October 3, 2011
PLAN COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Mike Weinkauf, Paul Beere, Maureen
Eckert, Patricia Gerber, Chris Johnson, Tom Rownhouse and Mark Tamblyn present.
Betty Novy, Clerk Treasurer, Sandi Swan , Deputy Clerk-Treasurer and Jon
Schattner, Zoning Administrator were also present.
Correction or approval of the September 7, 2011 Minutes
Eckert moved, 2nd by Johnson to approve the minutes from the September 7, 2011
Plan commission meeting as printed. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Site Plan Review to construct a pond and statute garden on the south
side of Hunters Trail
Applicant: General Secretariat of the Franciscan Missions/Agent: Tim
Lynch, Project Engineer
Parcel #176031915004020
Schattner addressed the Plan Commission and explained that this is an approval
for an “after the fact” permit to reconstruct a designated wetland area that was
filled in. The proposed pond will consist of a wildlife pond (wetland scrape)
and will collect surface water drainage from the surrounding areas and the
existing drainage tiles that serve the subject site, along with neighboring
properties.
In addition, there was work done at the center of the east line of the property
north south where a statue garden was started, this work was started prior to
obtaining Village approval. The property was ordered to stop work until they
went through the approval process.
The area in which these projects are taking place is on the south side of
Hunter’s Trail (private road). The property was purchased recently from a
property owner who has frontage on N. Browns Lake Rd. This parcel is being
combined with the parcels to the north which have frontage on County Truck Hwy
W. The request is to allow the property owner to continue to complete the pond
and the statue garden.
The petitioners’ engineer, Tim Lynch addressed the Commission at this time. He
explained that the DNR put a halt to the project. They initially were doing some
tree and brush clearing which caused some soil disturbance. They have worked
through the issues with the DNR and they obtained a “Wetland Scrape” permit in
order to rehab the wetland area and a “Notice of Intent” permit for land
disturbance of greater than one acre.
They are also constructing a patio with a statue garden for observation and
thinking. The pond is approximately a quarter of an acre. Discussion was held
about storm water runoff. He stated with the new pond there will be less water
runoff and less impact to the neighbors.
Joanna Storm asked if the pond will be aerated for mosquitoes. Lynch
stated that mosquitoes only breed in shallow water, this pond will be 5 ft. in
depth so if there are mosquitoes, there should be less in the future. Storm
questioned what the statutes were going to look like. A sample picture was
provided. Storm questioned if the property will still be taxable now that it has
changed owners. Novy stated that would be a question for the assessor. Storm
asked if there were plans for a retirement home going in there. Lynch answered
there are no plans.
Gerber moved, 2nd by Johnson to recommend approval to construct a pond and
statue garden on the south side of Hunter’s Trail subject the following
recommended conditions:
1) Upon receiving approval from the Village of Rochester
Planning Commission and Rochester Village Board, it is the responsibility of the
applicant to obtain a zoning permit card at a cost of $250.00 (double fee) from
the Village Zoning Administrator, prior to continuing this project. This zoning
permit card must be displayed in a prominent location at the project site, and a
copy of these conditions must be kept at the project site at all times, until
the project has been completed.
2) The proposed pond and
garden statue area must be located and constructed according to the plans
submitted to the Village of Rochester on September 19, 2011.
3) The property owner is
responsible for full compliance with the conditions outlined in a correspondence
from Kathi Kramasz, Water Specialist with the State of Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, dated September 14, 2011. (see attached)
4) The Village Engineer
does not object to the plan as presented. (The Village Engineer indicated
that his review did not include field verification of existing conditions,
elevations, grades, and/or topography as shown on the plans.
The owner has the ultimate responsibility for the correct representation of
existing field conditions as well as providing a design that complies with
Village ordinances and standards. (See Village Engineer’s letter, dated
September 26, 2011)
5) The property owner is
responsible for repairing or replacing broken field tile on your property and in
perpetuity with your property and keep it in good working condition at all
times. All existing and proposed tiles shall have rodent guards place at
the end of the tile to prevent small animals from blocking the tile outlets.
