PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

January 29, 2007

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. –  9:55 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Committee Vice Chair Terry Hanson.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.

REFERRED ZONING PETITION NO. 1733 Daniel J. McHugh  W7010 Evergreen Way  Onalaska WI and Charles Kasten  608 Honeygold Ct  La Crescent MN, acting in behalf of John K. and Judith I. McHugh  W7805 Old Highway 93  Holmen WI.  Petition to rezone from the Transitional Agriculture District to Commercial District “C”, a 260.6 acre parcel for a commercial business park on lands lying south of Old Highway 93 and east of Prairie Amsterdam Rd described as: The N½-NE; the SW-NE; the N½-SE-NE; the SE-NW; the NE-SW, the NW-SE; the North 10' of the SE-SW; and, the North 10' of the SW-SE all in Section 26, T 18 N, R 8 W.  Town of Holland.

Appearing in favor:  Chuck Olson  308 Grant Street  Holmen WI.  Did speak in favor at the previous public hearing.  Here to reiterate that we are still actively pursuing this rezone.  I represent both Dan McHugh and Charlie Kasten as well as John and Judy McHugh.  Rather than be repetitious of what I said last time I am before you to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Dean McHugh  725 Stonebridge  Onalaska WI.  Representing the developers of the proposed project.  Come here tonight in favor of the rezone to Commercial “C” of the John McHugh farm, as presented previously to this Committee and as has come through the Town Board.  Won’t go into as much as we talked about last time.  The proposed main entrance would come out here (on overhead map) at the bottom on the state highway.  Also entrances shown out onto Amsterdam Prairie Road there and there (indicates on overhead map) as well as Old Highway 93.  Have made it very clear from the beginning the main entrance is at the bottom onto the State Highway.  Because of the proximity to the state highway this is an ideal location for business growth on the north end of the county, also very close to an interchange on a 4-lane.  If we want to have job growth in our county need places for existing businesses to expand and for new businesses that may consider moving to our area.  The impacts on property itself and the surrounding area have been considered in preliminary planning and discussions between the Township and the developers.  I’m sure some of these items we hashed last time as well as things discussed at the town board level and some things I haven’t anticipated will come up tonight as everybody gets an opportunity to speak in a public forum.  I will answer any questions the Committee has of us as a developer after the Committee has had an opportunity to hear from everybody.  We asked for approval of the rezoning, consistent with the Town comprehensive plan and recommendation.

Question MEYER: Are you asking to come back later to speak?

Answer MCHUGH: That’s up to you.  If you have questions now I will answer them or if you decide it’s appropriate to ask questions later I’ll do my best to answer them.

Question MEYER: One of the questions last time was water safety, septic system sewer questions, noise, and light control.  What’s been done differently since then to improve that or make decisions on it?

Answer MCHUGH: All those issues were already started in our preliminary draft of our covenants for the project.  I don’t have a copy of them along with me, but lighting, signage and aesthetics of the buildings were all in the preliminary draft of our covenants.  Eventually the Town Board will need to sign off on a developers’ agreement.  The Town Board is also in the process of developing a siting ordinance for commercial properties, I understand they’ve taken up some of these issues in that as well.  I haven’t had a chance to review a draft of where they are at with that document.  As far as septic systems, if that’s a problem?

Question MEYER: That’s one of the questions asked?

Answer MCHUGH: I don’t think that’s a problem.  The residences here adjacent to the property are all on septic systems.

Question MEYER: So you’re saying these things haven’t been finalized yet?

Question MCHUGH: What would you ask me to ……..?

Remarks MEYER: Any of these things that were brought up, sewer, water, traffic, noise.

Answer MCHUGH: The plan is to be on septic systems and private wells as is everyone else around there.  The traffic as I indicated would go out the bottom (south), at least the heavy truck traffic.  There have been discussions with DOT about that intersection where they prefer it to go.  Heavy truck traffic which is a concern to residents to the north, it would be quite easy for the Town to put weight restrictions on that road to keep trucks off.

Question RAUK: What would your position be if weight restrictions were mandated on Old 93 and Amsterdam Prairie down to the highway, so that essentially truck traffic could only exit from the bottom? 

Answer MCHUGH: We’d be willing to discuss that; I think because of other development in that area you may need more than one entrance, just for safety, but if you wanted to, say you wanted to restrict truck traffic up on Old 93 and Amsterdam Prairie north of the “Street B” intersection, we’d say yes we are in favor of that.  If the only alternative is as you suggested we’d be willing to discuss that.

Remarks RAUK: In my question I didn’t mean to imply that if there were a fire up there that heavier fire trucks wouldn’t be able to use that.  Speaking of every-day traffic….

Remarks MCHUGH: I understand that, initially I don’t see that as a major problem, have to see what else develops out there.  At some point there will be other projects that will need to use that road.  At that time the town will need to decide what’s feasible.  At least during phase 1 and 2 I don’t see why there would be substantial traffic that would make this not work.

Remarks RAUK: Perhaps if we did get substantial traffic that intersection may need to be signalized so your passage is protected.

Remarks MCHUGH: That’s something that was discussed with the DOT representative and it sounds like as the count to determine when a light can be used, as you funnel more traffic to where they are counting, the more likely you are to get that light.  Another point on traffic talked about extensively at the last meeting, how the residents on Old Highway 93 are concerned with the dangerous intersection out onto the State Highway, out in this area somewhere (on overhead map).  Notice that that future town road is a north-south corridor through this project that would provide an alternative for those residents to get to the State Highway without having to use that intersection that nobody seems to like.  It’s an improvement to the traffic pattern.

Question BLUSKE: Mr. McHugh, in your impact statement that was turned in in December, this is something brand new.  I’ve got 2 issues; it says there are high nitrate levels in the ground.  Have you proposed anything, because you state devices are available to lower nitrate levels to an acceptable level?  Are you proposing something in your plat restrictions that everyone has to install that?

