Town electors take aim at rural development

Three proposals intended to restrict residential development in the Town of Saukville were approved by town electors at the annual meeting on Tuesday.

The recommendations, which will be considered by the Town Plan Commission in May, would limit divisions to only allow three contiguous lots zoned Agriculture 5, rewrite the town’s driveway spacing rules and limit shared driveways to only access two instead of three lots.

The motions had all received broad support from residents, who at annual meetings have voting power.

According to a letter distributed to residents that included the three motions, the changes are meant to prevent “large clusters of five-acre lots throughout the township” and “curb harmful development.”

At the meeting, resident Peter Kowalchuk supported the restrictions.

“Once the land is gone, you can’t get it back,” he said.

Other residents spoke against the proposed restrictions that they said would tie the hands of landowners — especially farmers — who rely on dividing their property to fund retirement, medical bills or other major expenses.

“I am looking at the farmers being able to sell some land to pay for medical bills or anything else,” one farmer said, adding the town’s ban on lots smaller than five acres is a big enough burden.

He said that many farmers will “head for the exit” and request a slew of divisions if ordinances are tightened as they will fear even more limits down the road.

Town Chairman Kevin Kimmes has argued the town has ordinances that are sufficiently restrictive.

The town does not allow subdivisions, but only certified survey map divisions, which can create four, at minimum five-acre, lots at a time. It also limits the frequency of land divisions to once every five years.

The first motion, to ban divisions that create three contiguous A-5 lots, passed 27-8. The second, to review the town’s driveway spacing rules that are currently unclear and were set for review anyway, passed 21-1. The third, to limit shared driveways to only access two properties instead of the currently allowed three, passed 16-10.

A more restrictive motion, to limit land divisions to only one five-acre lot every five years, proposed by one resident, was shot down by a 16-14 vote.

Concerns about residential growth in the town were recently piqued by a proposed land division on Hawthorne Drive that would have created four lots adjacent to three others that were previously divided by land owner Laura Logan.

Residents packed the town hall gym for a February Plan Commission meeting to oppose the project many saw as a rural subdivision.

Last month, the town Plan Commission delayed amending the less-than-a-year-old comprehensive plan until the dust had settled on residents’ opposition to the division. Kimmes noted a plan revision would cost about $20,000.

“Is there even a problem we are trying to solve?” he asked.

Residents’ fears of outside investors buying land for subdivisions don’t reflect what the commission has actually seen, Kimmes said.

He said he could only think of one example of an outside developer coming in during his eight years on the commission, which he attributed to the town’s restrictive division guidelines.

Dividing lots into five-acre parcels can actually protect the town’s rural character, Kimmes said. By “jigsawing” the community, developers are unable to buy wide swaths of land in one fell swoop and annex them into villages.