Mr. Connors Writes: Re: Sequence of Annexation and Development of Properties

Bill Connors <bill.connors@ci.evansville.wi.gov> wrote:

Dick:

 

In response to your message below ......, you are correct that a new sanitary sewer lift station and a sanitary sewer interceptor would be required to provide sanitary sewer service to the Gildner farm property (and the area between USH 14 and Cemetery Road, north of E. Main St.).  I doubt the city would be willing to pay for this lift station and interceptor--the developer will have to pay for them.  Nevertheless, the Gildner family requested that the Gilder farm property be included on the interim future land use map in the comprehensive plan, and the Smart Growth Planning Committee, Plan Commission, and Common Council all agreed to do so.  Consequently, the Gildner farm property would be considered "next in line" for annexation and subdivision after Capstone Ridge, Grand Orchard Estates, Westfield Meadows, and the potential future subdivision on the Larson Acres land north of Porter Road (which already has been annexed, but not rezoned or subdivided).  Unless the Common Council modifies the interim future land use map, the Maas property would, at best, be in line after the Gildner farm property.

 

Of course, some of this could change after the Town of Union adopts its new comprehensive plan and the township and city work together to make their future land use maps (among other things) consistent with each other.  The goal is to enter into a boundary agreement, and then adjust the future land use maps in the township's and city's comprehensive plans to be consistent with the boundary agreement.

 

Bill Connors
Evansville City Administrator
31 S. Madison St.
P.O. Box 76
Evansville, WI 53536
(608) 882-2263
fax: (608) 882-2282

 

Bill---

 

In the Future Development section of the recently emailed minutes of the Planning Commisison meeting of May 1, in the discussion of the Maas property, there is mention that the Gildner property is in the Interim Future Land Use Map and slated for development.

 

I think it should be appropriate to note that this is noted in the "Union Smart Growth Plan"  for future development and that in prior analyses of development since the land in question would require large infrastructure sewer and pumping investments by the city of Evansville should it be annexed, it has always not been considered for inclusion in the water and sewer of the city since the costs would be prohibitive. I have seen the planning documents on this issue that have labeled the property a class "5" which is the lowest of the ratings of all land surrounding Evansville that are targets for development.

 

I assume this is still the case.  Has something changed?

 

Before I put the minutes of the Planning meeting on the web, I want to be clear on this point.

 

Thanks.

 

Richard Woulfe

Evansville Observer