Do not block or create surface drainage problems on your property that would
adversely affect the adjacent property owners.
6) All excavated material
must remain on the subject property and spread out and blended into the
surrounding upland slopes outside of the “designated wetland area” as defined by
the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Excavated fill
material placed on a non-crop area must have a minimum of for (4) inches of
topsoil and must be permanently seeded within seven (7) days after final
grading. A 30’ minimum grass buffer must be placed around the pond
perimeter to prevent topsoil and soil from eroding into the pond.
7) No excavated material
may be sold or given away without obtaining rezoning the property to an M-4
Quarry District and obtaining a conditional use permit approval from the Village
of Rochester Planning Commission and Village Board.
8) The property owner is
subject to complying with all of the conditions outlined in an the
correspondence from Bryan Hartsook, Water Resources Engineer with the State of
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, dated September 14, 2011. (see
attached)
9) The applicant must
obtain all necessary federal, state, and local permits, approvals and licenses
and comply with all applicable codes and regulations.
10) No additions, deletions, or changes may
be made to the project, site plan or these conditions without the Village of
Rochester Planning Commission/Village Board, approval. All additions,
deletions, and or change requests must be submitted in writing to the Village of
Rochester Planning Commission/Village Board, for their review and approval.
11) The property owner must allow the
Village Zoning Administrator or a Village employee full and unlimited access to
the project site at a reasonable time to investigate the project’s construction,
operation, and maintenance at the beginning, during and completion of this
project.
12) This project must be completed by June
1, 2012, including permanent vegetation of all disturbed areas. Written
extension requests must be submitted to the Village of Rochester 30 days before
permit/approval expiration if you wish to extend this permit...
13) A temporary seeding (rye or winter
wheat) and mulch shall be applied to all disturbed area within ten (10) days of
final grading and a dormant seeding shall be applied after the ground is frozen,
if permanent seeding cannot be accomplished by November 1, 2011.
14) Please be advised that the Village of
Rochester does not warrant or certify that the design of the pond or the
drainage plan for this site is functionally and/or structurally adequate;
therefore, the Village of Rochester accepts no liability through this permit.
15) Failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of this approval could result in the issuance of citation(s) and
permit revocation.
16) Your acceptance of this approval/permit
and beginning the project means that you have read, understand, and agree to
follow these conditions. Therefore, General Secretariat of the Franciscan
Missions and their heirs, successors, and assigns are responsible for full
compliance with these conditions.
17) It is the property owner’s
responsibility to inform any subsequent owner or operator of these conditions.
18) The Village of Rochester recommends that
the property owner to obtain the necessary permits and approval prior to
commencement of a project.
Ordinance #2-2011 “An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 15, Sections 3.09,
5.04, 5.05 and 5.08 of the Village of Rochester Municipal Code, to recreate
Chapter 15 Section 3.09, Public Facilities Districts, which apply to the entire
corporate limits of the Consolidated Village of Rochester, to repeal conflicting
provisions in the existing (former) Town of Rochester Code of Ordinances and the
Village of Rochester Municipal Code, and to rezone Parcels to P-1 and P-2
Districts
Weinkauf explained that there are parcels in the consolidated Village that have
improper zoning. The Village is in the process of combining zoning ordinances
for the former Town and the Village. Schattner is recommending two zoning
districts for public grounds and or facilities.
Schattner introduced himself and explained that right now the Village is
operating under two sets of zoning ordinances. The former Town, which adopted
Racine County Zoning, and the former Village of Rochester zoning. The primary
purpose of the of the proposed zoning ordinance is to reconcile differences
between (former) Town of Rochester and Village of Rochester zoning codes.
Schattner read though the proposed ordinance:
P-1 Institutional Park District
The Institutional Park district is intended to eliminate the ambiguity of
maintaining unrelated use districts, areas that are under public or
public-related ownership and where the use for the public or quasi-public
purpose is anticipated to be permanent.
