet to be answered. Because of the magnitude of the proposal and the potential importance of its impacts on public safety and the environment, the simplest thing might be to reject the preliminary plat and suggest that they come back if and when they get their act together. If you do decide instead that the proposal should be laid over, I wouJd suggest that you specify that you will not reconsider the proposal until several important reviews are completed and the plat and rezoning requests are revised accordingly. These include:
.The Town of Brooklyn's review of over 600 pages of materials on a wide variety of topics related to the development. Highway safety is among the important issues being considered by the town. (What is learned during the town's review may be relevant to the county as well as the town.)
Reviews by DNR of the proposed stonn water plan. (How can the preliminary plat be approved until the county is fully infonned about the steps that will be taken to protect water quality in Green Lake?)
Review by the DNR of the proposed commitment on the part of the developers and ABA to insta11 up to 179 new piers.
Review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the wetlands delineation and possible reconsideration ofthe DNR approval of the delineation in light of the Corps' reVIew.
-Review by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation of proposed modification of Wisconsin Highway 23 in proximity to the new gate for entering the proposed subdivision.
....These and possibly other reviews are critical to understanding the implications ofthe proposal for public safety and for the health of the Green Lake ecosystem.
Frankly, I am particularly struck by the lackadaisical attitude toward the environment of those bringing this proposal to you. They have been slow to get started on plans for sanitary sewer. They appear to be oblivious to opportunities to work with the DNR on environmental issues, apparently taking it for granted that they will get the pennits they need. Everyone I
.
have talked to at the DNR says that the process works a whole lot better if responsible DNR personnel are "in the loop" from the beginning. Furthennore, they are not just dealing \vith the DNR. They are requesting approval of their plans from a community that is gifted with wonderful environmental resources and that is economically heavily dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism. This might have been satisfactory in 1950. In the context of21 ~ Century American environmental values, it is irresponsible. They need a clear mes.s.aQe from you.
WHO AM I AND WHAT ARE MY INTERESTS IN THIS lel" TTERo
Before explaining my reasoning, let me introduce myself. My wife, Coral Bishop, and I. along with four other families, own Cedarwood, W2354 Carpenter Lane. We use Cedcn..-ood as a family and church retreat. We also rent Cedarwood in order to make our ov.;nership economically feasible and to serve guests of the ABA and other visitors to the Green La.l;:e area. Coral and I have our primary home in Madison. We are both active members of me First Baptist Church of Madison, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA and the American Baptist Churches of Wisconsin.
Professionally, I served for 32 years as a member of the faculty of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, including SLX years as chair ofthat department. My teaching and research \vere in the area of environmental economics. I retired from the University a year ago and am cUITem]y working as a consultant where I conduct contract research for federal and state agencies and private companies on issues related to environmental economics and public policy.
,- -
-~_..~ ~ "~. -- -
Coral and I are convinced that ABA is doing wonderful work, both in tenns of long standing programs and the new initiative to build leadership in struggling churches (Project Kingdom21). We also recognize that it has large financial needs that must be met ifit is to continue and expand its ministries. We-and nearly all the other property O\\TIers-realize that some land development is likely to be necessary to secure its future. On the other hand, we fear that the ABA Board and Lindenwood have vastly overestimated the market for single fami1y tract homes off the lakeshore. Because the project wiII require millions of dollars of investment upfront in infrastructure, this is a very risky venture that could easily lead to further financial distress rather than relieving it. Of course, it is not your job to evaluate the financial risks of such proposals, but if this endeavor fails financially surely the county will be affected.
Finally, I come to you with a number of environmental issues thafhave not been adequately addressed. Late last summer and again more recently, I and other property owners volunteered to work with the ABA to seek development options that would meet its financial needs and yet be more sensitive to protection of Green Lake and other environmental resources. That offer still st
2
ANALYSIS
I take as my starting point the Section 315-43 of the County Code, which sets forth the standards for granting or denying a request for a plat variation, which I will quote here for easy reference: "Where the Committee finds that strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter would be unreasonably burdensome, it may vary the regulations so th[at] substantia] justice may be done, provided that the public interest is secured and that such variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations."