Answer MCHUGH: At this point the nitrate levels we are aware of are present at the bank just south of the project, it’s a reasonable assumption that because this site was used for agriculture that there are problems on this site also.  I’m not aware if the residents north of this are experiencing this problem or if it’s being tested for.  We are willing to address that in our covenants or however the Town wants to address it, if it’s determined that for the health and safety of the people working in the building that there needs to be devices installed to lower nitrates to an acceptable level. 

Question BLUSKE: Any projection on average daily traffic that will come out of this subdivision?

Answer MCHUGH: No we have not, at this point the road that would go out to the south would also more than likely be used by Mr. Tempte’s property which are all those lots across the bottom (on map) and also the Mathy property to the east.  I don’t have the slightest idea what they are proposing for those properties, so I wouldn’t know where to start as far as a traffic count where it hits the State Highway.  I believe the concerns about traffic from the people living up in that northern perimeter seem relatively simple to make sure that the trucks are not on those roadways.

Derek Kasten  515 Reagent Drive  La Crescent MN.   I’m one of the partners in this development, also part owner of Interstate Roofing, here in favor of this issue in front of us tonight for same reasons as stated earlier.

Question BLUSKE: Getting back to that traffic question again, the only reason I ask that is have you done a study by any chance?

Answer KASTEN: No.

Remarks BLUSKE: Normally a town road or county highway is built based on knowing what the daily average traffic is, if nobody’s done one how will anyone know how wide to build the road?

Randy Larson  W7981 Old Highway 93  Holmen WI.  Here in favor, own a small business on Old 93.  Will benefit me in the long run if this gets pushed through; may be able to expand a little bit.

Question HANSON: Where are you located on Old 93?

Answer LARSON: Up on the upper end (indicates on map).

Lloyd Dresen  N6944 Garden Street  Holmen  WI.  Have been following this comprehensive plan for quite a while, have attended a few meetings, had the chance to get all my questions answered and offer my opinions and am pleased with the Town and Planning Committee and what they’ve done, listening to all the residents up there.  Support the plan and rezoning of the property.  Hear a lot of comments about growth of Holmen, I think you gentlemen are all aware how fast it’s growing, in particular the residential.  The commercial hasn’t kept up, we need some tax base and this group promises to give us some, so that is primarily the reason I’m in favor of it.  Developer and Town have worked hard to put this together, take care of the residents up there, I’m sure they will do a good job and hope you will support this.

Len Beranek  N7910 Bluffview Court  Holmen  WI.  I own 143 acres across the highway, east of John McHugh’s property.  Like to on record in favor, mostly because of how nice it lays around by itself, available to the interchanges there, they can go either way.  Think our area needs some tax base of this type, like Mr. Dresen said, we are a residential community that’s booming but we lack this type of development like other communities have.  Hope the planning commission and developer can take into consideration the concerns of the people around this area and do that in their planning. 

Question MEYER: Are you that number 38 on map?

Answer BERANEK: No, that’s my son; I’m east of there across the highway – not on that map sir.

Leroy Holley  W7641 County Road OT  Holmen  WI.  Live in the Town of Holland.  I’m in favor of this basically for tax reasons.  The whole township is being developed into homes, our school taxes are high, we need to combat this some way.  Industrial will increase our tax base and lessen the number of children in school, so I hope you will consider voting for this.

David Kriesal  N1013 Sandberg Rd  Melrose  WI  54642.  I’ve got 57 acres just south of there coming out to Highway 93 and I’m in favor of this.  The tax base has already been mentioned.

David Marx – representing Mathy Construction.  Speaking in favor of the McHugh-Kasten petition for Commercial “C”.  Feel proposed rezone has potential to strengthen existing town tax base as this project matures.  This project should also create a strong job market in support of the local businesses that are pushing to relocate in the new development.  Rezoning the property can potentially improve the Town’s tax revenue from approximately six dollars an acre in its current use designation to potentially as much as six hundred dollars an acre or more when fully developed.  This represents a possible hundred fold increase in revenue over the current Trans Ag use.  The potential tax revenue from this completed project could reduce the township mill rate by potentially ten percent for other residents if this commercial zoning is approved.  This represents a benefit to all township residents as a result of the commercial property higher tax revenue and also improves the area job growth.  Adequate transportation systems that are planned or already in place for this project can support the needs of this Commercial “C” zoning designation for this particular project.  We advise against changing to Commercial “A” or “B” designations because of possible increased traffic burden for local residential residents.  Because of the positive impact of this project on the township and area residents we encourage the Board to approve the petition as presented.

Question BINA: Does Mathy have any plans for that property next to this?

Answer MARX:  At this time do not have a development plan in place.  We’ve discussed various concepts that would be consistent with the project that is being petitioned for and consistent with a Commercial “C” designation in this area, but don’t have a specific plan in place at this time.  In process of developing the intersection as a prelude to possibly a project in the future.

Question MEYER: Did I understand you to say the traffic patterns are okay the way they are?  Yet you’ve heard Jeff talk to the other fellows and there’s no evaluation of what the traffic pattern may be?

Answer MARX: We have a permit from DOT to develop a type B intersection with State Highway 35.  That is fully capable of any traffic that would be developed for this site including the potential for signalizing.

Question MEYER: So you’re talking right at the bottom of the map there.

Answer MARX: That would be at the west line of the Mathy property and the east line of the Tempte property and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Question MEYER: Jeff are you aware of that?

Answer BLUSKE: Yes, if you look at the vicinity map I’m thinking they are indicating that the road would intersect with the road here, coming out of this (indicates on map).

Answer MARX: It would be (pointing on map).   The intersection would match the existing stay force lane that’s in place at the bank at this point.  We intend to match that intersection to the north, at DOT’s request if ever needed to be signalized in the future.  DOT won’t enforce signalization there unless needs warrant at some time in the future.

Question RAUK: The Mathy property to the east of the area labeled future town road, how is that zoned now?

Answer MARX: I believe all of our property is currently zoned Trans Ag the same as McHugh’s.

Question RAUK: Did I understand correctly that you say that Mathy is comfortable with asking to rezone that to Commercial “C”, I think you said “consistent with the Commercial “C” that the rest of this is being proposed for”?