1. Permitted
Uses. The following uses are permitted in the P-1 Institutional Park
district:
· Public or private schools, colleges,
and universities, provided that the lot area is not less than two acres
· Religious and charitable
institutions
· Public recreational and community
center buildings and grounds
· Public emergency shelters
· Churches, including residential
quarters for clergy
· Nursing homes, assisted living
facilities
· Libraries, museums, and art
galleries
· Lodges (ex. Moose Lodge, Knights of
Columbus, Lions Club)
· Government buildings, post offices
· Public utility buildings and
facilities
· Garages for the storage of vehicles
used in conjunction with the operation of a permitted use
· Gift store operated in conjunction
with a permitted use
· Service buildings and facilities
normally accessory to the permitted uses, including but not limited to
residential quarters for caretakers
· Off street parking and loading areas
associated with a permitted use
· Open space and recreational uses
listed under 3.09.B.1 associated with a permitted use
2. Conditional
Uses. The following are conditional uses in the P-1 District. See
Chapter 15, Section 5, Conditional Uses.
· Hospitals and Sanitariums
· Music halls
· Penal Institutions
· Cemeteries
· Crematories
· Police, Fire and Rescue Stations
· Sewerage Treatment Plants
· Child Care Centers, providing that
traffic is managed in a manner to minimize danger to children
· Uses similar in character to a
permitted or conditional use, but not specifically listed in this section.
· Gift store operated in conjunction
with a conditional use
· Service buildings and facilities
normally accessory to the conditional uses, including but not limited to
residential quarters for caretakers
· Off street parking and loading areas
associated with a conditional use
· Open space and recreational uses
listed under 3.09.B.1 associated with a permitted use
3. Multiple
Buildings on a Lot. Notwithstanding Ch. 15, s. 2.06.c), more than one main
building may be present on a lot in the P-1 District, provided, however, that
the presence of more than one main building shall transform a permitted use to a
conditional use. The number of buildings and their uses, the lot width and
area, the minimum setbacks of all proposed structures and uses from the property
lines, the distances between the buildings and the lighting and landscaping
plans shall be established by the Village Plan Commission. See section 5,
Conditional Uses.
4. Area
requirements
Lot width
Sewered
No Minimum, provided all setbacks are met
Unsewered
150 Feet
Lot Area
Sewered
No Minimum, provided all setbacks are met
Unsewered
40,000 square feet
5. Yard
Setback requirements
Street
Minimum
50 feet
Side
Minimum
50 feet
Rear
Minimum
50 feet
Shore
Minimum
75 feet
6. Building
Height (to peak of roof) Maximum
35 feet
E. P-2 Recreational
Park District
1. Permitted
Uses. The following uses are permitted in the P-2, Recreational Park
district:
· Public and private recreational
uses, such as beaches, parks, arboretums, bathing, boating, cycling, fishing,
horseback riding, marinas, swimming, skating, sledding, nature trails and hiking
· Golf courses and driving ranges
(private & public), provided that the facility is designed to prevent golf balls
from leaving the site
· Conservatories
· Campgrounds
· Play grounds
· Driving ranges
· Polo and soccer fields
· Tennis courts
· Public swimming pools and bathhouses
· Botanical gardens
· Athletic fields
· Picnic areas
· Community centers
· Gymnasiums
· Sports clubs
· Public emergency shelters
· Picnic Areas (shelters, pavilions,
gazebos)
· Community gardens
· Parking areas, service buildings and
rest rooms associated with a permitted use
2. Conditional
Uses. The following uses shall be conditional uses in the P-2 District.
See Chapter 15, Section 5, Conditional Uses.
· Zoological gardens.
· Archery and fire arm ranges
· Stadiums
· Uses similar in character to a
permitted or conditional use, but not specifically listed in this section
· Parking areas, service buildings and
rest rooms associated with a conditional use
3. Multiple
Buildings on a Lot. Notwithstanding Ch. 15, s. 2.06.c), more than one main
building may be present on a lot in the P-2 District, provided, however, that
the presence of more than one main building shall transform a permitted use to a
conditional use. The number of buildings and their uses, the lot width and
area, the minimum setbacks of all proposed structures and uses from the property
lines, the distances between the buildings and the lighting and landscaping
plans shall be established by the Village Plan Commission. See section 5,
Conditional Uses.