Among the" intent and purpose" of the regulations, as set forth in Section 315-3, are the foJlowing:
*Guide future growth and development to be consistent with adopted land use plans;
*Secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other danger;
*Prevent overcrowding and avoid undue population concentration and urban sprawl;
*Provide the most beneficial relationship between the use of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic, considering the proper location and width of streets, building lines and pedestrian traffic movement;
*Guide public and private policy in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation and other public requirements and facilities:
*Protect the character and value ofland throughout Green Lake County by development which minimizes conflicts between the uses of land and preserves natural topography.
I note further the definition of "variance" from Section 350-10:
V ARlANCE - A modification or variation of the provisions of this chapter where it is detennined that, by reason of special and unusual circwnstances relating to a specific lot, strict application of this chapter would cause an undue hardship and is not contrary to the public interest.
Requested variations from the code have yet to be justified in ways that meet these criteria. Hence, the preliminary plat and rezoning requests should not be approved until a revised preliminary plat is submiUed that meets the county code or variations are adequately justified. Let me elaborate:
L The }:;IfOl2osed 12lat and rezoning are not consistent with "adol2ted land use QJans." Hence the QroQosal needs to be revised to corresl1ond to existing Qlans exceQt in cases where the develoQer can clearly demonstrate that consistency would cause "substantial injustice."
Discussion: The letter from Dick Martens to members of the Planning and Zoning Board makes this case clearly. I am in full agreement with Mr. Martens' remarks and need not repeat them here.
3c ~.
2. The QroQosed road system does not meet acceQted standards for Qrotection of Qublic safety. Furthermore, the develoQer does not show that the roads as I2roQosed would "Qrovide the most beneficial relationshiQ between the use of land and buildim:!:s and the circulation of traffic, considering the Qrof'er location and width of streets. building lines and )2edestrian traffic movement."
Discussion: Again Mr. Martens' letter presents most of the arguments relating to roads clearly, particularly when combined with the Jetter from Tom and Edie Johnston. I would only add a few additional points.
First, apparently the developers believe that county and town standards relating to curve radii and tangents and cul-de-sacs are not necessary. If so, then what standards are being applied to protect public safety? Any such standards must take into consideration the needs of everyone working at and using the conference center grounds. The current system ofroads not only carries vehicles but also large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists \-vho are guests on the grounds and who enjoy the lake and landscapes away from the central conference area. Adding close to 100 new residences on the east side wouJd add a lor ofrraffic. Whether the proposed widening and re-routing of Shore Drive and proposed improvements in Stone House Road would be adequate to carryall the vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists safely seems questionable. The issue of road safety will become eyeo more important ifrhe proposed west side developmenr, involving more than 70 additionaJ new residences, is brought fOf\vard in future years.
Second, there is currently direct access--from Carpenter Lane to the-main conference"!"" grounds to attend conferences and use the Boat House, dining facilities, the beach area and other recreational facilities, and the golf courses. This access is used often not only by property owners, but also b:y those of us who rent housing on Carpenter Lane, including Cedaf\vood. We frequently rent to those \-"ishing to attend conferences and/or use the golf courses. Presumably O\-\11erS and renters of pro perry in the new subdivision will also want to enjoy such activities. Under the proposed development we \-vould all lose direct access to the rest of the ABA. Access to the main grounds would require going up to the intersection with Highway 23, passing through a locked gate, turning left into aU the traffic on the highway, traveling a short distance on the highway, and then making another left turn across oncoming traffic and into the main gate at Lawson Drive. This will subject all of us to significant risks of traffic accidents and hardly constitutes "the most beneficial relationship between the use of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic" as called for in the county code. This is why 1 am suggesting the Wisconsin DOT, as well as the county and town, needs to be heard from on safety issues before this proposal goes fonvard.
3. The develoQers have not yet'Qrovided evidence that their QroQosal will "12revent overcrowding and avoid undue QOQulation concentration and urban sQrawl."
