You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for Christ's hands,
one nation of the God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
All right, the next item is public comment
and I just want to inform those here.
This is public comment for anything
that you wish to talk about.
I know that there's a number of people
that are signed up for public comment
as it relates to the public hearing.
The ZMA 26-02 will hear from you at the time
that that business is in front of the board,
which is a little further into our program here tonight.
Signed up for public hearing on anything
is Rachel Kirschner.
If you could bring yourself up
and share your thoughts, name and address, please.
All right, good evening.
My name is Rachel Kirschner.
I live at 2613 136 Avenue in the town of Paris.
I'm here tonight because Mount Pleasant
has forgotten what it means to be a good neighbor.
Good neighbors don't approve massive industrial projects
that affect surrounding communities
like Surtivin and Summers.
And then expect everyone else to live
with the consequences.
The Microsoft Data Center Campus is unlike anything
this area has ever seen.
Residents have raised concerns
about noise and equality of life.
I have personally experienced sensations in ear popping
while driving by the facility on Saturday.
The facility needs to be shut down
until this infrasound sound is fixed.
If it hasn't been shut down yet, this is not acceptable.
And guess what?
You're not only affecting Summers and Surtivin residents.
You're also affecting Paris, Kenosha,
Union Grove and Summers again.
In fact, the entire Milwaukee, Chicago corridor,
Red Oak owned by Anavir G,
wants to build a massive 1.2 gigabyte
gigawatt natural gas plant
to support Microsoft data centers in the town of Paris.
That's why I'm here.
That should concern everyone in this room.
You're going to all breathe this polluted air
because Microsoft wants and needs a lot of electricity to run.
One industrial project leads to another.
First comes the data center, then comes the gas plant,
then comes more transmission infrastructure,
more industrialization, more noise, more impacts
on neighboring communities.
At what point do you say enough is enough?
You call this economic development.
Many of us see it as sacrificing our communities.
So one of the world's richest corporations
can continue expanding.
Mount Pleasant may receive the tax revenue,
but your neighbors are being asked to accept its impacts.
That is not being a good neighbor.
People deserve leaders willing to protect residents
and neighbors just as strong as they
protect corporate investments.
Please stop treating neighboring communities
as acceptable collateral damage for your pursuit
for the next billion dollar project.
It's time to put people first before profits.
So in everything, do others what you would do,
have them do to you.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Public comment?
OK, not hearing from anybody.
We'll close public comment and we'll move on
to the concerned agenda.
Mr. President, I make a motion to approve the items
and consent agenda excluding item number six,
assignment of municipal revenue obligation
bond pursuant to 10 number two development agreements.
Second.
Motion and second.
All favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Then that matter passes.
Mr. President, I just need to make a note to the clerk.
I need to recuse myself from item F1 on the consent agenda.
I wasn't president to me.
Thank you.
Good?
OK.
So under new business, we have ordinance number seven dash 2026,
which is brown road, oak road, comprehensive plan agreement,
CPA26-1, public hearing regarding ordinance seven dash 2026.
So regarding public hearings, following a brief presentation
by staff, I'll open the public hearing.
If you wish to speak, please fill out a public hearing
form, which is on the table near the entrance.
Once recognized, speakers should come to the podium
and identify themselves with their name and address.
Please speak clearly into the microphone.
Speakers must direct all discussions towards the board.
I will not allow interchange between members of the audience
and the petitioner.
We request that you not interfere with, nor interject
comments while another person has the floor.
This is to ensure respectful and orderly process.
Please keep all comments on the particular item
before the board, and at most five minutes.
Finally, to ensure a focused and productive hearing,
please turn off or mute all electronic devices.
Thank you, Mr. President.
So this is a complaint amendment for the brown road and Oaks
Road, the future Oaks Road connection.
First off, I would like to kind of preemptively apologize
for my rather crude visualization there.
This is why I'm a planner and not an engineer.
But it is a fairly accurate representation
of what the different developments are,
and stacking the plats on top of each other
would look even more confusing.
So this is basically an amendment
to the transportation element of the multi-jurisdictional
compliance, so it doesn't touch land use or anything
like that.
The applicant wishes to reconfigure the roadways
to match their future preliminary plan,
so that is the bare development on the left side
of the map, which is at the bottom of it is the circle.
Furthermore, the comprehensive plan update
will delete unneeded connections, such as a bridge
across the Pike River that are no longer feasible.
It will also incorporate the Villages Brown Road
reconstruction project with a roundabout at Brown and Oaks
Road, an indication that there will not
be sidewalk on a portion of the north side of Brown Road,
as discussed in the village board.
And establishing this in the comp plan
kind of enshrines that as you guys' recommendation,
as well as it also incorporates a proposed road layout
for the Cardinal Capital development, which
is two parcels over, and one that aligns with the road network
as it comes out of the bare development one.
So this is basically a transportation element
that matches all of those together so they play nice.
It is very hard to see from back here,
but I do have a yellow box around the intersection
of Brown Road and what would be the Cardinal Capital
development.
That is development and TIA, which
is a traffic impact analysis dependent intersection.
So what they would recommend depends on both the developer
and the TIA.
Right now, the only TIA we have is for the Brown Road
development, and it assumes a connection of Biscayne
Avenue, which is probably not likely for a very long time.
So with that being said, that is the essential of it,
is that it would be adopting this,
as well as the Villages Brown Road Reconstruction Project
plan, which includes a multi-use transportation bike
path on the south side and known sidewalk on the north side,
as well as adopting these plans as approved.
There's also significant portions that remain the same,
such as the Yates Road extension and connection,
and the Biscayne connection that goes across the development.
Those are consistent among the current transportation
plan and the future one.
One other clarification.
The address for this is 5-7-1-4.
So I got some interesting comments
thinking that it was for the other side of Brown.
No, it's for the one that's closest to Pike River.
OK.
So regarding ordinance 7-2026 and CPA 26-1,
I don't know that I have anybody signed up for this,
but I have to open the public hearing relative to that.
Those that I have signed up are for ZMA-226.
That would be what, for Emerson?
Yes.
Yeah.
I've got one for this.
Awesome.
I've got somebody signed up for CPA 26-2.
That's the next one.
Yeah, Emerson.
Just turn that in.
OK.
Yeah.
Can we hear from Matt?
Matt Kramer.
Matt Kramer, 7202 Brown Road.
We are at the property, as Robin puts it,
who is in the path of three roadways
to play nice between the two developments.
And I just want to share with everybody.
You all probably already know that we weren't consulted
at all in regards to this plan.
The village puts a plan together that puts roadways
across our family's farm with no input from us.
So consider the fairness, consider the cooperation,
and the lack of servitude from our local government
in doing so.
It's not very American.
It doesn't stand for our values very well, in my opinion,
to put a plan together, incorporating someone else's
private property, and give them no input on what's
going to be done with that property.
That's all I got.
Anybody else?
Nobody else signed up for that particular one.
So that being the case, we'll close public comment
regarding that.
And is there a motion?
Oh, no motion necessary.
This and other comp plans will go to next.
They go to plan commission to be where a recommendation is
drafted, a resolution is drafted, which
comes back to the village board for an ordinance approval.
OK, so we'll close the public hearing on that.
