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
No comments:
Post a Comment