Discussion: What constitutes overcrowding and undue population concentration is, of course, a judgment call. But let's look at it from the perspective of four different groups. First, there are the current property owners in the area. I can assure you that we on Carpenter Lane are going to feel very crowded if more than 90 houses are built between us and Highway 23. Nearly all the woods on that part of the grounds would
4
be converted to housing, changing open space composed of golf course and woods into a golf course surrounded for the most part by houses crowded together tightly in a suburban style. Large numbers of additional people will be driving the roads, using common spaces such as those along the lakefront, walking and bicycling, and engaging in water sports on this part ofthe lake. This problem will be exacerbated by the lakeshore properties, where II homes are proposed to be crowded very tightly together relative to the other housing on this part of the shoreline. Furthennore, in draft "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Estates of Lawsonia" filed with the town, the Estates of Lawsonia Home Owners Association is obligated to provide docks for Lots 1-24 along the shoreline in ITont of the lakeshore lots. The ABA agrees to lease dock space to ali other lot owners at unspecified locations. Reading of this document makes it clear that this is intended to cover owners ofaB 179 lots included in the western I and eastern subdivisions combined. Much crowding both along the shoreline and inland seems ipevitable, not to mention more than a hundred new watercraft concentrated on the already crowded north side of the lake.
The second affected group would be the all the visitors to the ABA. If these subdivisions go forward, these visitors, ranging from 'first time visitors to those who have come to the ABA for years, will find a very different, much more crowded environment as they drive, walk, and bicycle the grounds and enjoy water sports. They will accordingly take home different memories, memories that will come into play when they are deciding whether to come again.
Third is the larger community around Green Lake. The more crowded lake and shoreJine \vil! surely affect them. Furthermore, when 1 am out walking on the grounds, I do encounter people from the surrounding area occasionally. They are enjoying the same woods and wildlife as I am in a beautiful and uncrowded environment. They will lose this opportunity just as we will if this development proceeds as proposed.
Fourth are the owners ofthe new housing. Perhaps we can depend on them to choose whether they want to live in such crowded conditions. But if they do, they will experience the same crowded lake, shoreline, roads, and inland landscape as the rest of us.
Urban sprawl, like crowding, is to some extent subjective. Some might argue that golf oriented homes on a golf course arc quite appropriate. What I see instead are single family houses scattered across the landscape in a manner that bears little relationship to existing housing. Doesn't that seem like urban sprawl to you?
4. The QroQosed subdivision may fail "to j;!rotect the character of the land ... in Green Lake County," eS)2ecially if land is defined in the broad sense to include the full environment. The I2roQosal does give considerable attention to wetlands and stonn water runoff, but it remains
I The subdivision on the west side is not part of the proposed plat but has been planned by Lindemvood and displayed prominently on its web site (http://www.estatesoflawsonia.eoml).ltis mentioned clearly in the draft "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Estates ofLawsonia" filed with the Town of Brooklyn as part ofthe proposed pJat under discussion here. For example, on p. 8, in a section dealing with membership in the homeowners' association, it states, "Every beneficial owner (fee simple ownership as distinguished from a security holder) of Lots 1 through 179 shall be a member."
5to be seen whether these efforts will Qass muster with the DNR and other 12ublic agencies. Furthermore, other environmental issues have not been considered in any der~th at all~
Discussion:
Wetlands: This issue has been addressed by the developer, who hired a consultant, Bates Soil and Water Testing of Hortonville. A report dated January 1, 2007 and filed with the town (and I assume the county) proposes to delineate a wetland of nearly 2 acres adjacent to and partially overlapping with Lots 7~I 1 in the preliminary plat. DNR Water Management Specialist Michael Russo has signed off on the Bates report. My understanding is that the Corps of Engineers also has authority over wetlands delineations. When I called Kyle Zibung of the Corps, he was somewhat surprised that the DNR had signed off already. His understanding was that he and another DNR :Water Management Specialist, Shawn Eisch, would visit the site in the spring to review the Bates delineation when they could observe living vegetation. I verified by phone that this was also Shawn Eisch's understanding, although Mr. Eisch hastened to add that he has a high degree of confidence in Mr. Russo. Nevertheless, Zibung and Eisch intend to visit the site in Mayor June and revie\v the Bates delineation. Mr. Zibung stressed that it can be tricky judging wetland boundaries unless you can see the vegetation. The Bates delineation may be approved by the Corps and reaffirmed by the DNR at that time. However, I haye urged Zibung and Bisch to give careful attention to the south\vest boundary of the Bates delineation which ends at the boundary behveen Lots 6 and 7 may not be correct. The wetland in question may extend in a narrow strip further along the lake edge of all or parts of Lots 1~6. Wetland boundaries could be important for the deveiopers' plans. If I rcad the proposed preliminary plat correctly, the dcvelopers propose to retain an easement for a walking path along the lakeshore in this area. Depending on the wetland boundary, this path could be very hard to build without some fiIling, which will, according to Mr. Zibung, make Corps approval necessary.