4. Area
requirements
Lot width
Sewered
No minimum, provided all setbacks are met
Unsewered
150 feet
Lot area
Sewered
No minimum, provided all setbacks are met
Unsewered
40,000 sq. ft.
5. Yard
setback requirements
Street
Minimum
40 feet
Side
Minimum
40 feet
Rear
Minimum
40 feet
Shore
Minimum
75 feet
6. Building
Height (to peak of roof) Maximum
35 feet
Schattner stated that at the last plan commission meeting when this was
discussed there were issues about lighting brought up. He inserted the following
language to address those issues:
Exterior lighting standards and lighting plan required.
Exterior lighting plans shall be required for new development or redevelopment
of existing exterior lighting in the P-1 and P-2 Districts. At the time any
exterior light is installed or substantially modified in a P-1 or P-2 District,
and whenever a zoning permit application is made for new development or
redevelopment, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Plan
Commission in order to determine whether the requirements of this subsection
have been met and that adjoining property will not be adversely impacted by the
proposed lighting.
1. Exterior lighting in the P-1 District shall be
limited to total-cutoff-type luminaires (with angle greater than 90°). The
maximum permitted illumination shall be two footcandles and the maximum
permitted luminaire height shall be 30 feet as measured from surrounding grade
to the bottom of the luminaire. (Note: This standard does not address
illumination levels or fixture height which may be required by the Village of
Rochester for the adequate lighting of public street rights-of-way. It
represents maximum illumination levels on private property.)
2.
Ball diamonds, playing fields, golf driving ranges, tennis courts, and similar
outdoor recreational facilities have unique requirements for nighttime
visibility and generally have limited hours of operation. These uses (excluding
their associated off-street parking lots) may be exempted by the Plan Commission
from the exterior lighting standards of this subsection if the applicant can
satisfy the Plan Commission, upon site plan and lighting plan review, that the
following requirements are met:
a. Any exterior light sources shall not exceed the maximum permitted post
height of 70 feet.
b. If the
luminaire is shielded in either its orientation or by a landscaped bufferyard to
prevent light and glare spillover to adjacent residential property(s) or
residential zoning districts, then the luminaire may exceed a total cut-off
angle of 90°. The maximum permitted illumination at the interior bufferyard line
of all required bufferyards shall not exceed two footcandles.
3. A lighting plan submitted pursuant to the
requirements of this subsection shall have, at a minimum, the following
elements:
a. A catalog page, cut sheet, or photograph of the
luminaire, including the mounting method, a graphic depiction of the luminaire
lamp (or bulb) concealment, and graphic depiction of light cutoff angles.
b. A photometric data test report of the proposed luminaire
graphically showing the lighting distribution in all
angles vertically and horizontally around the luminaire.
c. A plot plan, drawn to a recognized engineering
or architectural scale, indicating the location of the luminaire(s) proposed,
mounting and/or installation height in feet, the overall illumination levels (in
footcandles) and lighting uniformities on the site, and the illumination levels
(in footcandles) at the property boundary lines. This may be accomplished by
means of an isolux curve or computer printout projecting the illumination
levels.
4. For the purposes of this subsection, light shall be
measured as follows:
a. Metering equipment. Lighting levels shall be measured in
footcandles with a direct-reading, portable fight meter. The meter shall be read
within an accuracy of plus or minus 5%. The meter shall have been tested,
calibrated, and certified by an independent commercial photometric laboratory or
the manufacturer within 30 days of its use.
b. Method of measurement. The meter sensor shall be mounted
not more than six inches above ground level in a horizontal position at the
interior line of the bufferyard or at the property line, as required herein.