We'll go to the next public hearing,
which is ordinance 8-2026, 630 Emerson Road,
comp plan amendment, CPA 26-2.
Again, I need to hear from staff on that,
and then we'll go back to the public hearing.
Robin.
OK.
So I'm going to just see it a little bit.
So the action is lined in the village
and the part of the transportation element of multi-year
to build a complex accounting.
That's input is the reason that you're
growing the match to be.
Are you mic'd up?
I am not mic'd up.
Sometimes it's hard to tell because I'm just kind of loud.
So thank you.
So this is ordinance 8-2026 for 630 Emerson Road
comp plan amendment.
The applicant applied to amend the transportation element.
The applicant wishes to reconfigure the road's ways
to match the lineage's state's preliminary plat, PSP 26-1,
and also specify which roads which would provide access
to Emerson Road.
The village staff has requested an added additional neighboring
amendments to this application to remove some
of the neighboring proposed roadways
to reflect their final location.
So in particular, this one had two connections,
both one east and one west that went through houses.
It was a very old plat plan that was proposed.
This one also solidifies that the connection to Emerson
would be to the south through Kinsey.
And at the plan commission, we discussed specifically
whether or not to require that access further north,
giving the sort of property control issues.
There's also a connection to explore a drive
to the immediate south.
I have been contacted by a representative, the son-in-law,
of the owner of that property that
says that she is interested in potentially selling
the back half of that to ensure that connection
in the future.
So that eliminates one of the main issues
that we had when we were talking about this,
but the fact that it was going to have only one connection
and that's for a long time.
So the other one is just basically filling out portions
that already existed on our transportation plan, connecting
Kinsey to Emerson.
The existing one had four connections in the stretch,
and that was too much.
So this complaint is just pretty much figuring out
which ones to connect and how to do that.
It also rounds out the connection to King's view
into sort of like a cul-de-sac that was essentially
before an up and then a right angle.
All the roads here are basically development dependent.
So it's under control of the property owner,
whether or not that gets built.
It's just whenever a development comes in
from that property owner, we have
something that's on paper saying that this is
what the public connections we would like to.
Certain localities, I could think of Brookfield
has tried to impose roadway connections
that weren't on paper, and they lost that in court.
So we need to have them on paper
in order to ever ask them of anybody.
So that's why we do this.
And that is pretty much it.
This is just the transportation element.
It is not the zoning, which is a different public hearing.
Okay, so let's go to the public comment part of this.
Same rules apply five minutes.
I've got Ben Barron signed up.
Mr. Barron.
If you'd like to come up, give us your thoughts.
Ben Barron, 720 son of you drive.
And I'd like to address the proposal
of the zoning amendment map ZMA-26-02,
and along with it kind of ties together
in my mind with the comprehensive road map.
The concern that we have is not specifically
with the proposed subdivision,
but the current proposal has,
even they have an extending west from Emerson,
directly into explore drive, which ends at son of you.
This road would become a shortcut to sunny slope.
It'd be a lot more traffic.
It kind of ruined our quiet little area.
We have them all pleasant.
And on a personal note, concern would be,
is that road would go directly into our property.
So I'm concerned it'd be a race way from Emerson,
all the way right to my front yard.
So we're kind of, we'd really encourage
a reconsideration on that road.
Could something be done either with altering Haven
or altering explore just to alleviate that issue?
That's all I got.
Thank you.
Anybody else have signed up for this?
Okay.
I just wanted to add that the current
that is like a good current proposed road.
You want to make yourself back up again?
Okay, sorry.
That is a current, that is on the proposed road layer
as it is right now, and so that has been heard
and I'll take that forward, so thank you.
So that's the current one, it has that mapped on there.
So it's probably from a long time ago, so thank you.
Okay.
There being nobody else wanting to speak on this,
we can close public comment on that,
and I don't need any motion on this one either then.
So let's move on to Ordnance 5-2026,
Zoning Map Amendment for Emerson Road,
and Green Valley Drive, ZMA.
26-2, back to Robin.
All right, thanks.
I got under a lot of talking,
so I'm going to speed up this one to everybody's delight.
So this is ZMA-2602, this concerns the same parcel
of land for, that we just considered for the comp plan,
and it also matches the subdivision SPP-26001,
linear to states.
The rezone is from AG1 Limited Agriculture to RL,
which is low density residential,
and that matches with the comprehensive plan,
and it also matches with almost all of the properties
around there.
So the, like pale banana yellow is AG1, I believe,
and the bright yellow is RL.
So all the residential subdivisions are RL in this area,
until you get further down towards Kinsey,
where they get a little bit more dense.
This is for 11.73 acres.
This rezone proposal is accompanied by a subdivision plait,
and they are paired together,
because in order to get RL lots, you have to subdivide it.
That subdivision plait has 22 lots with duplex condos,
much like the ones that are to the north.
So this is consistent with the comp plan,
and that came out of our playing commission
as a recommendation for approval.
There was discussion kind of in tandem
with the subdivision plait about construction access
and access in general,
but the zoning was non-controversial,
and we went to the subdivision plait,
so those are separate issues.
That's it?
Oh, yeah, well, that,
both the playing commission and staff recommend approval,
and yeah, that's generally it.
This matches everything around it,
and the comprehensive plan.
I told you I was trying to keep it short.
Okay, thank you.
So let's open up public hearing regarding this one.
Again, same rules apply.
I have two people signed up for this,
if I could hear from Lynn Byer.
Is that the correct pronunciation?
And when you get up to the podium,
name and address for the record.
My name's Lynn Byer, 6235, King's View Drive.
I'm here tonight representing the
doesn't create condo association,
and we respectfully request clarification
on several items before construction begins.
Our primary concerns are clarification
regarding the temporary construction access road
from Emerson Road.
Will this road be used for all phases of construction,
including road sewers, utilities, and building construction?
Next residents are concerned that heavy construction equipment
and material deliveries could be routed
through existing neighborhood streets,
causing unnecessary traffic, safety concerns,
and damage to the private roads within our community,
our condominium community.
Information regarding the anticipated construction schedule
and colluding the phases of development
and established timeline for,
or estimated timeline for completion.
We respectfully request that the approved
construction documents specifically require,
number one, that all construction traffic,
heavy equipment, contractors, and material deliveries
utilize the designated construction entrance
from Emerson Road throughout the project.
Number two, the construction traffic
cannot be permitted to travel through Hilltop Drive,
Kingsview Drive, and Green Valley Drive.
Number three, the construction documents clearly state
that the quail point and Partridge Hill are private roads
and are not to be used for construction traffic.
Including these requirements in the construction documents
will help provide our private roads,
improve safety, and minimize disruption during construction.
We appreciate your consideration
and respectfully request clarification
before final improvement and commencement of construction.
Thank you.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Can we hear from Stephanie Thier?
Name and address for the record.
Hello, Stephanie Toyer, I live at 520 Green Valley Drive,
which is at the end of the dead end.
I'd like to convey some of the concerns
for myself and neighbors, your constituents.
We realize the land is going to be developed
and there will be an access way
to the subdivision from our street.
Our concern is our street,
which already goes to a subdivision,
is going to be the only access point to this.
We have heard over and over that it is acceptable
to DOT standards.