There are also issues relating to the vegetation within the wetlands as finaIly delineated. Much, if 110t aU, of this area is current1y heavily wooded. It is not clear to me, at least, how much of this vegetation can be removed under Green Lake COlUlty'S ordinances in order to provide views of the lake that the new shoreline lot owners are ]ikely to demand. Will the developer be back later requesting variances from shoreline protection and wetland protection rules in order to make these lots marketable?
Protection of Green Lake from storm water related J2011ution: The developer has prepared an extensive stann water protection plan which has been submitted'to the town and presumably to the county and DNR. However, to my knowledge, the DNR review has not been completed and we will have to see if it is sufficient to meet state requirements. As you well know, this is a very important part of safeguards needed to protcct Green Lake. Problems somewhat similar to those associated with roads may 11eed to be addressed before the DNR can approve a final version of this plan. For example, Shawn Eisch pointed out to me that the southern most stann water retention pond is located very close to the lake in clear violation ofDNR rules that such facilities be located at least 500 feet back. As of Friday, March 2, Jennifer Huffman, Stormwater Management SpeciaJist with the DNR , who will be the person
6
iJlegal to "disturb" bald eagles. The federal government, through its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is in the process of clarifying what it means to disturb bald eagles. Let me provide you with some quotations from two documents, the "Draft Environmental Assessment: Definition of 'Disturb' as applied under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection,,3, which I will refer to as the EA (for Environmental Assessment), and the draft "Draft Bald Eagle Management Guidelines,>4, which I wil1 refer to simply as the Guidelines.
One question is, how sensitive are bald eagles to human activities? In mentioning the eagles on the ABA grounds to people around Green Lake, some people react by saying that bald eagles are tame. They have seen one or more eagles at close range on a regular basis. On the other hand, eagles on the roost I mentioned seem very sensitive, taking flight when we get closer than a fe\v hundred yards. What gives? The EA puts it this way,
Numerous studies have sought to measure the sensitivity of bald eagles to a variety of human activities..., and have shown that bald eagle pairs may react to human activities very differently. Some pairs nest successfully just dozens of yards from human activity, while others abandon nest sites in response to activities much farther away. This variability may be related to a nwnber of factors, including visibility, duration, noise levels, e"\."tent of the area affected by the activity, prior experiences with humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting pair.
Specifically addr~ssing disturbances at roosting and foraging sites, the EA says,
Human activities near or within foraging areas and communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if no other adequate feeding and roosting sites are available.
The EA proposes to define disturb as f01l0ws (emphasis in original),
Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that causes (i) injury or death to an eagle (including chicks and eggs) due to interference with breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (ii) nest abandonment.
It should be noted that this is a proposed definition and has not been approved as finaL
The Guidelines include the following:
The foHowing are additional management practices that land owners and planners can exercise to benefit bald eagles. Many of these recommendations are designed to protect and preserve bald eagle habitat. In some cases, these practices can be critical to ensure against il1egal take under the BGEPA [Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act].