Readings shall be taken only after the cell has been exposed long enough to
provide a constant reading. In order to eliminate the effects of moonlight and
other ambient light, measurements shall be made after dark with the light source
in question on, then with the same sources off. The differences between the two
readings shall be compared to the maximum permitted illumination allowed under
this subsection.
Schattner said they identified the areas (parcels) in the Village that would
need to be brought into compliance with the proposed ordinance. The
following is a list of those parcels:
A. The following Properties shall be rezoned to P-1 District:
Parcel Id. No.
Property Owner
Property Address
176031914019000
Western Racine County Sewerage District
1020 North River Rd.
176031911005010
(Sewerage Treatment Plant)
176031911299002
Western Racine Co. Sewerage District ( Lift Station)
300 N. Rochester St.
176031903031000
Rochester Cemetery Co.
31440 Washington Ave.
176031911208000
First Congregational United Church
107 South State St.
Of Christ
176031906025000
Community Baptist Church of Honey Creek
35512 Washington Ave.
176031906052000
Baptist Church Trustee’s
35512 Washington Ave.
176031906026000
Honey Creek Memorial Cemetery Assn.
35512 Washington Ave.
176031906053000
Honey Creek Cemetery
West of 35307 Washington Ave.
176031911083000
Village of Rochester
208 West Spring St.
176031911084000
(Rochester Commons Park and
176031911292000
Rochester Library)
176031911202000
Village of Rochester
203 West Main St.
(Village Hall)
176031910029001
Village of Rochester
31020 Academy Rd.
176031910029002
(Fire and Rescue Station)
176031911343001
176031910006000
Racine County
31929 Academy Rd.
(Western Racine Co. Highway Dept.)
176031913020000
Eagle Creek Religious Society
NE of 28243 Plank Rd.
176031913005050
(English Settlement Church)
176031911104000
Karen Lee Schwedler
208 West Main Street
(Rochester Post Office)
176031913001000
Racine County
815 N. English Settlement
(Paupers Cemetery)
B. The following
parcels shall be zoned P-2 District:
Parcel Id. No.
Property Owner
Property Address
176031911200000
Village of Rochester (Pioneer Park)
SE corner of Main St. & Front St.
176031911299000
Racine County
North of 300 N. Rochester St.
(Open space/floodplain)
176031911409000 Fox
Knoll Estates Homeowners’ Assoc., Ltd.
Entrance Northeast of 512
Foxknoll Ct.
176031911321000
Racine County
SW corner of S. Rochester St.
176031911005020
(Case Eagle Park)
and Hwy 36
176031914019010
176031911005000
176031910020000
176031903014000
Racine County
Entrance South of 2737 Buena
176031903016000 (W.
R. Wadewitz Nature Camp)
Park Rd.
176031913010000
Racine County
SE Corner of CTH J and CTH A
176031913021000
(Open space/floodplain)
176031918118000
Honey Lake Protection &
35311 Buena Ave.
176031918119000
Rehabilitation District
176031918128000
176031918127000
176031918120000
176031918126000
176031914029000
Racine Co.
S of Fox River, W of STH 36
176031915021000 (Saller
Woods)
Extending S to Vergon
176031915091000
176031915090000
176031911259000
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Bike Path
176031902048000
176031911270000
176031902049000
176031902051000
176031913002000
Racine County
815 N. English Settlement
(FFA Fields)
Ed Yanke, 109 N. State Street, questioned how it was going to effect the library
property. Schattner explained that there are three parcels located up there now.
They will be combined into one parcel and placed in the P-1 District. By
conditional use the Village will then be allowed to place more than one building
on the parcel. It will require a public hearing, where people from the public
will be able to voice their concerns.
Peter Conrad, 2 E. Miflin, Madison, stated he feels that the Village is putting
the properties in the wrong categories. He said the way the ordinance is set up
those (the library) properties should be zoned P-2, because the baseball diamond
and the playground aren’t allowable under P-1. Schattner stated that P-1 allows
for public recreational and community center buildings and grounds.