DOT approval is also the same decision makers
who approve the working on Spring Street,
making it a single lane while under construction
and extremely difficult to get critically injured people
to the emergency rooms.
Another thing we keep hearing is,
the DOT is bigger concern regarding traffic
from Amazon, FedEx, and UPS trucks.
Not the potential for additional 88 vehicles
coming in and out of that way.
Unfortunately, standards do not always take
into account all of the variables,
such as our subdivision and residents are older
and are out walking, and unfortunately,
more times than not have emergency vehicles
going in and out of our area.
One example of that is from a couple of years ago,
the condo at the end of Green Valley Drive
had their alarm system going off,
to the point where others could hear it and called 911.
I came home to find the street and my driveway blocked
and I had emergency vehicles in my driveway,
even though I was not the unit being involved.
Luckily, this was a non-emergency
and they were able to get in and turn off the alarm,
but thinking back on this, if this was the incident
where we had all of this develop where to happen,
excuse me, all of those individuals would be stuck
and the emergency vehicles would need to be cleared out
for all of those individuals living in those 44 units
to get passed.
Let alone somebody needing emergency assistance there.
Safety needs to come first.
We need to have two ways in and out.
I am asking you as trustees to take a minute
and plan for today and for tomorrow
to look out for the best interest
of our current and future residents.
Please table this until the owner, developers and village
can devise a plan where they can have multiple entry points,
not just in the building phase in the future
or potentially purchasing lots in the future,
but truly having true entry points on the plan
that can be utilized immediately
and when the development is done.
Whether it's off Emerson or the landowner purchases
or works out in Eastman with the parcel on Explorer.
As a resident of Mount Pleasant,
I am asking you as our elected trustees
to take more time to analyze this development
to provide multiple entrances
to make sure the safety of our residents
is first and foremost.
Thank you so very much for your time.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Anybody else wanted to speak on this particular issue?
I have nobody else signed up,
so we can close public comment on that
and then this one we do.
How can we first have motion
and then we'll open up to the board for discussion.
Mr. President, I make a motion to ordinance,
to move ordinance five days, 2026
for a zoning map amendment on Emerson Road
and Green Valley Drive as presented.
Second.
So I hear a motion and a second.
Now we can open this up to the board for discussion.
I imagine that some may have questions for Robin,
given what has been brought up
in terms of construction access and such things.
I'd just like to remind everybody
that this is a zoning piece of business
in front of the board
and we're a long ways away from construction.
So, Gina, you would mention something.
Robin, can we make a plan to have a different entrance
so that all the traffic for the construction
is not going through this area?
I was in that neighborhood today and over the weekend
and it is truly an older community.
I mean, it's not a retirement community
but it kind of feels like that.
So, to me, and I drove every street,
it would be, I think it would be very detrimental
to the neighborhood if we didn't have
another entrance on Emerson
if it all had to go through these private roads.
So is that something you can consider doing?
That's actually girl's power actually and approving it.
So if you have concerns about health, public safety,
welfare, stuff like that and amending a plan
or proposing conditions,
you have the authority to place conditions
on the approval of especially the subdivision plat
as far as those concerns are.
That is also why there was a condo plat amendment.
We recommend we had a condition placed on
that there be a private road route,
private reservation for access along that 18 feet.
So that wasn't transferred away from this property.
So that is one of them.
I do agree that access to explorers should be worked out
and that one access is never ideal in the long form.
However, Green Valley is the public road.
So to say that, no, you can't use that road access
for public purpose, which is to construct
additional parts of that public road.
I don't like that because it seems a little bit arbitrary.
Spreading things out among the available accesses
that exist, that's totally reasonable,
especially considering if it overloads one particular thing
and also that King's view was paved just last year.
So we got new pavement on there and stuff like that.
So we would like to prefer another method.
If the developer wants to accommodate
and use exclusively one other method, they can do that.
Private roads are always private,
like those are controlled by those owners
and they would never be authorized to access those.
Does that answer your question?
Yeah, so what would be the next step to propose that
so we have an alternate?
So that would go on to the subdivision plot
about construction access for that particular thing.
As far as, I will add a little bit is that we've had
some access issues for some other development
and a garage that access Green Valley
while the dead-end signs were up.
I would like to say that that was not allowed
and that violation has been assessed citation
because you're not to remove dead-end signs
without authorization.
And currently there's no authorized project
on that property.
And I will go back to, when I mentioned
that that 710 property was, they were open to selling it.
They were also saying that construction traffic
is not to access over that private property
until it is sold.
So that's just clarifying that until it's transferred
then they can't access from explorer drive either.
So, and long story short, those kinds of provisions
about construction access will go
on to the subdivision plot which is up next.
Any other thoughts on the zoning part of it?
Mr. President, again, I would have comment,
but like Robin said, those discussion go on the plot.
So I'll wait until that because this item
is only for the rezoning.
Okay, so in the matter of ordinance 5-2026,
ZMA 26-2 regarding the zoning, ROCO.
Caris.
Ventrini.
Aye.
Batia.
Aye.
Washburn.
Aye.
Pollack.
Aye.
DeGroote.
Aye.
Motion carries.
So the next item is discussion and motion regarding
the lineage of states preliminary plat.
5PP26-001, Emerson Road Green Valley Drive.
Okay, I'm on a roll tonight, guys.
All right, so this is 26-001.
This is a subdivision plat for 11.616 acres.
The current zoning is AG-1, but we've just approved
a rezone to RL which is matching the zoning designation
of all their surrounding properties.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat
to subdivide approximately 11.6 acres near South Emerson Road
and Green Valley Drive into 22 residential lots
and two out lots.
Those out lots will contain the stormwater.
The plat shows legacy lane and generation grow
as new internal streets and the extension of Green Valley
drive at the north edge of the subdivision.
And the out lots wanted to have shown as fractionally owned
by all of the owners and the maintenance assigned
to the lineage states HOA, the village staff
and the planning commission recommend approval
of the subdivision plat.
We also discussed at the subdivision extensively
as far as the construction traffic issues
which you guys have part extensively.
And as far as traffic goes, that kind of goes
with the comprehensive plat.
44 units and so is not, residential is probably
above agriculture as far as traffic generation,
but it's the lowest on the list.
It's Chick-fil-A drives 88 cars in 30 minutes.
Residential is pretty much to go in and go out.
We have larger, not that it was a smart idea,
but some of the condos off of Wood Road
and stuff like that have many more units off of one access.
And the fire department does not generally like that.
However, with proposed extensions and connections
that can be mitigated at the point
is to have those as a possibility.
Let me kind of think of anything else.
Oh, as far as the, a TIA, TIA's are only required
for over 100 units.
So at 44, TIA would not be required.
These are all local access roads.
So they would be much the same speed limit
and size and shape as everything else in the subdivision
and would have street trees, sidewalks,
and street lamps at the intersections.
Okay.
Any thoughts from the trustees?
Oh, let's get a motion on the table first.
I'm sorry.
Motion.
Mr. President, I make a motion
to prove the preliminary plot for a linear estate subject
to the approval of the comprehensive plan amendment
for 6.30.
I'm at central.
Second.
So your motion to the second.
Now.
Mr. President, as we heard from the residents
during the public hearing,
and their major concern is the construction traffic.