3 http://w\vw.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issueslBaJdEaglelDisturbEA.pdf
4 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/Mgmt.Guidelines.2006.pdf
8
To: Members of the Green Lake County Planning and Zoning Board
From: Richard C. Bishop
Re: March 7 Consideration of the Application by Lawsonia, Inc. and the American Baptist Assembly For Approval ofa Preliminary Plat for the Estates of Lawsonia and Associated Zoning Changes
SUMMARY
My purpose in writing to you is to urge you not to approve the preliminary plat and rezoning petitions for the Estates of Lawsonia, a proposal being brought forward by Lawsonia, Inc., and the American Baptist Assembly (ABA) submitted on January 3,2007 and later amended on February 2. I recognize that preliminary plats are often accepted conditionally, even when there are some loose ends to be cleared up. However, for reasons I will spell out below, I believe there is a strong case that approval of the preliminary plat would be premature given the number and importance of the questions that have yet to be answered. Because of the magnitude of the proposal and the potential importance of its impacts on public safety and the environment, the simplest thing might be to reject the preliminary plat and suggest that they come back if and when they get their act together. If you do decide instead that the proposal should be laid over, I wouJd suggest that you specify that you will not reconsider the proposal until several important reviews are completed and the plat and rezoning requests are revised accordingly. These include:
.The Town of Brooklyn's review of over 600 pages of materials on a wide variety of topics related to the development. Highway safety is among the important issues being considered by the town. (What is learned during the town's review may be relevant to the county as well as the town.)
Reviews by DNR of the proposed stonn water plan. (How can the preliminary plat be approved until the county is fully infonned about the steps that will be taken to protect water quality in Green Lake?)
Review by the DNR of the proposed commitment on the part of the developers and ABA to insta11 up to 179 new piers.
Review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the wetlands delineation and possible reconsideration ofthe DNR approval of the delineation in light of the Corps' reVIew.
-Review by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation of proposed modification of Wisconsin Highway 23 in proximity to the new gate for entering the proposed subdivision.
....These and possibly other reviews are critical to understanding the implications ofthe proposal for public safety and for the health of the Green Lake ecosystem.
Frankly, I am particularly struck by the lackadaisical attitude toward the environment of those bringing this proposal to you. They have been slow to get started on plans for sanitary sewer. They appear to be oblivious to opportunities to work with the DNR on environmental issues, apparently taking it for granted that they will get the pennits they need. Everyone I
.
have talked to at the DNR says that the process works a whole lot better if responsible DNR personnel are "in the loop" from the beginning. Furthennore, they are not just dealing \vith the DNR. They are requesting approval of their plans from a community that is gifted with wonderful environmental resources and that is economically heavily dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism. This might have been satisfactory in 1950. In the context of21 ~ Century American environmental values, it is irresponsible. They need a clear mes.s.aQe from you.
WHO AM I AND WHAT ARE MY INTERESTS IN THIS lel" TTERo
Before explaining my reasoning, let me introduce myself. My wife, Coral Bishop, and I. along with four other families, own Cedarwood, W2354 Carpenter Lane. We use Cedcn..-ood as a family and church retreat. We also rent Cedarwood in order to make our ov.;nership economically feasible and to serve guests of the ABA and other visitors to the Green La.l;:e area. Coral and I have our primary home in Madison. We are both active members of me First Baptist Church of Madison, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA and the American Baptist Churches of Wisconsin.
Professionally, I served for 32 years as a member of the faculty of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, including SLX years as chair ofthat department. My teaching and research \vere in the area of environmental economics. I retired from the University a year ago and am cUITem]y working as a consultant where I conduct contract research for federal and state agencies and private companies on issues related to environmental economics and public policy.
,- -
-~_..~ ~ "~. -- -
Coral and I are convinced that ABA is doing wonderful work, both in tenns of long standing programs and the new initiative to build leadership in struggling churches (Project Kingdom21). We also recognize that it has large financial needs that must be met ifit is to continue and expand its ministries. We-and nearly all the other property O\\TIers-realize that some land development is likely to be necessary to secure its future. On the other hand, we fear that the ABA Board and Lindenwood have vastly overestimated the market for single fami1y tract homes off the lakeshore. Because the project wiII require millions of dollars of investment upfront in infrastructure, this is a very risky venture that could easily lead to further financial distress rather than relieving it. Of course, it is not your job to evaluate the financial risks of such proposals, but if this endeavor fails financially surely the county will be affected.
