Joint Development Meeting
There was a much larger turnout for last nights planning meeting than the last zoning meeting. Quite a few people got up to speak both for and against the development. Ken Giacoletto got up to speak and he was much more agreeable at this meeting than the last.
There was one very odd moment near the end of the meeting when one of the developers started waving his hand to be recognized. When Mike Wuest called on him he asked to speak to the board in private in the hallway. The room just stared at him. This was a public meeting so it was illegal to go into a closed session not to mention there was a motion on the table waiting to be seconded. Mike Wuest just stared at him for a moment. I don’t think he could actually believe the guy had just asked for that. Mike just said “NO”.
I really wonder about the experience these guys have with developments. I think they are going to be the biggest problem the Conference Center is going to have with this development. They clearly have very little experience in building this type of development.
The developers don’t seem to have a clue how the process of public hearing works. I really think they thought they would just come in have a couple of meetings where all the locals would slap them on the back, say welcome to town, start building.
It ultimately came down to about 4 points.
1. Lot Size - According to Town of Green Lake Comprehensive Land Use Plan the town would like to see lot sizes of over ½ acre but not larger than 5 acres. All the lots are in the development are under ½ acre. One woman got up in support of the development to say she didn’t think the Comprehensive Plan really meant to include the Green Lake Conference Center and it should be OK for them to build smaller lots. WHY? I think much of this issue is about he density and the Conference Center is not exempt from the plan.
2. Cul-de-sacs - There are several cul-de-sacs in the development and they need to conform to certain standards. The cul-de-sacs have turns that are too sharp for vehicles. I think the developments have plans to change this at the moment.
3. Public Access - There is a state law requiring 60 feet of public access for every ½ mile of lake frontage.
4. Public or Private Roads - It is here I think the Board fell down on the job a bit. The board generally agreed that they didn’t really have a problem with private roads. Part of the reason for this is because a public road would require a 66-foot wide passage. This would require the removal of the stone walls and cutting down trees. The road has to be 22 feet wide for emergency vehicles and would need 22-foot wide sides making it 66 feet. At least. Probably a bit more on either side making the passage over 66 feet. I don’t think the Board wants to see the removal of the stone walls, which are over 100 years old or cutting down all those trees. Personally, I think the Board should have given the developers the option A or B. They should have to come back to the board with development plans showing both options on the plan. The use of public or private roads effects other aspects of the development like public access for the lake.
I really don’t understand why the development would have to cut off road access to the rest of the ABA. If the ABA doesn’t want those people to have easy access to the ABA they should just sell off the land to someone else and let them develop it. There is no logical reason for making the people in the development drive out to 23, turn left and then turn left again into the main gates to get access to the ABA. I think they are afraid of the heathen who might be buying the undersized lots and don’t want to give them easy access to all the good works they will be doing.
Ken Giacoletto said the Conference Center made a mistake when they expanded the Golf Course. He says the golf business is one of the worst businesses to be in and more courses have closed than opened in recent years. This may be true but it also depends on the specific golf course. Lawsonia is one of the premier golf courses in the Midwest if not the country. I have heard the course makes money but the Conference Center just takes the profit and puts it back into to the general fund so Lawsonia is unable to make improvements not to mention maintenance. Personally, I think Mr. Giacoletto would like to see the whole course just go under so they would not have to deal with even more heathens on the grounds. Why don’t they deal with the whole conference center like a real business and get a liquor license? Heathens everywhere.
I really don’t understand the reason the conference Center wants to cut the development out of the majority of the ABA by blocking the roads. What is the point of that except to cause congestion on 23? Absolutely ridiculous plan. Cut the development to 50 lots and let the current roads stand and the development would have a lot less problems. It will take 15 years for the development to sell off. This seems to be a better business practice for the ABA also. They can see what happens with the development and if they would even want to continue on. Green Lake real estate inventory is currently at the highest ever. There are several large developers who currently own homes on the lake. They look at this development in amazement and wonder because they would never attempt this development at this time. The market is down. Check out Realtor.com.
And then we come to the issue of the Sanitary District. Only 2/3 of the development fall under the current Sanitary District. The developers will have to petition the Sanitary District for inclusion into the Green Lake Sanitary district. Then it becomes a matter of money from where? Do we, as taxpayers need to pay for them to hook up to the sanitary district? What about building the water to mains to hook up. Where would they be built? And the new holding tank the district is going to have to build? And what about the fact that you hit water about 10 feet down in some of the development sections? These developers have a long way to go to provide the answers and I’m not sure the Green Lake Conference Center has picked the right ones.
I believe the next meeting this will be discussed is the County Board Meeting on June 6.
Happy Friday the 13th.
Posts
13 comments:
Chief
You have keen insights, but missed one detail. The Town of Brooklyn's Comprehensive Plan provides (p.50) "create compact new subdivisions in residential planned developments consisting of one (1) to two (2) acre lots." So the GLCC lots, which are all around 1/2 acre, are, at best, half the size they need to be. And remember, the Comprehensive Plan was created by the people of the town for the people of the town.