And Robin has already addressed that.
And when we approved at the Planning Commission
recommendation, we had the access from the Emerson Road.
So, but I'm still going to ask Robin to help me
maybe amend the motion or something.
My point is, how can we put that in the approval process?
The concern that we heard about the construction traffic.
Because yes, I totally agree with that.
Whether it's a king view drive or a green-mally road drive.
These roads are not adequate for heavy equipment
or the construction, so they have to come down.
So my question to Robin is, and I help me understand,
maybe I need to amend the motion,
is how can we have that construction concern
put that in the approval process?
So any kind of subdivision plan
will come with the development agreement
that negotiates the construction of public improvements
in the transfer over to the village.
And that development agreement also shows up other things.
A condition on access and whatnot
would be very appropriate to show up
in that development agreement.
And as far as enforcing access and whatnot
as far as within stages,
we would probably need to have some kind of plan
and access plan.
This is a little bit outside of my wheelhouse.
This is more like a clawed or deep W kind of thing
as far as that, but I'm winging it here.
Having some kind of specificity of like this phase,
is this access for these properties, so on and so forth.
You can get as specific as you want,
but that would be the kind of mechanism in order to do that.
Did you want to chime in on any of that,
like as far as access agreements?
I mean, as far as construction access,
if it's decided on the plate that we want a specific access
point to avoid traffic through the subdivision,
that could certainly be enforced also
through the construction plans if needed.
So that's how it will be done.
So it would be, I definitely see, you know,
obviously with the concern as well as, you know,
the fact that the road is new for at least there
to be some splits and for construction traffic
to make sense as divided.
And when we heard it from the developer
when these were being proposed at Plan Commission,
they were really amenable to the additional access
off of Emerson Road.
We can't force a private property sale
to do that connection to explore drive,
but that is something that you guys can consider
as whether or not it's necessary
for this development as well.
Robin, with our new audio, visual equipment
and the ability for you to, you know,
zip something from your laptop up to the screens,
can you throw up like a GIS or a Google map
of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood
because I've got it on my phone.
And, you know, what I'm seeing is, you know,
this isn't, it's a fairly significant subdivision,
but it's an infill is really what it is.
Yes.
And, you know, so construction access, of course,
is needed and we, you know,
all understand what the village residents are saying.
But, you know, in the place to handle that is
through the development agreement and such things,
but Nancy has a lot of experience in this
and if you could just share a couple of thoughts.
Well, number one, I'd like to see if I can get
my monitor down.
I feel like everybody's looking at the top of my head
and I want you to know that I'm paying attention
to your project.
So, first of all, I was not at the plan commission in May
when this was moved forward
and I would hazard a guess that if I was,
it would look a little different.
I really am very concerned about this.
First of all, we also learned as a village board
that A and K lineage went ahead and jumped the gun
and built a garage to particularly block access
in one avenue to the property
and went through Green Valley Drive to do that
when their permit was expressly written
to access off of Emerson.
So, there's a trust problem that we have right now.
Number one, number two, Kingston Holmes condominiums,
as I see this layout, the 18-foot access
for construction equipment is coming in off of property
not owned by lineage estate's preliminary plan.
It's on the abutting property,
which is owned by the same party.
So, I understand there can be cross agreements.
But is that 18-foot strip that runs into a lot two
on the plat, that's the access
that everyone has been talking about
is gonna be the temporary construction access?
Yes, that was a part of this parcel
and as a condition to transfer that through the condo
plat amendment, we basically condition that they add
the clause that a temporary access easement
for this construction project be added there.
Why do Kingston Holmes condominium need that 18 feet?
Let the lineage estate's preliminary plat
needed the 18 feet.
That I don't know, but we wanted to make sure
that that 18 feet was available for the plat.
Well, that's gonna be a very interesting situation
because as it comes in off of Emerson Road
and goes west on that 18 foot access,
it's gonna go through lot two.
So that brings up questions to me
of how does the developer plan on building this?
Is this one phase?
Are they gonna build all 22 lots at one time?
Number one, because if they are,
lot two is gonna be their construction access.
Where else do you go?
If you take that eight, it's either lot two or lot three.
So I think this needs to go back to the plan commission.
I think it needs a little more thought.
I think this is very tricky and it is an infill site.
It is totally an infill site.
And the other thing in talking about the party
that is the property to the south of it,
which is the farm field where they're willing to sell
some land on the west side of it,
are they willing to sell that?
And is lineage estates willing to buy it
and build a road all the way then through that property
that would connect with explore drive?
And are they willing to build that
as part of the plan right now?
Are they willing to buy that property
and build that access?
Because that takes away all the conversation
or some of the conversation on Emerson Road access.
Number three, number four,
when we talk about construction access,
these are going to be from what we read in the packet.
These are two unit condominium type buildings.
Whether they be two story or single family ranch,
they haven't really given us an indication of that yet.
But the Green Valley Drive through the existing subdivision
can't take that construction traffic either.
Trust trucks, concrete trucks, lumber trucks.
All the concrete trucks that would come in
and have to pour all those foundations.
Again, what I'm alluding to is this 18 foot access
is more than just a temporary access.
It is going to have to be somehow noted
and part made part of, I think, this plat
in order to make sure we control it.
And lot two is going to have to become truly,
it's going to have to have,
it's going to be the construction access for all of it.
And I don't see any other way of getting around it.
You can't take all that through Green Valley,
it'll never work, through Green Valley Drive.
And in other areas where we've had infill sites like this,
they've had direct access though,
we're going to be talking about one later on,
the one on Brown Road.
They at least have access to Brown Road,
to a public right of way that is a major collector or arterial.
So this one is going through a subdivision
of an older subdivision, smaller streets.
I just, again, I think it needs to go back
to the Plan Commission and I think we need
to work some of this stuff out.
I'm just going to read with the law in the villages.
No construction or installation of improvements
shall commence in a proposed land division
until a development agreement has been executed.
What's before you is a vote on a plan
to subdivide this agricultural parcel,
which is now one parcel.
Everything we're talking about can be addressed
in a development agreement,
which they cannot commence construction
until there is one in place.
And you, the board, have to approve it.
Well, they weren't supposed to build a garage either.
Well, okay, but we're not talking about developers
doing things that are illegally.
Right, right.
And people aren't supposed to do a lot of things
and we enforce when they break the law
and we would do that here.
All I'm saying is everything we're talking about
is what you would consider in a development agreement.
It doesn't have a whole lot to do
with how we're subdivided parcels.
So do we need to make a motion
to send it back to the development?
No, they can't, if you approve this preliminary plan,
all that means is there's a plan recorded
to subdivide this land the way you see it,
but they can't do anything legally.
Nancy, what you're talking about is something
that did illegally, okay?
They can't do anything legally as far as construction
until this board approves an agreement
that they must agree to, okay?
And then we would address all the construction concerns
that we've been talking about.
But if we don't want to approve it the way it is
because we want a different entry point
or to address the things that Nancy talked about,
then we would not vote to approve this.
Well, if you look at the agenda item,
it is a preliminary plan.
I know, but we want to just send it back.
No, we can approve a preliminary plan
subject to the other workup that has to happen
at the time of a development agreement.