Finally, I come to you with a number of environmental issues thafhave not been adequately addressed. Late last summer and again more recently, I and other property owners volunteered to work with the ABA to seek development options that would meet its financial needs and yet be more sensitive to protection of Green Lake and other environmental resources. That offer still st
2
ANALYSIS
I take as my starting point the Section 315-43 of the County Code, which sets forth the standards for granting or denying a request for a plat variation, which I will quote here for easy reference: "Where the Committee finds that strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter would be unreasonably burdensome, it may vary the regulations so th[at] substantia] justice may be done, provided that the public interest is secured and that such variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations."
Among the" intent and purpose" of the regulations, as set forth in Section 315-3, are the foJlowing:
*Guide future growth and development to be consistent with adopted land use plans;
*Secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other danger;
*Prevent overcrowding and avoid undue population concentration and urban sprawl;
*Provide the most beneficial relationship between the use of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic, considering the proper location and width of streets, building lines and pedestrian traffic movement;
*Guide public and private policy in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation and other public requirements and facilities:
*Protect the character and value ofland throughout Green Lake County by development which minimizes conflicts between the uses of land and preserves natural topography.
I note further the definition of "variance" from Section 350-10:
V ARlANCE - A modification or variation of the provisions of this chapter where it is detennined that, by reason of special and unusual circwnstances relating to a specific lot, strict application of this chapter would cause an undue hardship and is not contrary to the public interest.
Requested variations from the code have yet to be justified in ways that meet these criteria. Hence, the preliminary plat and rezoning requests should not be approved until a revised preliminary plat is submiUed that meets the county code or variations are adequately justified. Let me elaborate:
L The }:;IfOl2osed 12lat and rezoning are not consistent with "adol2ted land use QJans." Hence the QroQosal needs to be revised to corresl1ond to existing Qlans exceQt in cases where the develoQer can clearly demonstrate that consistency would cause "substantial injustice."
Discussion: The letter from Dick Martens to members of the Planning and Zoning Board makes this case clearly. I am in full agreement with Mr. Martens' remarks and need not repeat them here.
3c ~.
2. The QroQosed road system does not meet acceQted standards for Qrotection of Qublic safety. Furthermore, the develoQer does not show that the roads as I2roQosed would "Qrovide the most beneficial relationshiQ between the use of land and buildim:!:s and the circulation of traffic, considering the Qrof'er location and width of streets. building lines and )2edestrian traffic movement."
Discussion: Again Mr. Martens' letter presents most of the arguments relating to roads clearly, particularly when combined with the Jetter from Tom and Edie Johnston. I would only add a few additional points.
First, apparently the developers believe that county and town standards relating to curve radii and tangents and cul-de-sacs are not necessary. If so, then what standards are being applied to protect public safety? Any such standards must take into consideration the needs of everyone working at and using the conference center grounds. The current system ofroads not only carries vehicles but also large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists \-vho are guests on the grounds and who enjoy the lake and landscapes away from the central conference area. Adding close to 100 new residences on the east side wouJd add a lor ofrraffic. Whether the proposed widening and re-routing of Shore Drive and proposed improvements in Stone House Road would be adequate to carryall the vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists safely seems questionable. The issue of road safety will become eyeo more important ifrhe proposed west side developmenr, involving more than 70 additionaJ new residences, is brought fOf\vard in future years.
Second, there is currently direct access--from Carpenter Lane to the-main conference"!"" grounds to attend conferences and use the Boat House, dining facilities, the beach area and other recreational facilities, and the golf courses. This access is used often not only by property owners, but also b:y those of us who rent housing on Carpenter Lane, including Cedaf\vood. We frequently rent to those \-"ishing to attend conferences and/or use the golf courses. Presumably O\-\11erS and renters of pro perry in the new subdivision will also want to enjoy such activities. Under the proposed development we \-vould all lose direct access to the rest of the ABA. Access to the main grounds would require going up to the intersection with Highway 23, passing through a locked gate, turning left into aU the traffic on the highway, traveling a short distance on the highway, and then making another left turn across oncoming traffic and into the main gate at Lawson Drive. This will subject all of us to significant risks of traffic accidents and hardly constitutes "the most beneficial relationship between the use of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic" as called for in the county code. This is why 1 am suggesting the Wisconsin DOT, as well as the county and town, needs to be heard from on safety issues before this proposal goes fonvard.