Another missed detail... the Town of Brooklyn's comprehensive plan is still just a guideline. From the information that was stated at the meeting Thursday night, the comprehensive plan becomes law in 2010. Current lot size in GL County, determined by zoning regulations, which are still the law of the land, for all of us, has an allowable minimum of 20,000 square feet, or just a little under 1/2 acre.
So, if you want to buy and build and don't want to have to buy a minimum one acre lot, you better get busy or plan to move out of town.
So you are insinuating that because the Conference Center chooses to serve Christian, family and other not-for-profit groups, and that they elect not to serve liquor on their grounds, that they are not running themselves as a "real business"? Since they have survived 60 plus years, they must know something about business.
In addition, in my business experiences, it is not an uncommon practice for companies, that own subsidiaries (what Lawsonia is to the ABA) for the owner to charge an administration fee or collect dividends to/from that subsidiary. Having been in both situations in my life, I can see and understand how someone could refer this as "taking the profits". Actually it's just business.
I wonder how long Ken G. has had this development planned for?? ABA Presidents have always lived in the "House of 7 Gables," I believe that he is the first to live off grounds........I guess he didn't want all the traffic going by his house!!
Interesting comment about "survived as business for 60 years." One of the key factors that has helped the ABA survive as a business is because of the various donors that have contributed to the annual fund thoughout the years. Without them, the ABA would have been history many years ago.
I am not against expansion or development at the ABA although I question whether the lots will sell in today's market. I would like to see the ABA remain as it is, for it is such an intregal part of Green Lake's history. The expansion will only help the golf courses improve, and that in itself is a very important part of Green Lake's economy.
Please correct me if I am wrong but, didn't the private land owners that live on the grounds offer the GLCC a lump sum of money so they wouldn't go further with this lindenwood development? I believe the offer was close to what they would sell each lot for and Ken G told them no. Why not take the money and leave grounds alone?
You're absolutely right! This comment you wrote is right on... "One of the key factors that has helped the ABA survive as a business is because of the various donors that have contributed to the annual fund throughout the years."
As a not-for-profit business, you are rewarded with financial gifts from your donors and supporters because they support your mission and believe that you are doing "good business" or in the not-for-profit world that you are doing "good mission".
Since the ABA has survived and been rewarded by their supporters for over 60 years; they are doing "good business".
According to a reliable source, The Homeowners did not make a financial offer to ABA so they would hold off on the developemnt.
The next meeting the Town has with the developers of Lawsonia Estates may be May 3. L.E.'s plans started out with 25 issues pointed out by Town of Brooklyn's engineers (Strand, Madison) and now there are over 60 issues that developers must "fix"! The time of the Town of Brooklyn meeting is dependent on how much time it takes for developers to be prepared for a Town meeting. They can not go on to the County meeting with any of these items not completed.
How unfortuneate that the meetings have taken place with many interested folks out-of-town! This development is a precedence that should not be allowed.
Newspapers show that Lilly Co. has awarded a 3rd million dollars to the GLCC for their efforts at minister preparation. Other churches have been successful with yearly groups of ministers attending for 4-5 days for inspiration and leadership.
Golfers love the scenic beauty of the Links and especially the Woodlands. How will they feel when the woodlands are only land and suburban housing? Reports have been made that groups of golfers have come especially to play at Lawsonia and after unkind treatment, went back to their easier to reach courses. Is the conference center as interested in taking smaller groups as previously or have faithful Christians been told by GLCC not to come as the group is too small?
Must dash!
Yes, Lawsonia Woodlands and the Links are beautiful. However, I and others who love golf like I do, often travel thousands of miles, and put out a lot of cash, to play courses that are often lined with beautiful homes, sometimes condos. It is a different setting, but still very nice. It's not uncommon in the golf world. Unfortunately, empty real estate next to a golf course is cash that could be in your bank, or improving your course.
Sorry, but if I had the money, I'd love to build a home at Lawsonia.
As I have read through these posts, the following thought comes to mind... who owns this town and surrounding townships anyway? A bunch of folks from Illinois, who consider this their playground or those of us who live here. If you have been at these town meetings, the most vocal opponents to development are folks who don't even live here! They even got themselves an attorney to fight for them. That's their style; hire someone else to fight their battles.
The rest of us are here to try and scratch out a living and provide for our families. The sad irony is we need more of these Illinois folks to kick our local economy in the tail, maybe even cut back our taxes? (hey, we can dream can't we). Eventually some of the crumbs of the money they spend here will trickle down to our paychecks.
If we want to just be a sleepy little town, full of services to cater to the wealthy weekend & summer folks, we need to just keep doing what we're doing. We're well on our way, if not there already. Let’s just keep on letting other dictate to us how our community should be. That seems to work great... for them.
Chief
Something's afoot. On short notice the Town of Brooklyn Board and Plan Commission are meeting on Thursday, May 3. The main agenda item is
Discussion or repealing of all or parts of or amendments to:
a. Town Land Subdivision Ordinances
b. Comprehensive Plan
What's this all about? Hope you'll be there to let us know what's going on.
I agree with "feeling frustrated". The "Ill-annoy-me's get away with murder. You should see what kind of "illegal" building is going on on the west end of the lake and our "officials" are doing nothing about it!
Post a Comment