I think part of, and if I can just jump back in,
I think part of the problem with this is
that as far as a preliminary plan go, it meets our code.
It is the proper size, the lots are the proper size
for the zoning that has been recommended for it.
The lot type, the RL matches and meets the neighborhood plan.
I think that our screen just went blank, okay.
I think that there, you know, I guess I'm just wondering
truly, you know, I'm gonna go back to my question
to the developer, and that is, what is your intent in here?
It's been stated that you're gonna be doing two unit
attached buildings, is there gonna be a condominium
plait behind it?
Obviously, as far as final plait, we will see the HOA documents,
and that was clear in the review comments.
But again, it goes back to what is your plan
for building this, because that is gonna have
a huge impact on what the developer's agreement says.
Are you gonna build all 22 lots at one time,
or are you thinking of doing this in phases?
And if you're doing it in phases,
can you identify what those are?
And I think it's a reasonable question
to ask a preliminary plait, so that we can understand
how the final plait will be set up.
Is the developer here?
So, if you could just introduce yourself,
if there's some way that you're gonna answer these questions,
have a lot of concern for people here.
I understand.
My name is John Osterman.
I'm working with Mrs. Hamilton.
We're looking at the, putting that subdivision in.
I'm working with Mrs. Hamilton.
We're looking at the, putting that subdivision in.
Any of the questions, it definitely won't be all at one,
at one time, 22 units.
They're gonna pretty much match the existing
that's up on the Green Valley, trying to abide by that.
We would love to try to get some access off of Emerson Road
to carry the construction project through.
There is a large telephone poll there that is,
of our concerns, for some of the,
you know, in terms of, you know,
that is, of our concerns for some of the in and out traffic
that goes on.
Well, then you're gonna have to move it.
You're gonna have to move it.
Because that's the way you're getting in.
That's the way you're getting in.
Okay.
First off, if I could please finish.
We will get that access.
We can have that access to bring the equipment in.
Whether it's gonna be 100% of it.
I wouldn't, I would like to have some access coming off the Green Valley.
And another thing I would like to take and, you know,
state because some of the comments and stuff that for us going in
on the end of Green Valley and coming in on the property,
we do apologize if we interrupted anything.
It was access going in.
The two departments we discussed with Mount Pleasant,
I was told by one department we could remove the trees
and do anything we needed.
Two weeks later, we were told by the other department
that that was not possible.
So that was my mistake for not considering
and getting in involved with all the other departments.
So I do apologize for that.
We put it back the way it was.
And it's pretty much any of the access.
We would try to access off of Emerson on a temporary.
Now that being said, there's gonna be two residents
that were gonna go right between on an 18 foot wide.
I don't very much.
They're gonna be as happy as the people on Green Valley are.
So, you know, which one you really wanna go to and to upset,
I'm sure you're gonna have two people on Emerson are not gonna be happy
with 18 foot.
They have all sorts of things piled onto that section right there.
They have from wood, let's say fully wooded 18 foot wide,
300 and some feet long going through lot number two,
which is another costly, costly.
You know, what you're asking to give up a complete lot,
I think the access should come off of Green Valley in my personal
just because it is a public road.
You must have decided this one your future plans would end.
There was no other access when all the other permits were giving.
So, you know, that's what we would abide and help do anything we can
to make construction traffic easier.
I'd like to do it in a couple different phases.
They're not gonna go all at one time,
which would probably lighten that load so we wouldn't have to push everybody.
So, if there's any way you could consider that coming off of that Green Valley,
I would recommend that the two customers or the two residents on
Emerson are not gonna be happy.
And I have spoken to a few in the neighborhood up there.
And they weren't really too concerned.
They were all very cordial, very nice.
They expected a subdivision becoming sooner or later.
Everybody hates to give up a farm field, but that being said,
we will try to take as much as we can to off that Emerson road.
And if it is moving a telephone pole, that's something we haven't,
I guess, looked into to see what that would take at this point.
And it's just on the side, but it would just make it a little bit tighter.
And the access, if necessary, we certainly would do something like that.
If there's any other questions I can help with, please.
Well, and that's why I asked to have this aerial put up that everybody can see now.
You have a farm field that is in the middle of, it's surrounded by residential.
It's by any definition, an infill project.
So, you know, we just finished in the past business,
rezoning it to residential.
We had a trusty vote against rezoning it to residential.
Not sure why, because I'm assuming that it's not going to stay a farm field forever.
And rezoning it to residential is what makes most sense.
You have two dead end roads that go into a green valley dead ends on to her property.
And another thing, the signs that are posted there are on her property.
The asphalt emergency turnaround is on her property.
So, the signs that I removed were on her property that Mount Pleasant put there.
And if I would have known that that was it, I would have never come in.
It was just to get access to get equipment and rather than going through a brand new driveway
that she had just put in her at her residence, and she owned the property.
So, again, I really, really apologize if I offended anybody in any way that was all on my fault
for not checking out with Department of Public Works.
I checked with the building department, and at that point, we were told.
If you own the property, you can take the trees down.
It's your property, you have access to it.
Two weeks later, we were told just the office.
So, again, I take that responsibility.
We took it all out of there.
And I can't imagine that explorer is going to want us coming in off of the explorer,
even if we did purchase property.
What are the people down off of the explorer going to say coming in off a sunny slope
over to explorer and through that subdivision?
They're going to have the same concerns.
So, I mean, how do we get in and out and appease Mount Pleasant?
We will do everything possible.
But whether I can get 100% of the construction equipment through that 18 foot wide easement
and those two residents make them happy along with it and astronomical cost,
what you're asking for.
Much easier.
Your water and your sewer are coming in off of Green Valley.
All of our infrastructure is off of Green Valley.
There's going to be more that you're going to have to take and put up with.
You've got water lines that are coming in, 20 feet onto her property.
You've got sewer lines coming in on her property, 15 feet into her property.
And it's all on her North property line on that piece of parcel.
So, anyway, I really would recommend Green Valley.
You aren't going to have two residents on.
Emmertson are going to hate us and explorers going to hate us just as much as, you know,
new construction.
So, please reconsider what you're considering.
So, when you talked about your first phase or that you would probably do this in multiple phases,
I would assume you're going to, your first phase is going to be around Green Valley.
Well, we have to.
That's the only place the infrastructure is coming.
Water comes off of Green Valley and sewer.
All right.
All right.
I'm trying to paint a picture here.
Right.
So, again, you know, if your first phase is, you know, what, 10 lots?
You're going to get down to the cul-de-sac.
You've got to put your ponds in.
You know, I think this is a really problem situation because it is an infill and it just
has great limitations in its current condition.
And, you know, the two gentlemen that are here who apparently own those properties, I don't
know, are you on both sides of those properties?
Right.
You know, obviously that's something they're not going to like, but I'm not sure why you're
thinking, you know, that it's unreasonable for us to want you to find a solution to
this.
Ultimately, when it's built out, everyone will forget about the construction traffic.
But there's a, that's a lot of traffic and the trucks go fast.
And they're disrespectful to the neighborhood.
So, in other infill sites that we've had like this, John, we have had good access that,
that was able to overcome that problem without any question.
I'll let you know on Brown Road.
I'm on Brown Road where you're just reported for that turnaround that you're going to
be having down there.