3. The develoQers have not yet'Qrovided evidence that their QroQosal will "12revent overcrowding and avoid undue QOQulation concentration and urban sQrawl."
Discussion: What constitutes overcrowding and undue population concentration is, of course, a judgment call. But let's look at it from the perspective of four different groups. First, there are the current property owners in the area. I can assure you that we on Carpenter Lane are going to feel very crowded if more than 90 houses are built between us and Highway 23. Nearly all the woods on that part of the grounds would
4
be converted to housing, changing open space composed of golf course and woods into a golf course surrounded for the most part by houses crowded together tightly in a suburban style. Large numbers of additional people will be driving the roads, using common spaces such as those along the lakefront, walking and bicycling, and engaging in water sports on this part ofthe lake. This problem will be exacerbated by the lakeshore properties, where II homes are proposed to be crowded very tightly together relative to the other housing on this part of the shoreline. Furthennore, in draft "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Estates of Lawsonia" filed with the town, the Estates of Lawsonia Home Owners Association is obligated to provide docks for Lots 1-24 along the shoreline in ITont of the lakeshore lots. The ABA agrees to lease dock space to ali other lot owners at unspecified locations. Reading of this document makes it clear that this is intended to cover owners ofaB 179 lots included in the western I and eastern subdivisions combined. Much crowding both along the shoreline and inland seems ipevitable, not to mention more than a hundred new watercraft concentrated on the already crowded north side of the lake.
The second affected group would be the all the visitors to the ABA. If these subdivisions go forward, these visitors, ranging from 'first time visitors to those who have come to the ABA for years, will find a very different, much more crowded environment as they drive, walk, and bicycle the grounds and enjoy water sports. They will accordingly take home different memories, memories that will come into play when they are deciding whether to come again.
Third is the larger community around Green Lake. The more crowded lake and shoreJine \vil! surely affect them. Furthermore, when 1 am out walking on the grounds, I do encounter people from the surrounding area occasionally. They are enjoying the same woods and wildlife as I am in a beautiful and uncrowded environment. They will lose this opportunity just as we will if this development proceeds as proposed.
Fourth are the owners ofthe new housing. Perhaps we can depend on them to choose whether they want to live in such crowded conditions. But if they do, they will experience the same crowded lake, shoreline, roads, and inland landscape as the rest of us.
Urban sprawl, like crowding, is to some extent subjective. Some might argue that golf oriented homes on a golf course arc quite appropriate. What I see instead are single family houses scattered across the landscape in a manner that bears little relationship to existing housing. Doesn't that seem like urban sprawl to you?
4. The QroQosed subdivision may fail "to j;!rotect the character of the land ... in Green Lake County," eS)2ecially if land is defined in the broad sense to include the full environment. The I2roQosal does give considerable attention to wetlands and stonn water runoff, but it remains
I The subdivision on the west side is not part of the proposed plat but has been planned by Lindemvood and displayed prominently on its web site (http://www.estatesoflawsonia.eoml).ltis mentioned clearly in the draft "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Estates ofLawsonia" filed with the Town of Brooklyn as part ofthe proposed pJat under discussion here. For example, on p. 8, in a section dealing with membership in the homeowners' association, it states, "Every beneficial owner (fee simple ownership as distinguished from a security holder) of Lots 1 through 179 shall be a member."