Michael Pankonin, 206 W. Wade St. stated he has some concerns regarding the
proposed change to the Village of Rochester Commons Park and Rochester Library
from R-1, “Single Family Residential” to P-1, “Institutional Park District”.
He purchased his house 15 years ago and thought he was buying into a mature
residential community. He has some reservations about this change. While he does
not know all the implications of this change he appreciates the information that
Schattner gave.
However, he still has the following concerns should the change of zoning occur:
~ The existing park would be open to
alternative uses and Rochester Commons could be changed from a park area to an
area which is used for, quoting from the ordinance: “public facilities districts
are intended to accommodate a wide range of public and quasi-public uses
distributed throughout the community, such as locations that support government,
civic, cultural, recreational, health and infrastructure, including but not
limited to public facilities, community and group meeting centers, fire
stations, museums, hospitals, cemeteries, libraries and similar compatible uses”
~ The road which he lives upon, could turn
from a dead-end road to a through road
~ The road which he lives upon could require
major expansion which would dramatically affect his property
Simply stated, he feels that the above uses of the existing Rochester Commons
would significantly and materially affect the value of his property in a
negative way.
Schattner stated tonight’s meeting is about the ordinance. He’s stated the
Village is just like anyone in the Village, if someone wants to re-zone their
property they first have to come in front of the Plan Commission, then go
through a public hearing process, and then go to the Board for final approval.
Tonight’s meeting is for the Plan Commission to take a look at the ordinance and
decide if they are going to recommend approval. The public hearing will be held
on November 14, 2011. This gives time to get some understanding of what this
zoning ordinance means. Schattner stated he would be glad to sit down with
anyone who wants the ordinance explained to them.
Bill Monnin, 906 N. Browns Lake Rd., stated he received the letter as well and
wasn’t quite sure how it affected him. His property is zoned A-2 right now. He
questioned if his property is being rezoned. Schattner stated that his property
will remain A-2. The only properties that are being rezoned are the properties
that are listed in the letter he received. He received that letter because he is
within 300 ft. of the bike path.
Laura Rumpf, 210 Wade St., stated she does not want the Library grounds to be
P-1, she feels it should be P-2. She feels if you zone it P-1 you’re taking the
park away from the children.
Tamblyn stated if anyone would research it they would find that, if a new
village hall was to be built, the location up by the library was always the
first choice. He served on the Village Board a long time and it was a well known
fact when he was on the Board. Novy, confirmed that this was true. She stated
that the location used to be a school and the Village purchased the location for
the library. The Village Board at that time also had the intention of
constructing a Village Hall on to the existing building.
Peter Conrad stated he thinks that everyone would appreciate time to understand
this ordinance and to talk about it. He understands the merit of this ordinance
and the Village is trying to merge two ordinances. However, he thinks the
people need time to absorb it and understand the impact. He suggests that
another public hearing be held. Weinkauf stated that they could look at it again
at their next plan commission meeting.
Charlie Pietrowski, 108 N. State St., questioned, if the board decides not to
pass the ordinance and the library property stays residential, how will that
affect the building of the new village hall. He feels like this a push to
consolidate these properties just so the Village can build there. Weinkauf
stated that it would probably affect the placement of the building. Schattner
corrected in stating that it would affect the use of the property, its zoned
residential so the Village Hall would not be able to be built there. If it’s
zoned institutional then the use will allow for the Village Hall. Pietrowski
stated he doesn’t understand why this has taken so long. Why didn’t the Village
do this when they were considering the location in the first place?
Eckert stated this has to do with the fact that the Village is in the process of
merging two different zoning districts, the Village had its own zoning and the
Town used County zoning. This is not happening because of the Village Hall.
The Village has to start somewhere with merging the districts and this is where
the Village is starting.
Tamblyn questioned the audience as to how many people actually have any other
concerns other than the library property.
Camille Cox, 30637 Vergon Dr., stated she lives across from Saller Woods and
understands that is going to be rezoned. She wants to know how this will affect
their property. She is in the middle of selling her house and wants to know if
she needs to let the new owner know about this because she doesn’t want anything
to come back to her after she sells. Schattner stated they are being rezoned to
match the uses that they are right now, it will not affect her property.