I'm in the middle of all of that construction.
So, I know what the construction is.
I've been into it for 40 some years.
But you put, you're in the middle of an area.
There's no access.
18 feet.
I'm sure the residents there, they're not going to want me coming through.
There's trees that have to come down.
The only logical access point is off of Green Valley.
Now, we can take and control that to a certain degree and maybe go into the two phases.
The width of the lot that she's looking at, her parcel is only 500 feet.
She can start off on phases and we can work in on going in because that's where the infrastructure
all has to start at.
So, I hope I helped in any of the answers.
I sure wish you would reconsider some of the questions that I had for you on the access.
And as far as moving a telephone poll, we can.
But I don't think there'd be as happy as explore either.
So, anything else I can help with, please?
Sure.
I can't take questions from the audience.
That's okay.
Any of the other trustees have any questions?
Mr. President, that's why my question was originally that this is a preliminary plan, preliminary plan, by my question about what's the process, you know, to get a handle on the construction, you know, traffic, whether we can enforce it or not.
Obviously, Trustee Washburn, you know, with her experience as a builder, she brings a whole new, a different aspect of that.
But I am here looking at what's the, I'm totally in agreement with the resident that if I was living on the Green Valley Drive or the Kingview Drive, I would not want to have the construction traffic, you know, go through my subdivision.
So what I am kind of, honestly, struggling with that, what's the best process?
Do we approve the preliminary plot and then go through the process to the development agreement, as our attorney Chris says, you know, rightly pointed out?
Or is that we go back to the planning commission to re-review the preliminary plan?
And I'm looking for some more answer from the either plan or so it may be from...
If the builder doesn't, well, let me just say something.
If the builder doesn't have approval of a preliminary plan, he has no reason to go back for anything.
He's done.
So we've re-zone the property for a preliminary plan.
The plan's going to need work, so don't question about it.
And those kinds of questions can get answered through the development agreement.
At the end of the day, do you want a subdivision here or not?
I think we do because most of us agreed to re-zone it because that's what makes sense.
So, you know, again, this is a step in the process and everybody wants all the answers tonight and nobody's going to get the answers tonight.
Because we have a process that we go through.
And those kinds of things, like the development agreement, are going to come back in front of plan commission.
And plan commission gets the kick at the cap and this comes back before the board.
Yeah.
So in as much as there's some here on this deal right now, I don't see why we shouldn't be approving that.
I guess Mr. President, I think there is some here on this.
And I think, you know, I recognize the importance of this to the residents that live in the surrounding community.
Explore Drive at some point is going to go through.
For the gentleman that spoke before, Explore Drive has been, you know, that stub street has been there forever.
It was built to be a road that connected somewhere.
I'd really, I think my suggestion of sending it back to the plan committee, the plan committee is not going to be able to do anything.
You know, the plan commission isn't going to be able to address the questions that we're bringing up tonight, which is some of the accesses.
Now, Robin, are you putting that on there?
Are you putting the roads on there?
This is because you mentioned Haven that reminded me now that I have the power of the display to show where the current proposed road layout is.
So I put that up there.
It shows that Haven is a proposed road and that is still on the next one, but I don't necessarily think that that's.
I mean, given the property situation that that's necessary, we were more planning about the connection to the south.
To the south.
So, well, exactly.
And so in my mind, I think that moving the preliminary plat forward allows the developer to have some of the discussions with the neighbor to see if they can get the.
Any land from the budding property, because that would create a south connection, which would go over to explore and down.
I don't see it as being a big cut through until something on Emerson Road would connect it.
And based on the way the Kingston condo plat has come in, I think Robin's right.
You're not going to see another connection to Emerson Road till you get much further south.
But I think that by us approving the preliminary plat, it allows the developer to think through some of our concerns.
See if they can get that extra access, it would change their plat.
It would change the way the plat looks, because right now in that corner, they show a pond.
But the preliminary plat approval conditions include the final plat, the stormwater and sediment control plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval.
Has Nielsen, Mason and Barber, is this just conceptual in terms of where the ponds are going to go, Al?
Come up on, Mike, please.
Al, Jessica, Nielsen, Mason, Barber, 1458, Horizon Boulder.
The ponds are located in the low spots in the property where they should be.
So water be draining towards them.
Okay.
So that north south road that's closest to explore or drive, that could move a little bit further east.
I mean, that can be shifted so that you can get your stormwater where you need it to go.
Because the low spot is going to be the low spot.
That's going to dictate that.
All right.
Thanks, Al.
So I think this is tricky.
I think the developer's agreement is going to have to be, it's going to be very interesting.
And the problem with the developer's agreement, in my mind, is only that we don't see it until it's done.
And so, you know, I guess we want to, how do we stay informed along the way?
I mean, there's no obligation to us to be informed, Chris, but...
You're right.
You don't see it until it's done because it's not done until you approve it.
So you see a draft?
We see a draft.
We heard the concerns.
You look at it.
Obviously, we have to talk to the developer to negotiate that agreement.
And if it doesn't satisfy you, then you vote no.
And that's how it works.
And if you vote no and you don't approve a developer's agreement, then they cannot convince any construction.
Regardless of the plat, regardless of the rezone, our code says development agreement is required.
So that's what it is.
You could see the draft and say, I don't like this, I don't like this, go back and change it.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I really think that...
And you actually have two kicks out at the plan commission level and at the board level.
Yes, I'm looking forward to that.
So, again, I think the developer's agreement is going to be really critical.
I think this is a very tough site because it does have a number of units in it.
You know, it's 22 lots.
Once it's built out, it's amazing how once it's built and the roads are in, all the newness of it dissipates very quickly.
But Sunnyview Drive, it was meant to be a roadway that Explorer Drive connected to.
If we can't make it to the Haven connection, I get that.
But I don't see that there's a reason to deny the preliminary plat based on the discussion we're having because of the importance of those things being in the final plat and the developer's agreement.
And I don't know how they're going to overcome it.
I think they really need to show us that they've made an effort to try and make a connection down to a public right of way that is 66 feet wide, which would be Explorer Drive.
That to me is really the home run to give it multiple accesses and multiple ways in.
Temporary access somehow, you know, coming in another way.
I don't know.
That's, you know, these guys aren't going to be happy tearing out trees, but it's neither one of the, you know, to me.
Green Valley Drive that turn there going up into the, or going down south into the subdivision, it's a tricky turn and it's narrow pavement.
When you look at their asphalt, this roadway will be, the asphalt section will be wider than what they match up to in Green Valley.
So I have a procedural question.
If we approve this plat mat, what's the incentive to go back and rework it?
The incentive for the developer?
Right.
Because you want to approve a development agreement if they don't.
For the final.
For the final plat.
But what if we want them to rework it before the development agreement?
I mean, what if we don't want, like what we're seeing preliminarily?
Where would you, how would you like them to rework it?
That's what's to be determined, but not the way it is right now.
Is this, I'm just asking procedurally because I don't want something to happen where it starts, development starts, and it wasn't something that we approved.
Development can't start unless you, this board approves a development agreement.
And when would that happen?
Whenever the developer and the village representatives get to a point where we say, okay, this is something that will take to the board to consider.
Which would have to take this into effect.
And like Nancy said, maybe there is no way to solve it.
And then you don't approve it.
And that means the developer doesn't develop?
Correct.
Because they can't commence construction without a development agreement.
And the development agreement in my mind is the place, the appropriate place to deal with the issues that we've been debating tonight.
It's not a perfect thing, that's why it's a preliminary plat.
We know that it needs work.
Go ahead.
I just wanted to state the obvious here.
Like you said, this is a preliminary plat and I think the developer is now quite aware of the concerns of the neighbors.
And obviously this will not get passed by the board unless you meet the concerns of the neighbors and the concerns of the board members.
So it's a preliminary plat in order for the process to move forward, it has to be approved.
If I may chime in on that.
So final plats, the main kind of thing is if they substantially conform to the preliminary plat, you're obligated to approve them.
So like the onus is really on getting the preliminary plat very similar to what's going to be the final product plus whatever conditions.
So if you approve the preliminary plat and say I want A, B, C, D, E, F, then those are all conditions for the final plat to be approved.
But if you say I approve the preliminary plat as is and then the final plat comes in as is, you really got to come up with some really good reasons to be able to say no at that point.
And that is all beside the development agreement part.
Like that's separate.
That's a different thing.
That's Chris's ball game.
So you're saying that obligates us?
Yes, Wisconsin state law basically says that if you have a final plat that's before you, that is substantially conforming to the preliminary plat.
That this is chapter 236 by the way, substantially conforms to the preliminary plat approved.
It is basically obligated or expected approval.
And so your reasons for denying that would have to be kind of above and beyond normal stuff.
Right.
They cannot, according to our code, commence construction without a development agreement.
The development agreement would have to go through plan commission and get approved by the board.
Regardless of the plats, just so everybody's clear, I read the law from the code of ordinances.
I totally agree 100%.
I just was saying as far as the onus of whether or not to put the conditions or the hopes and dreams on the preliminary plat or wait, we just can't wait to the final plat to fix everything.
That's all I'm saying.
Well, I think if I were to add a condition, when I look at the conditions that were on the preliminary plat approval from the plan commission, I think I would add a condition to that approval then that would carry forward.
That would state that the developer needs to explore the possibility of purchasing the additional lands from the southerly abutting property owner in order to potentially make a second connection on a public road right of way into the development.
I think that the 18 foot access, which the developer apparently agreed to at the plan commission to using that for construction.
So you made a commitment to that at a previous meeting.
And I don't know if you want the people to come in on the Kingston Way condo driveway and then go up the 18 feet, you know, through lot two or three.
Or you're going to tear down trees that are in between these two gentlemen's home and move a telephone pole to use that 18 feet.
But you made the comment and the commitment.
So.
Well, but there's there's there's already a neighborhood transportation plan that's been in place that shows all those connections.
So, you know, the fact that that this happens to have some idiosyncrasies to it doesn't negate the fact that we have to try and solve the problem.
So again, that I would be adding that commit that condition that they that we would want to know that they've explored negotiations with the property owner to the south because that property owner has in writing.
Let the village know that they would be interested in potentially selling.
Okay, so I have a clerk trying to keep minutes straight.
And I think the board probably likes your idea of that amendment.
The motion that's in front of us, we can, I think, politely amend if we have consensus on the board.
Not consensus.
No objections.
Mr. President.
And again, that's why, you know, we started discussion, but based on everything I've heard,
I believe.
And I'm going to ask a question to a returning.
Perhaps we could amend the motion saying is we preliminary plan approval subject to the development agreement.
Because that's.
Well, that's what the law already says.
That's the law.
So my question is.
If that's what the law says, I'm working with that.
But if there's any gray area, I don't mind for that condition.
Because otherwise, we have too many questions.
We're not going to be able to answer tonight or even back at the clinic commission.
So I like that idea that the.
Even if we approve it without the development agreement.
This project will not move forward.
So again.
So what we're looking for rhymes is, are you willing to do you have any objection.
To amending your motion to approve the preliminary plat.
Which already takes into account plan commission conditions.
Adding the condition that they need to show us that they have.
Made an attempt to negotiate with the property owner to the south.
In order to gain another access.
The developers agreements a final plat.
It's tied to final plat no matter what.
You don't have a developers agreement with a preliminary plat.
I will answer a question.
I don't have any problem.
I don't have any objection to that.
But I'm not sure that's going to answer all the question.
Because even if we do that.
There might be some other question because you know, you mentioned a lot too.
It could be access from that.
So that's why I believe that I like the idea of our attorney that.
The development agreement.
Without that approval.
This project will not move.
So again, I don't have any objection to it.
But I feel more comfortable to.
Just for the sake of the.
That everyone all the residents.
Everyone know that.
It project will not move forward without the development agreement.
Although we have heard multiple times, you know, from Chris.
That that's a lot.
So I feel even more comfortable just to say preliminary plat.
I don't want to be buying just one more condition and then three more conditions come out.
Just we don't.
Proceed, Julie.
Okay.
When there's a motion and a second generally speaking, that's what you have to vote on.
However, Robert's rules of order says that for small governing bodies, which we qualify, you can deviate from those rules.
So historically, if someone makes a motion and a second.
But the whole board agrees we can make an amendment to it.
We do that.
So Nancy.
Ask to amend your motion.
Rahm answered with the different kind of amendment.
It sounds like to me.
Yeah.
That's what I'm not.
So well, I think.
We either need to agree all on one amendment or just vote on this motion as it's stated.
Well, the other way you can do it would be for Nancy to add as a motion and amendment.
We vote her motion and then we come back to the main motion.
Well, but if everybody agrees, there's no need to do it that way.
You know what I mean?
Sure.
Nancy, would your amendment be fair to say add a condition that the developer has to attempt to say it again?
Enter into negotiations with the property owner abutting to the south who has expressed interest in selling the rear of their property to allow access to explore or drive.
And then also as an additional amendment, would you agree to say this is conditional approval of the development agreement?
Yes, I'd be willing to add the approval of the developer's agreement.
It's not part of preliminary process typically, but we can add it to this.
Does anyone object to that?
I'm concerned about the obligation piece that Robin said because I don't want to be on record approving this preliminary plait map and then nothing changes and then be via that, then we have to approve it.
Then the onus and the burden is on us to come up with all these reasons.
It doesn't sound like there's a lot of latitude there and that's what my concern is.
It feels like the train is going and we're not going to be able to stop the train if we approve this.
That's my concern.
Okay.
Well, it sounds like we do not have unanimous agreement on the amendment, so you've got to vote on the original motion.
And if you have concerns, you vote no.
Okay.
So, having heard a robust discussion, I'll call the question.
No, we can't add the amendment.
No, you just questioned it.
You just disagree with it.
So we need to have agreement from everybody in order to change the motion.
And I understand your concern with the train being, you know, the horse and the barn and the train.
The bottom line is that this property is rightfully zoned RL.
It's residential.
Within that residential zoning, a preliminary plan is a requirement is the next step.
The preliminary plan that they're showing us is reasonable, quite honestly.
The fact is that we have a whole neighborhood that turned out here that says we don't want this construction traffic going through our property.
Right.
The bottom line is that Green Valley Drive is a public road ride.
So we're trying to do everything we can as a board to protect the people that are residents living there that have reached out to us.
Right.
But there's going to be a point where legally the developer is going to have rights.
If we approve the zoning, what would be your reason for not approving the preliminary plan?
It meets the code for size.
It meets the code for the type of project.
It has show stormwater management ponds.
So, unfortunately, as a plan to deny it would be, I think, even more consequences.
Well, it's the access road for all the construction trucks.
That's what the concern is.
Gina.
If I could just interrupt for you for a second.
I was following Nancy.
Nancy proposed an amendment.
Are you good at the amendment or not?
I'm good with the amendment.
But how do you enforce that?
You're just saying negotiations started.
What does that mean?
Writing a purchase offer?
What does that mean?
It means, well, it means that they had to show us that it made some kind of effort.
Like a phone call?
What does that mean?
A phone call and effort?
If it means, if we could stipulate, makes a purchase offer, a concerted contractual offer, then that's got some more teeth than just a phone call.
But I don't know.
You are putting the cart way before the horse.
So I'm just going to ask you one last time.
Are you going to support the amendment?
I'll support the amendment.
Okay.
So then we've got a complete support of that.
Do you have that all written down?
Nancy's amendment?
Jill?
Yes.
And we also have it on recording.
Okay.
So the motioner is okay with that.
The seconder is okay with that, right?
Okay.
Everybody's okay.
Okay.
So now I'm going to call the question on the main vote regarding the preliminary plan approval.
Roll call.
Caris?
Aye.
Ventrini?
Aye.
Batia?
Aye.
Washburn?
Aye.
Pollock?
Aye.
DeGroote?
Aye.
That motion carries.
Okay.
Okay.
We're going to keep going.
Trustee Botch is just to choose himself for a few minutes.
Okay.
So we've got public hearing now regarding ordinance 6-2026, Zoning Map amendment for Giddings Road
and Hoods Creek.
ZMA 26-3.
Again, same rules apply for the public hearing.
But let's have the discussion from Robin.
I'll give 20 seconds for the gallery.
Is that okay?
That's fine.
Yeah, let's wait a few minutes for everybody to be excused.
That's going to be a turn point because we can't deny it because we can't get another
access.
We can't.
They have Layla.
I'm just going to go to something like this and the only thing that's safe to pay over
the dollar is that we're supposed to be prior to this.
We're going to be prior to this and they grant us access.
Over the winter we were building it over the winter so they said fine, we don't have
a farm stamp.
And so we want to have a support by foundation.
It's going to be off.
It's going to be off.
Okay, Robin.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. President.
So this is Creekville Lane and Hoods Creek path zoning map amendments ZMA 26-03.
This is also attached to a subdivision plat.
The applicant, Jeff Bakke, applied to amend the zoning map for approximately 10.685 acres
of this partials from AG2 which general agriculture to RL loaded the residential.
The rezoning area corresponds with the settlement of Hoods Creek Edition 6 which is being reviewed
as companion final plat.
The proposed final plat creates 16 asterisk.
The residential lots and out lot 12 are on the extension of Creekville Lane and Arden Road.
The zoning map amendment would place the edition 6 final plat area into the RL district before
final plat recording.
So, you know, the final plat has some relics relating to the RL1 zoning district which was
amended in 2025 to be just RL.
Those need to be revised.
So this is up in the sort of central north area of the village.
This is a continuation of the subdivision that has been under construction for a long time.
So, and this, one of the plan commission reviewed this and the only matter of concern was one
particular lot which is over the width allowance for the RL district.
So the condition is either for that lot to be split in order to meet that requirement or
for an administrative adjustment to be applied for to be approved by the community development
director to allow for the slight overage.
The lot is weird.
It's like a, it looks actually like a house.
It's a pentagon and it's just too wide.
And it's almost an acre which is the upper limit of the RL zoning district.
So other than that, everything was approved and the plan commission and village staff
recommend approval of this subdivision plat.
Thank you.
Oh, sorry.
Zoning map amendment.
This is the zoning.
Oh my gosh.
Everything.
I'm all discombobulated.
This is just the zoning map amendment.
So this is discussion on that.
So it's an amendment to RL.
Everything else is RL around there.
There is some RE properties, but those are for legit.
It may lead to two to three acre quasi agricultural properties.
Okay.
So I'll open up the public hearing regarding ordinance six dash 2026.
ZMA 26 dash three.
I have nobody signed up on this one.
Anybody in chambers here wanting to speak on this one?
No.
Going once going twice.
So we can close public hearing on that and discuss and then possible motion regarding
that.
Just that we did have one comment in the email conversation between us, DBW and the developer
about storm water and road access.
And that was answered much to the resident satisfaction.
So thumbs up on that.
Okay.
Do you have motion?
Mr. President, I make a motion to approve ordinance six dash 2026 for the zoning map amendment
on Creekview Lane and the Woods Creek path.
Second.
I have motion and a second from the board's perspective.
Any discussion?
Any questions for Robin?
Robin's got a question for Robin.
I didn't hear subject to the condition from from Rob.
The subject of the conditions as presented.
Sorry.
I just had had that one was added from playing commission.
That's why I wanted to make sure.
Yes.
My mistake.
Yeah.
Okay.
Any other questions?
All right.
So on this one, again, roll call vote.
Caris.
Ben Trini.
Aye.
Batia.
Aye.
Washburn.
Aye.
Pollock.
Aye.
DeGroote.
Aye.
Emotion.
Caris.
Let's go down to discussion.
The discussion.
Possible motion regarding settlement at Hood's Creek edition and final flat for SFP 26-0002.
Creekview Lane.
All right.
Same thing.
Here's the actual subdivision map.
You can see the lot that I was talking about.
It's that sort of big house shape one right at the top that's on the intersection of those
two lanes.
I don't think anything else meets the RL1 standards and it substantially complies with the preliminary
plat that was approved by the village board in 2024.
I will just say a happy note that the developers have said that they are continuing forward
earlier than expected because home cells are stronger than expected.
So that is great news and we look forward to getting more homes.
Mr. President, I make a motion to approve the settlement at Hood's Creek edition number
six final plot sub division final sub division plot subject to the recommendation containing
the report.
Second.
So I hear a motion and a second.
Any further discussion from the board or questions for Robin?
I just have one quick comment.
I hope that you guys, you know that lot 138.
All these lots are pretty much the same as when the, you know, when the, this was originally
designed years and 25 years ago and lot 138.
I can't dividing it in half to me.
Just I wonder how the heck you're going to place anything on that.
So I hope you don't push that too far.
I hope if it has to stay, it may be too big, but it's okay.
I mean, yeah.
I hope so.
I can't even imagine dividing it.
I hope so.
Those are nice big house.
And they will.
That's the biggest house in the subdivision.
I'm not going to lose any sleep out of it.
Either way, we just got to process.
They got to do.
That's all.
All right.
Fair enough.
Roll call vote.
Caris.
Ventrini.
Aye.
Batia.
Aye.
Washburn.
Aye.
Pollock.
Aye.
DeGroote.
We have nothing else on the agenda, so I'm good for one last motion.
Move to adjourn.
Got a motion and a second to adjourn.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
We stand adjourned.
Thank you very much.