5to be seen whether these efforts will Qass muster with the DNR and other 12ublic agencies. Furthermore, other environmental issues have not been considered in any der~th at all~
Discussion:
Wetlands: This issue has been addressed by the developer, who hired a consultant, Bates Soil and Water Testing of Hortonville. A report dated January 1, 2007 and filed with the town (and I assume the county) proposes to delineate a wetland of nearly 2 acres adjacent to and partially overlapping with Lots 7~I 1 in the preliminary plat. DNR Water Management Specialist Michael Russo has signed off on the Bates report. My understanding is that the Corps of Engineers also has authority over wetlands delineations. When I called Kyle Zibung of the Corps, he was somewhat surprised that the DNR had signed off already. His understanding was that he and another DNR :Water Management Specialist, Shawn Eisch, would visit the site in the spring to review the Bates delineation when they could observe living vegetation. I verified by phone that this was also Shawn Eisch's understanding, although Mr. Eisch hastened to add that he has a high degree of confidence in Mr. Russo. Nevertheless, Zibung and Eisch intend to visit the site in Mayor June and revie\v the Bates delineation. Mr. Zibung stressed that it can be tricky judging wetland boundaries unless you can see the vegetation. The Bates delineation may be approved by the Corps and reaffirmed by the DNR at that time. However, I haye urged Zibung and Bisch to give careful attention to the south\vest boundary of the Bates delineation which ends at the boundary behveen Lots 6 and 7 may not be correct. The wetland in question may extend in a narrow strip further along the lake edge of all or parts of Lots 1~6. Wetland boundaries could be important for the deveiopers' plans. If I rcad the proposed preliminary plat correctly, the dcvelopers propose to retain an easement for a walking path along the lakeshore in this area. Depending on the wetland boundary, this path could be very hard to build without some fiIling, which will, according to Mr. Zibung, make Corps approval necessary.
There are also issues relating to the vegetation within the wetlands as finaIly delineated. Much, if 110t aU, of this area is current1y heavily wooded. It is not clear to me, at least, how much of this vegetation can be removed under Green Lake COlUlty'S ordinances in order to provide views of the lake that the new shoreline lot owners are ]ikely to demand. Will the developer be back later requesting variances from shoreline protection and wetland protection rules in order to make these lots marketable?
Protection of Green Lake from storm water related J2011ution: The developer has prepared an extensive stann water protection plan which has been submitted'to the town and presumably to the county and DNR. However, to my knowledge, the DNR review has not been completed and we will have to see if it is sufficient to meet state requirements. As you well know, this is a very important part of safeguards needed to protcct Green Lake. Problems somewhat similar to those associated with roads may 11eed to be addressed before the DNR can approve a final version of this plan. For example, Shawn Eisch pointed out to me that the southern most stann water retention pond is located very close to the lake in clear violation ofDNR rules that such facilities be located at least 500 feet back. As of Friday, March 2, Jennifer Huffman, Stormwater Management SpeciaJist with the DNR , who will be the person
6
iJlegal to "disturb" bald eagles. The federal government, through its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is in the process of clarifying what it means to disturb bald eagles. Let me provide you with some quotations from two documents, the "Draft Environmental Assessment: Definition of 'Disturb' as applied under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection,,3, which I will refer to as the EA (for Environmental Assessment), and the draft "Draft Bald Eagle Management Guidelines,>4, which I wil1 refer to simply as the Guidelines.
One question is, how sensitive are bald eagles to human activities? In mentioning the eagles on the ABA grounds to people around Green Lake, some people react by saying that bald eagles are tame. They have seen one or more eagles at close range on a regular basis. On the other hand, eagles on the roost I mentioned seem very sensitive, taking flight when we get closer than a fe\v hundred yards. What gives? The EA puts it this way,
Numerous studies have sought to measure the sensitivity of bald eagles to a variety of human activities..., and have shown that bald eagle pairs may react to human activities very differently. Some pairs nest successfully just dozens of yards from human activity, while others abandon nest sites in response to activities much farther away. This variability may be related to a nwnber of factors, including visibility, duration, noise levels, e"\."tent of the area affected by the activity, prior experiences with humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting pair.
Specifically addr~ssing disturbances at roosting and foraging sites, the EA says,
Human activities near or within foraging areas and communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if no other adequate feeding and roosting sites are available.
The EA proposes to define disturb as f01l0ws (emphasis in original),
Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that causes (i) injury or death to an eagle (including chicks and eggs) due to interference with breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (ii) nest abandonment.
It should be noted that this is a proposed definition and has not been approved as finaL
The Guidelines include the following:
The foHowing are additional management practices that land owners and planners can exercise to benefit bald eagles. Many of these recommendations are designed to protect and preserve bald eagle habitat. In some cases, these practices can be critical to ensure against il1egal take under the BGEPA [Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act].
3 http://w\vw.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issueslBaJdEaglelDisturbEA.pdf
4 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/Mgmt.Guidelines.2006.pdf
8
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)