Tamblyn stated the big thing with consolidating the Village and the Town is
merging all the rules. Some things meshed real well and some things don’t and it
is their job to get consistency throughout the whole Village. That is what they
are trying to accomplish with this zoning ordinance. This is where they are
starting. There is no hidden agenda.
Jay Rumpf, 210 Wade St., stated the zoning options that are in these districts
are so broad that almost anything could go in them. He certainly doesn’t want to
see a jail go up by the library. Schattner stated a jail is a permitted use
under the P-1 zoning ordinance, but they could make it a conditional use where
citizens are made aware of it and can give input on it.
Michael Pankonin, 206 W. Wade St., stated he feels the property is best served
in the P-2 district, he feels that is how it is being used now. Schattner stated
that if you look at the uses in both districts there are things listed in both
districts that people may not want to see up there. They are trying to zone it
for what it is being used as now. Gerber stated that the library is located on
the property already and that is listed under the P-1 district. P-2 would not
match the use.
Laura Rumpf, 210 Wade St., stated the Village could zone the Library P-1 and the
two other properties located up there P-2. Novy stated that there are no longer
three parcels; they were combined into one parcel with a quit claim deed that
the Village Board executed at one of their Board meetings.
Pankonin stated there was no notification sent to him about that. Novy stated
that there are no legal requirements to inform the public, if there was she
would have published a notice. Gerber added that all Village Board meetings are
open to the public. Schattner added a quit claim deed is a normal procedure when
you want to combine parcels. If you have multiple parcels, it just
requires the filing of a legal document to combine them. It does not
require a public hearing.
Schattner stated he is not there to talk about the village hall. This
meeting is about the overall zoning for the Village of Rochester- it has
nothing to do with the Village Hall. Tamblyn said they are trying to get the
P-1 and P-2 zoning corrected for all the parcels in the Village not just one
parcel. The majority of the people that are at the meeting seem to only be
concerned about the library parcel.
Dennis Saunders, 304 N. State St., stated when he was on the Village Board he
could foresee a lot of problems when the Village and the Town consolidated
especially with the ordinances. He’d like to make a suggestion that the
original Village be Zone 1 and the old Town be Zone 2. He said the Village and
the Town had their own set of ordinances and he suggests that they use those
ordinances and it would clear up a lot of problems. Weinkauf stated that the
Village is in the process of going through the ordinances to combine them and
make them work for the whole Village.
Ed Yanke, 109 N. State St., questioned if they could just go ahead with the
rezoning of the parcels that there are no objections to and hold back on the
ones that there are objections to. Schattner stated that they are talking about
the ordinance right now; they are not going to piece meal it. They’ve identified
the parcels that fall into these districts. This ordinance has gone through the
Ordinance Committee and the Plan Commission and they have modified it to address
concerns that the Plan Commission had. Now it is out there for the public to
look at it and make some recommendations. Yanke stated this ordinance effects
different people in different ways and in different areas. Tamblyn added that
they went through the text and,
to take it a step further, they’ve identified the parcels that fit the text.
Mike Pankonin suggested that they rezone the other parcels and hold off on the
library parcel. Tamblyn stated that would be going against everything the
Village is trying to do. They are trying to get the zoning figured out for the
whole Village. They can’t exclude parcels, the Village is dealing with the P-1
and P-2 zoning districts as a whole.
Laura Rumpf, questioned what the current zoning is for the fire station.
Schattner stated right now it is zoned R-2 and it shall be rezoned P-1.
Schattner gave his contact information and said that anyone is welcome to call
him if they would like to discuss the zoning districts in detail.
Tamblyn moved, 2nd by Beere to table Ordinance #2-11 until the November Plan
Commission meeting. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Tamblyn urged residents to e-mail or call Betty Novy with any suggestions or
comments on the ordinance so the Plan Commission can take them into
consideration.
Eckert moved, 2nd by Gerber to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sandi Swan
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer