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