MP10-18
Comprehensive Growth Plan Hearing
March 25, 2010
Chair Wicker opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with the pledge to the flag.
Town Board members present: Supervisors John Wicker, Dennis Loewen, Jim
Unterberger, Clerk Terre Harff & Deputy Clerk Bev Adolph. Others
present were Zoning Administrator, Chuck Froehling, Charles Marohn from
Community Growth Institute, committee members and other residents totaling
about 30.
Supervisor Wicker asked Clerk Harff to read the legal notice as printed.
Wicker turned the meeting over to Charles Marohn who explained the process
the township steering committee has gone through this past year.
Wicker asked Marohn to explain why it is important to have a comprehensive
growth plan. Marohn stated it sets direction for public improvement,
annexation, conditional uses, rezoning, and variances and helps the board
make decisions for the future. Previously the County has stated their
wishes for the township in their comprehensive growth plan; this helps the
township govern for them by giving the county a plan that is approved by the
people.
Wicker opened the meeting up for public comments.
Larry Sheetz asked if this plan would change if the four lane highway went
through on Hwy 15. Wicker explained that the Hwy 15 project is almost
non-existent at this point.
Erin Gutwasser asked if Powder Ridge had input on this plan. She asked
if they would want to expand their business, is that a part of the plan.
It was explained they have no more land to do so and the board could address
that if it would be requested.
Dave Lochen asked what the next steps are. Marohn explained once it is
accepted by the board, it goes to the county for their review, once the
County Planning Committee reviews it they give their recommendation to the
Commissioners. The document is then recorded. Lochen then asked
what if the township decides this plan is not working for us, does the
township need to go through this whole process again. Marohn explained
he felt it should be reviewed yearly and if it needs modifying, it should be
done. Marohn did feel that it should go through public review every 5
years. If you want to amend the plan to modify it, it will need
to be presented to the county again with an explanation as to why the plan
should be changed.
Charles Craft asked if Marohn could explain the difference between a Zoning
Map and Land Use Map.
James Hoeft, a steering committee member, asked what happened with the
growth south of town as was directed by the committee. His land is on
103rd St and it was directed as a growth area South and East of Kimball.
The one meeting that Mr Hoeft missed it was discussed on how Willow Creek
area would be affected by the growth. The board was informed that
money is being stuck into Willow Creek for improvements. The board
felt growth should be steered away
MP10-19
from Willow Creek and move North of Kimball. The discussion then was
that some growth could be South of Kimball but more to the West.
Wicker felt that the growth should surround Kimball and the setbacks would
protect Willow Creek. There would be very little area that could
sustain growth on this land by Willow Creek because of the lay land.
Unterberger felt that growth could take place in the poor agriculture land
and stay away from the hills. Loewen explained there is upcoming law
concerning surface water and the protection of the creeks, rivers and lakes.
The maps were reviewed and some changes made to show growth both south and
north of Kimball. The northern sections were scaled back because of
the comments made from the county.
Erin Gutwasser asked why there was no commercial or industrial area set
aside on the map. Marohn explained that at this time the commercial is
spot zoned. Erin was wondering why we are looking at county maps when
it is our plan. Wicker referred to the county letter stating that if
we have so much growth to the north of Kimball, we should put some of the
southern land back into ag zoning. Erin referred to the fact that
Marohn explained this was the township telling the county where the township
wants growth; she wanted to know why we are allowing the county dictate what
the township does. Marohn did explain that we need to look at what the
county said and some ideas can be incorporated in the plan, but if the
township can explain why the township chose the area for growth, it will
help the county see why the township the area they did for it’s growth area.
Dennis Loewen/Ron Kuechle made a motion to adjourn the public hearing.
Motion carried.
John Arnold referred to the letter the county sent in the form of
recommendations. It stated that his land is zoned R5 now and his
concern is the new map will change to show it as A 40 if we do what the
county states.
Charles Craft wondered why the county is not present at some of these
meetings. If they are going to be making recommendations, it would be
nice to hear their reasoning behind those recommendations. Marohn
explained the county was present at some of the meetings.
It is noted that there were a lot of maps that were not all the same.
The ones in the preliminary plan were different than the ones presented from
the county. It leads to some confusion.
Wicker explained they would try to have a more definitive map at the April
13th meeting. The changes made would be reviewed at that time.
Jim Unterberger/Chuck Froehling made a motion to adjourn. Motion
carried.
Terre Harff
Maine Prairie Clerk