Answer MARX: At some point in the future I think that is a possibility yes.

John McHugh  W7805 Old Highway 93  Holmen  WI.  Obviously in favor of the plan here.  This area being requested for rezone is unique.  I specified that when I spoke here before and as George Hammes has mentioned once this property goes for a use other than this it’s gone, and what might that other use be?  Housing?  That’s certainly the direction for the Town of Holland.  Do we want four or five hundred more houses up there?  I don’t think anyone wants that.  Can whoever afford to buy the development rights of this 260 acres?  That’s a possibility, I’m not opposed to that, but I’m telling you now I’m not going to farm that.  It’s for sale now, has been for two years, so if this doesn’t go through now, something will in the near future.  I’m quite certain of that.  Also I would like to point out that the opposition to me seems to be primarily to the north along Old Highway 93, specifically that subdivision and also along Amsterdam Prairie Road and if you look at the map of the parcels here you have nothing on the east side of the property which is one complete side and no opposition on the south which is one complete side, so you have two complete sides of the property with no opposition and matter of fact the opposite of that, most in favor of this large parcel.  So it’s my opinion or recommendation that you consider the whole community here, the whole township, the whole county and try not to be influenced to the negative by this core of opposition, because they are a small portion, that’s all I have to say.

Jim Halverson  N7297 Casberg Coulee Road  Holmen  WI.  I am in favor of this, the people who have spoken before me have pretty well covered anything I would be saying also.  As far as Mr. Meyer’s concerns we have a draft that we are working on to address concerns some of these people had before, have the draft of that and are finishing up at this time.  So we would have that ordinance in place shortly.

Question MEYER: You have a draft of?

Answer HALVORSON: Site plan ordinance, I’m on the town board, Town of Holland.

William Beranek  W7921 Old Highway 93  Holmen  WI.  I believe commercial use of the property would be better than 500 houses out there.  Traffic issues and concerns would be increased with residential versus controlled use with commercial to the south.  We need more tax base in the area, little more income than housing.  Our township has several hundred vacant lots already.  We need business in this part of the county I believe.

OPPOSITION:

Jadell Fasnacht  W7761 Devon Place  Holmen  WI.  For the record I live three blocks north of Old Highway 93.  Recently mailed a letter to the Committee addressing all of the reasons why I oppose this rezone request and I would just reiterate that for all the reasons listed in that letter I strongly oppose.  As a mother of school aged children gravely concerned over the close proximity to the new school location, afraid for their safety with increased traffic particularly heavy equipment and large vehicles.  Many parents from Village of Holmen that I have recently spoken with regarding this issue are also very concerned and unfortunately are just realizing the impact this rezone could have for them.  As a mother of an asthmatic child have concerns over air quality, when we moved here from the Twin Cities six years ago were delighted to be in a rural atmosphere free of urban pollutants.  There were days when living in the metro area my child was not able to go outside due to poor air quality.  Had hoped that by moving to Town of Holland we were improving her quality of life, health and safety.  Have spoken with another mother who lives along the proposed rezone who has an asthmatic child and shares same concern.  Finally I speak to you as a citizen and past paralegal who worked for the United States Justice Department and several other legal entities before moving to the Town of Holland.  Focus on issue that is most fundamental component of this entire process and that issue is democracy, which is defined as rule by the people.  Last January the Town of Holland sent out 1079 questionnaires to the citizens of their community.  By March 28, 2006, 406 surveys had been returned which is 37.6 percent return rate and as recorded by the Holmen Courier on June 9, 2006.  This return rate impressed town officials.  In fact Doug Klenke, chairman of the Town Plan Commission is quoted in this article saying, “We had a great response for the length of the survey.”  The Courier also reported that “the people who live in the Town of Holland moved there mainly for rural atmosphere and scenic beauty, at least that is what the survey told town officials.”  Looking back at the survey 53 percent of respondents said that the town is developing too fast, while 30 percent say it is just about right.  That means that 83 percent of the respondents are for the most part happy with the way things are and aren’t looking to bring in a large commercial development.  Why then would the town board of the Town of Holland vote to bring in the largest Commercial “C” rezone in all of La Crosse County?  I remind you that the responsibility of an elected official is to represent the people who elected them.  I ask you who is representing this 80 percent.  I would also add that on January 9, 2007 the Town of Holland Planning Commission, who is the recommending board to the Town of Holland, met and passed a motion to recommend to the Town Board, to recommend to the County to change the rezone petition to Commercial “A” or “B” instead of Commercial “C”.  The Town has met on two occasions on January 10 and January 17 but has failed to put this motion on their agenda and thus it remains an active motion in front of the Town Board.  Clearly their own Planning Commission is not in favor of this Commercial “C” rezone request.  I fear the Town of Holland is not being governed by the will of the people and that is not democracy.  You as the County Committee now have the opportunity to put this issue back on track, to restore democracy and serve the people.  I would ask you to do just that. 

Question HANSON: Where is this school located at?

Answer FASFNACHT: The school is located kitty corner from the property where the new Gundersen, the balloon thing they talk about.

Question HANSON: Can you show us Jeff?

Answer BLUSKE: Indicates on map proposed school location.

Harlan Arttus  N7877 Amsterdam Prairie Road  Holmen  WI.  I live along Amsterdam Prairie Road.  Strictly against this Commercial “C” development.  One of the first things I said at the Town Board meeting was that I was worried about the health, welfare and safety of the children in this area.  Ironic that I read an article in the La Crosse Tribune this last  Saturday (January 27) about health issues that result from emissions from increased traffic.  Would like to quote one paragraph from this article:  “The landmark study led by a team of University of Southern California scientists and released Thursday deliver a sobering answer to long standing question about the health effects of being raised near a busy roadway where air is chronically polluted.”  Yes this is in California and traffic is more congested there, but the effects on the children there would be same as the effects on children here.  We will have hundreds of trucks and other vehicles in and out of this development daily that will cause air pollution.  Do not know if all these vehicles will be diesel, but the exhaust from diesel engines contain 100 to 200 times more pollutants than gasoline engines, which should be an extremely high concern for this development.  The other problems with this development besides air pollution is noise pollution, water pollution, water run off pollution, light pollution, etc.  Nobody knows for sure if this land can sustain this type of development.  If there are thirty businesses going into this development maybe it can only sustain five or six businesses.  This is not the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s or 80’s, or even earlier than the 1950’s where developers and city planners just plopped down a commercial business in a neighborhood without doing a study.  In this day and age with our advanced technology we should be able to determine if the piece of land that is going to be developed as Commercial “C” is the right type of development for that land.  That is why there should be an environment impact study done before one shovel is turned.  If you go back to my very first statement about the health, welfare and safety of our children no one is taking this into consideration.  There are too many potential problems no matter how this land is to be developed.  Please stop, think and use common sense.  Think about the long range problems that will develop.  The Planning Commission and Town Board are not listening to the concerns of the citizens who live in this area.  I hope you, as the County Zoning Committee will hear our concerns and delay this zoning until all issues are resolved.

David Schipper  N7916 Bluffview Court  Holmen  WI.  Speaking in opposition from the east of the property, heard John McHugh say no one opposing from the east.  Reason I’m talking about it is mainly because of the communication side of it.  If you live out in the country there’s going to be development.  I live right next to the highway.  I knew there was going to be development.  The real question is I had no communication until it’s already going to go in.  That is my biggest concern.

Terry Sacia  N8156 Cambrian Road  Holmen  WI.  I speak in opposition, I did speak at your October 30 meeting in opposition, had many questions that I don’t believe have been answered yet.  Would like that to be part of the record, I stand by what I had asked at that time as well.  Some rebuttal to some of the items, to some of the people who have already been up here, Mr. Marx with Mathy Construction who is in all essence part of this whole plan, says that we can decrease town taxes by ten percent by adding commercial base to the taxes.  I’m not disagreeing with that but we’ve also talked about the Village of Holmen annexing this land and that doesn’t decrease the Town of Holland’s taxes.  So let’s look at the whole picture and not get some people interested from one aspect of it.  I feel strongly that Mr. Marx throwing those numbers out there might sway some people but in the long run it could be a bunch of  “hooey.”  Also want to point out that Mr. Bill Beranek who spoke in favor of this measure minutes ago, signed a legal objection petition opposing it within the last two to three weeks.  People are entitled to change their mind, but I want to point that out for the record.  I would also like to point out for the record that there is a, I believe this land up here that Mr. Larson spoke about, he operates a commercial business on that property now, that may be illegal or out of variance or whatever, but it’s a commercial business of landscaping, there’s no house there it’s just trucks.  The reason he would like this, I believe, pure speculation but if this is all changed to Commercial “C” it could potentially impact his business here, as the Town plan has been shown this whole area is in red which is commercial, it’s full of houses now except for Mr. Larson’s business.  Also if weight restrictions, this is the road I see him on most right here (indicates on overhead) Old 93 and if that’s the case any weight restrictions that were put on could negatively affect his business as well.   Mr. McHugh with McHugh Excavating said this is a dangerous intersection (indicates on map), it’s terrible.  Unfortunately the DOT says short of somebody being seriously injured probably nothing will be done with it, and so to help that congestion there this is a perfect road to put in to help the residents.  For years people have been using this road and it hasn’t hindered anybody, so we have access.  They’re not doing us a favor by putting a town road in, it may cause more traffic concerns.  We talked about the tax base again, I’m not so sure, first of all there was a study done by UW-Eau Claire Extension Office, cost of services I believe it’s called.  That study points out where residential homes cost the town approximately 1200 dollars a year, I think, commercial puts money in the tax base.  I don’t think anyone is here saying we don’t want commercial in the area, we’re saying vote no on this Commercial “C” zoning for the types of businesses proposed to go in here.  We’ve been trying to work with the Town and the Planning Commission in putting in buffers, different types of zoning “A” or “B” and possibly if we saw a plan or something many may not be in opposition even if Commercial “C” were closer to the highway.  But we haven’t seen anything, as a matter of fact, Mr. McHugh with McHugh Excavating said he was at one of the meetings, I’ve only missed two in the past three months, maybe it was one of those.  I’ve been a little disappointed that there hasn’t been a representative, except for Mr. Hammes, of the developers here.  We hear, well we’re working on this developers agreement, well where are they at?  Why is it secret?  Why can’t we have any input?  It’s also my understanding that the Town Planning Commission obviously did not make it to the Town Board, so politically correct, it never passed, never made it to the agenda.  It is my understanding that an overwhelming number of people on the Plan Commission would like to see this as “A” or “B”.  The first meeting I was at after this meeting of the Plan Commission, when they found out what types of businesses were going in here I literally saw jaws drop.  Some were more surprised than others.  But how do you create something good if everyone is not informed?  The process hasn’t worked to this point.  We’ve heard things before, we see a town road is going in here.  When I spoke with the DOT, I could be totally wrong, I went down and met with them on this, before Mr. Hammes went there, what they told me that’s a driveway permit, and maybe Mr. Marx, their land is on this road too, maybe he can say I’m totally wrong, that was my understanding from “Mike” at the DOT, that it’s a driveway permit, he knew nothing at that time about a town road going in.  A church at that south point has also expressed concern, and they came to a meeting and said what is this about a town road, if a town road goes in we can’t have this traffic going by us, we need it to go up by your subdivision, because we are going to have a day-care and a preschool.  I pulled her aside and said at this meeting on October 30, if I heard it right we were reassured by Mr. Hammes and the developers that there would be weight restrictions and no traffic going north on Old 93.  My recollection, and I could be wrong, I want to point that out.  I’d also like to look at the land approximately 260 acres if you pull out 20 acres let’s say for roads and have 240 left, I think there is about 28 proposed parcels up here.  If you take those proposed parcels, 8 almost 9 acres each, although they’re split up differently and if, and I’m not for this, and I don’t know if anyone in opposition is for this at all, ‘cause I don’t think that’s good for the area either.  If you did put just homes on it each parcel could increase the tax base about 1.5 million.  Now I understand that Interstate Roofing is probably on a few acres and is assessed around 460 to 470 dollars, we are looking at now taking 2 acres.  I’m sure they will expand and take more room, I don’t know how much bigger that building would be?  So now if you put it on 20 acres does it really increase the tax base that much more?  Another disagreement that I have the University of Wisconsin Extension cost  of services is, we can make numbers look like anything you want to make, if you want to find a good accountant the question is what is two plus two and they should say, what you want it to be.  I’m not saying they maliciously changed this or made it look differently, but they’re making it look, I know the County wants money, we know that, but if they took these numbers from the Town of Holland let’s say or surrounding community that doesn’t have much commercial where right now are those expenses allocated to.  The expenses for road maintenance can’t be allocated to commercial because there is no commercial there or very little, so it has to be allocated to residential so is that the truth, I don’t know!  I’m not the guy who prepared it.  I haven’t seen all his information.  But it’s a big enough question, is that why it looks like houses cost more?  We’ve asked Mr. Hammes at a board meeting why not do an impact study, something from an economic standpoint to put this in writing and show us.  I don’t know if we got a response, somebody else may be able to speak to that, I don’t know of one because I haven’t seen anything yet.  The other problem with this economic impact that the university extension did is that it clearly states that this is a snapshot, that you cannot use this information to base the future off of.  It says it was a snapshot of information from 1996 and 2004.  If these guys are talking about developing next year and then five years and fifteen years and then twenty years then hire some people to show us what that’s going to look like.  And when those costs of expenses and maintenance come out are they going to be household costs or commercial costs?  Those were basic questions that I had that we are not getting a response to.  I disagree somewhat with the tax base question.  Certainly time in the future to discuss that.  We agree it’d be nice to have businesses there, it would be really nice to take your family for a bike ride somewhere in here.  We hope Mr. McHugh sells his property.  He doesn’t need to continue farming until the day he dies.  He should be able to sell his land and be happy with that.  He should, it’s his land, I know that’s tough for you guys to hear because you have to oversee this.  Where is that middle ground?  Because I’m not against that, there should be growth, there should be commercial growth.  I don’t think there should be commercial “C” or industrial growth.  I don’t think there should be a huge parcel put right in the middle of everything else, when we know in our comprehensive plan there is 800 plus acres surrounding it.  So it hasn’t been planned out, we’re for most of this, and hopefully in a quick process, he doesn’t want to farm anymore, let’s sell this or for gosh sake let every party sit down and talk about it.  Come to a public meeting and be involved in discussion, we have been since October 30, the first meeting after that we’ve been at each meeting, an overwhelming response, unfortunately all in opposition.  Tonight is the first night I’ve seen people really stand up and say they are for this, except for a few, Mr. McHugh certainly has, on the other hand it’s his land and he should be able to do what he wants with it.  I live by there, and some of these other people’s families live by there, and that’s your job, how are you going to protect us?  It’s his land he should be able to do what he wants with it, it’s my land near there, why can’t I do what I want with it?  I don’t want to look at that, I don’t want to have these fears or concerns in the future.   Somebody else had commented on the photo survey and written survey of the Town of Holland.  I won’t go into any more depth on that but an overwhelming response, why the public can’t be heard on this matter, I don’t know. 

Question MEYER: What do you mean they can’t be heard?  Being heard tonight, were heard October 30, now are you saying the Town Board meetings or Town Planning meetings, what do you mean by that?

Answer SACIA: The Town Planning meetings absolutely we’ve been involved during the meetings.  Items come up everyone is welcome to comment.  We are totally involved in the Plan Commission meetings up until, it was called a Plan Commission meeting with a quorum of the Town Board there so it’s both, but it was a planning meeting and Mr. Hammes took over chairing that and I believe that was the 10^th, don’t have a calendar, no 10^th of January I was gone, last few weeks.  There’s been public comment, the minutes of the meeting, we were told specifically we are going to deal with this issue, we show up to deal with the issue and literally under the comments, under portions of the minutes say, at the beginning, public comments, but then under each item is discussion about these items.  Now we may have been mislead, and it may be a technicality, but we didn’t speak at the public concern portion of it, we waited until we got to the item we were there for, it would be like us coming in here, Mr. Meyer, and you starting the meeting at six o’clock and saying is anybody for or against anything, well I’d like to hear what we are talking about first, let’s say it’s health insurance, we can’t make an informed decision unless we hear about it, what direction are you going to go?  And that’s been where we’ve been limited in our speech, yes.  It’s also been commented that we say the same thing over and over again, well I guess we have to until someone says we heard you.  They don’t have to say I agree with you.  But I heard you, let’s talk.  There hasn’t been a two-way dialogue.  I asked Mr. Handy and maybe he passed it on to Mr. Weibel, people are coming up here and speaking in favor, I want to know where they’re from.  They’re not, I did hear some, three or four from the Town of Holland, many were business owners from outside the community with a financial interest in this matter.  If we look at the legal objectors, that this letter was sent out to, now under state law, having the linear footage, and maybe you guys have a technical term for that, but the linear footage, we will not meet the fifty percent of that because Mathy Construction owns the largest portion of it.  I highly doubt Mr. Marx or anyone with the organization will sign our petition.  On the other hand if you simply look at the number of people who own here you come up with thirty eight minus Mathy Construction.  Seventy nine percent of those people signed the petition.  And I would say even with error in there because people make mistakes at least seventy percent have signed it.  Now to me that’s an overwhelming response.  That’s a democratic process.  Not how much land I own, because if Mathy Construction’s land was turned sideways and they didn’t have a thousand feet but only five hundred that would impact their vote, but negatively where it helps them it negative impacts some other people here.  So please be aware of that, that the people who speak in favor of this measure, not everybody here might get up and speak against this but that is very strong that seventy nine percent out of thirty eight parcel owners, even with a margin for error say seventy percent that’s a lot of people who are legal objectors to this, not I live across the highway, not I live five miles away, not I live in Onalaska but want to develop here, these are people that live there and surround that property.  I also want to bring up one last matter.  I’ve given this letter to several of you and I left Mr. Hanson’s in his door, Mr. Bina my GPS couldn’t find Bina Road, I apologize, so I tried, I didn’t leave anyone out on purpose, except for Mr. Hammes, the question I would have here and I think a legal decision needs to be made about this, Old Highway 93, which abuts this property is a Rustic Road, and it travels all the way back to the Seven Bridges area.  At some point in time, my assumption is the Town went and they wanted a Rustic Road because they thought it was right for the community.  Now if this was good for the community they had to abide by rules.  These are administrative rules governed by the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing as a board, and the board is the Rustic Roads.  This transportation code it’s RR 1.151 – local authorities are encouraged to preserve the national and scenic characteristics of land along Rustic Roads.  Local zoning powers building setback regulations, access control, sign control and other powers may be used to protect and preserve the rustic character of the road by discouraging industrial, high density residential and most commercial development and encouraging the development or the continued existence of commercial establishments compatible with a Rustic Road, such as:  antique shops, craft shops, rock shops and produce markets.  The next subsection of that is RR 1.152 upon petition which is I believe what you have before you, for a zoning change to the county or municipality having authority over the zoning the Board, the Rustic Road Board, shall be notified in order to appear and present testimony at the zoning hearing if the Board deems it necessary.  This information was given to the Planning Commission, I believe, Town of Holland, the first meeting, maybe the second meeting, but I really believe it was the first meeting after your hearing on October 30, there was a young lady who brought this up to them, they’ve been on notice.  I guess I would ask the question, maybe the Rustic Road Board has a representative here tonight, I don’t know.  My understanding is we have rules, the rules were not followed, besides all the other discrepancies here, the petty complaints, the big problems, this is a rule that was not followed and simply I would ask that this committee of oversight, that’s what you are here to do, protect these interests, and at this point in time I don’t know how you can vote anything except no, and not give a second chance, how many times would I come here asking for stuff before you say this is ridiculous, go home.  That’s what I’m asking for tonight, I hope that you would look at this and say – go home, we vote no, come back to us when this is fixed.  When you crossed your T’s and dotted your I’s. 

Question MEYER: Talking about rules, if that happens they are out for a year you know?  If it’s denied they can’t come back for year.  Do you think there’s any room for discussion now?

Question SACIA: At tonight’s meeting?

Question MEYER: Well tonight’s meeting yeah, say 90 days or 60 days or anything like that?

Answer SACIA: Mr. Meyer, we would have wished for that 90 days ago, and I don’t know where we’re getting.  The unfortunate thing, and I know the boundary agreement between the Village of Holmen and Town of Holland is not an issue for tonight, where does this all sit?  It’s hard to plan and to grow logically, purposefully when two communities go like this (fists against each other).  The unfortunate thing is right now in the Town of Holland, until I think the April election, we have residents and the Town Board going like this (fists against each other).  How does anything constructive happen in that?  Do we want constructive growth?  Absolutely.  When I first heard about this and I looked at it, and it’s my stupidity, my neighbor shows me this, who’s a legal objector, and says, well look at this, what to do you think about it?  And I say, well you know what, it says business park, that doesn’t sound too bad.  Look at all those ponds they’re going to put in.  Might be nice to go watch the ducks, you know, it’s alright.  My stupidity.  The more and more people have learned about this and what they are doing.  Ah, at the last meeting Mr. Meyer, you guys, or one of the developers or Mr. Hammes actually talked about changing one of the ponds sideways to help out one of the neighbors who abuts the property on the west side.  I don’t know if they’re here tonight, but I haven’t heard any public discussion about that.  As a resident it’s not my house they were concerned about with that pond, but as a resident of the community shouldn’t that be public debate?  Shouldn’t we have input back and forth, I don’t want to limit anybody’s business growth and I don’t want to limit anybody’s tax growth.  It seems a little odd that our tax growth in the Town of Holland has to be 70 percent of La Crosse County’s over the next 20 years.  There are many sub areas in this comprehensive plan that are looking at 50, 70 maybe 150 acres.  Where the Town of Holland is going to be over 853 acres.  It’s going to be the second largest industrial/commercial area next to the city of La Crosse.  Now wouldn’t that concern you gentlemen in your areas?  I mean talk about a sucking sound of money coming out of your area and going to the Town of Holland?  Now if I were you I’d be a little concerned about that.  So I’m not against it, but Mr. Meyer, I don’t know how to answer your question.  What do you do?  Binding arbitration or do they just say screw it we don’t want to do it.  Or we say screw it we don’t want to talk to you, that’s wrong from both our standpoints.  Let’s put some constructive businesses there, some constructive residences there, maybe there’s an offer.  I’m a licensed real estate broker, don’t want to go to any of the buyers or sellers and violate any rules, maybe Mr. Olson can say if there’s a contingency or if the offer to purchase is open for other offers and maybe if there’s enough time or it’s pulled off the table Mr. McHugh can get his money.  The Town of Holland can maybe get some money from the State, increase tax dollars for a PDR and private investors; I don’t know how to put that together in a week when we’re under the gun.  I know what Mr. Hammes is feeling, he wants to keep that with the Town of Holland, I don’t agree how he’s doing it.  But when I go to Mr. Hammes to try and help solve this issue he throws a map, didn’t throw it at me, he holds it up and hollers at me, “Where else do we put it?”  I don’t know, we can’t decide this over our lunch hour, it can’t be done.  We have the Town Planning Commission has concerns about this, some of the Town Board members have questions about this, I want to get a speedy resolution, hopefully would serve Mr. McHugh selling his property, hopefully would help the developer somewhat, hopefully every resident could go to bed at night smiling saying we’re all happy. 

Remarks MEYER: If it’s denied tonight it puts a speedy end to it but that’s it.

Remarks SACIA: I don’t know how to solve the problem.  Honestly you have more experience at this than I do, and that’s what we will have to do, rely on you guys, you’re the body here to protect the public.  Hopefully you’ve seen and will hear from other people.  There needs to be some protection done first, some studies done first, needs to be some basic problems solved.  We heard two roads coming out the side (west) because Fire Department wanted that.  Where is the Fire Department?  I have questions if a private well can have enough pressure to put out burning roofing materials.  Where are they, that’s not a problem we think of the morning after.  I don’t know how you can.

Marion Naegle  N7845 Amsterdam Prairie Road  Holmen  WI.  I have agreed totally with Mr. Sacia.  I think Mr. McHugh has a right to sell his land, businesses have a right to go in there and I think our town needs it.  I don’t agree with all of the Commercial “C”.  I talked to Mr. McHugh at one of our last meetings and tried to pin him down on how many trucks were coming out of there, because it’s a safety concern.  He couldn’t tell me, he has four to five businesses down there on the bottom (refers to map) portion where it says “Street B.”  He was telling me that’s like the first phase and he wasn’t sure how many trucks each business has, but there would be trucks.  Now up at the top, the third phase, I know Interstate Roofing is going there with over 100 trucks – he said his excavating business probably had 50 to 60 trucks.  We’re talking hundreds of trucks coming out of this area.  I feel it’s very unsafe.  I can’t believe the DOT would allow that kind of trucking to come out of that kind of area.  We have a hard time now coming out of Amsterdam Prairie Road with a few people that live in that area on a foggy day, on a snowy day.  I have many times literally prayed and hit the gas – I don’t know if I’m going to make it or not, the fog is so thick.  So if we’ve got tons of trucks coming out of that area how are we all going to be safe out there?  We’ve got two schools coming in down there, a clinic going in there.  How much traffic is that going to bring into this tiny little area at the bottom whether we have stop lights or not.  These are concerns that need to be looked at before this is finalized.  And yes, tonight is kinda like the deadline, if you vote no Mr. McHugh can’t sell his land for a year and I think that’s a sad issue.  But on the other hand our Town kind of did this backwards, and if this zoning would have come to you first, like it normally would have done, we would have been here tonight talking about it and we would have gone back to the Town and sat down with these people, hopefully, and made some resolutions and ended up with everybody being happy.  But unfortunately that isn’t happening in the Town.  We aren’t communicating, it’s a sad situation.  I don’t know how to resolve it any more than Mr. Sacia does.  Hopefully you can, we’ve put that on your shoulders, it’s not going to be an easy thing to do.  I’m definitely opposed to this.  I think commercial is fine, I think our town needs it.  I think “A”, “B”, great.  I don’t think we need 10 or 15 trucking firms in there.  I live across the street.  The last thing I want to do at 5 o’clock in the morning is listen to trucks rev up or see a big glow of light in my country air.  I hope you will consider this for everyone concerned and come up with the right answer. 

Eugene Falkenberg  W7735 Richwood Street  Holmen  WI.  Gene Falkenberg, lot number seven on your map.  Three years ago wife and I moved to the Town of Holland.  In fact in 2003 we were looking to build a nice Menards storage building.  Like we see many of our neighbors have.  The Zoning Office only approved a building about half the size of what I wanted.  Was told I could apply for a variance for a fee of 100 dollars.  However I was told that if one neighbor or person objected I would be denied my variance for a larger building, that’s through the zoning process here.  Now we have 94 people objecting to the zoning change and it seems we are not being heard.  Doesn’t seem fair when one person can stop a variance which again goes through zoning.  The next problem immediately arises when I see two large firms with more than a hundred trucks, probably most of them being diesels, and the pollution it will cause.  Two weeks ago Saturday drove I came past Tomah by a large truck terminal by the highway, Interstate 90.  Two trucks were idling with huge white plumes of smoke reaching many feet in the air.  Temperature was not cold, about 17 degrees and it was about 10:45 in the morning.  Second problem with these two firms of 100 or more trucks is they may or may not be putting driveways onto Old 93.  Even if they do not, any work scheduled to the north these drivers will be inclined to use Old 93 when they leave and come back and forth from work.  Also, no one car pools anymore, so that means many more personal cars will be using the road each morning and evening.  I’ve been in touch with Jean Corolla (sic) with the Rustic Roads and Scenic By-Way Coordinator with the DOT of the State of Wisconsin.  She sent me the papers as to when the road was dedicated starting in 1992.  Mr. Evan Zantow, West Salem, was very involved in getting approval and it was signed by two town supervisors, James Lakey and James Halvorson and Town Chairman Gordon Van Dunk.  I’ll read a little of what the road is about, and Mr. Sacia touched on that too; they should have outstanding natural features along its borders such as rustic terrain, native vegetation, matrix wildlife, or include open areas with agricultural vistas or singly or in combination uniqueness that sits it apart from other roads.  Should be a lightly traveled local access road, one which serves adjacent property owners and those wishing to travel by auto, bicycle or hiking for purposes of recreational enjoyment for its rustic features.  Should not be scheduled or anticipated for any major improvements which would change its rustic character.  In closing, let’s not change anything along the Rustic Road #64 and keep the pollution from these trucks away from the 94 objectors.  Thank you.

T HANSON: Questions?

Question MEYER: The 94 people, where are they all from?

Answer FALKENBERG: All around that area and the settlement to the north.

Question MEYER: They’re not the legal objectors, though, some are some aren’t, or what?

Answer FALKENBERG: The majority of them are.  Before, if one person could stop it, why not fifty or more?

Remarks MEYER: We’re talking about the legal objectors.  That’s what I’ve been trying to get at.

Remarks FALKENBERG: The majority of the 94 are legal objectors.  Anything else?

Remarks MEYER: Well, you haven’t told me anything.

Remarks FALKENBERG: Well, the original petition I was told some of them didn’t qualify because they weren’t in the number area there.

HANSON: Any more?
 

Julie Paulson  N7863 Amsterdam Prairie Road  Lot #31.  My husband and I oppose.  Several questions came up that have not been answered.  If there was a fire out there, Holmen has one tanker.  Would that tanker be able to put out that fire?  That question’s never been answered, don’t think anyone’s ever talked to the Fire Department to see what their concerns are, until Marion mentioned it.  I don’t think anyone’s ever said how many vehicles.  I’m sure McHugh Excavating knows how many vehicles they have – Interstate Roofing and Tenorio Trucking is one of the trucking companies and Mr. McHugh’s wife owns that, so I’m sure he knows ho many vehicles that includes.  So why haven’t they ever given us a number?  I live at number 31 – he’s talking about “Street B” coming out – what does that do for me?  I’ve got two young children, 4 and 7, we’re going to be there for awhile.  You’ve gotta be concerned about their safety.  They’ll ride the school bus.  What’s it gonna take?  Our road is gonna be a huge hazard in the near future if this is approved.  Is it going to take a bus to get hit?  Is it going to take a family out?  What’s it gonna take?  It’s so foggy coming off Amsterdam Prairie Road onto the highway, you can’t see sometimes.  Then you have the idiots who don’t have their lights on, you say a Hail Mary just to get out there.  You want us to say a few more prayers or what?  And then there’s the lighting issue.  We have a two story house.  They’re talking about putting up berms, what does that do for us?  Our kids sleep upstairs – the light’s gonna shine right into their rooms.  I talked to Brian Kapanke, he lives not too far from Hotline – a mile away, and he says he can see the lights shining into his house.  We’re closer than he would be.  I hope you listen to our concerns and take this into consideration.  I don’t oppose Mr. McHugh selling his property, but I think they need to slow down a little bit and listen to our concerns.  Thank you.

T HANSON: Any questions?  Anybody else speaking?

Jeff Paulson  N7863 Amsterdam Prairie Road  Holmen WI.  I live on lot 31.  I’m opposed to the whole thing because the Town of Holland has misled us from the start on the whole thing.  There’s so many unanswered questions and nobody seems to have an answer for it.  I don’t know if we’re supposed to be kept in the dark.  You have elected officials on the Town Board, they’re the ones who are supposed to look out for the town’s residents – they’re elected officials.  From my own opinion, they haven’t done that, and I don’t know what more to say.  We go Street A and B and a road projected to come out right in front of our property.  Who’s gonna enforce the traffic coming out on that – are they going to have traffic cops there?  Nobody has any answers on the type of vehicles, nobody has a clue, we just don’t have any answers.  All we ask for is answers and we can’t get them.  We’ve lived there seven years and apparently our tax money doesn’t mean anything to anybody.  We can’t get any answers, this is a big deal to us.  We’ve been misled from the start on the whole thing and I don’t know where to go for any answers.  So I’m just voicing my concerns.  I’m not against anybody selling their land, I mean, I’d love to sell mine, but with this going in I’m pretty sure I’m not gonna be able to.  But my taxes will still stay the same, but my property will be worth less.  I oppose it just for the simple fact that we’ve been misled from the start.  That’s it.

HANSON: Any questions?  Thank you.  Anybody else want to speak?

Scott Lien  W7722 Old Hwy 93  Holmen WI.  I think he stated this but I just want to clarify that my neighbors were not able to be here tonight – Steve and Noreen Beck – and they sent a letter in.  They asked that I read before you, but if that goes into the record, I don’t want to take your time.

Reply BLUSKE: You should read it.

Correspondence:

LIEN: (Lien reads into record correspondence to the PRD dated January 20, 2007 from Steve and Noreen Beck, a letter in opposition to rezone proposal of McHugh property on file)  On my behalf and my wife’s, I’d like to reiterate what everyone else has said up here, I spoke the last time as well.  Just a couple of other small points I’d like to bring up.  There’s a type of development – I think it’s called POD or something – but why can’t we sit down and come up with something that will fit all of us?  I lived here for 22 ½ years and I like the scenic, I look out my windows and see both bluffs.  Instead I’m gonna look at the backside of somebody’s commercial business.  I felt I had some protection because of the Rustic Road status, but really do not.  And it’s been said that John’s selling his property, let’s just do it for the better of the community and the town as a whole.  Another thing relative is the taxes and I think some of it -more the reduction in tax revenue by this rezone – becomes more significant when considering the decrease in value of surrounding existing residences affected by this rezone.  This reduction has already been demonstrated by one of our neighbors, right along this front road.  In trying to sell their home, the people found out who were looking at buying it that this rezone was in process and they backed out of the sale.  Another point, not only was our survey at the Town of Holland an overwhelming majority, but we had two hearings, and the hearings was a majority of the people wanted it to stay the same, they didn’t want all of this growth, and we need some business, but no “C”.  Traffic, financial studies, when we talk about the tax and what we’re gonna lose if we wanted to sell and get out of there, we’re not gonna be able to get the money for our houses, but it’s also less taxes for our community.  How much tax base is a porta-potty business gonna put in?  That’s what’s on one of these properties next to some of the community.  The other thing I think Eugene brought up, I just wanted to clarify – on the 90 people that opposed – that was a petition that circulated earlier and it’s the people that live around this – they are not necessarily legal objectors, but it directly affects their day to day lives as long as they live there.

HANSON: Questions – Tom?

Question RAUK: Would you be here addressing us tonight if this proposed rezone were Commercial “A” and “B”?

Answer LIEN: Ideally I’m in a residential area.  Ideally I’d like to see a little bit of a buffer of homes first – not to say “no, I would not” at that point.  My first preference would be to protect us and put us into what already exists.

Question RAUK: And you’re on 93 on the north side, so the buffer of homes, aligned on the south side – what buffers their back yards?

Answer LIEN: They would have that choice of moving there.  We don’t have that choice 0 we’re stuck with it.  If you want to move into an area that’s gonna have a business in your back yard, that’s your choice, but when you’ve lived there for twenty some years and all of a sudden that’s what you’re gonna have, we don’t have much of a choice is the way I look at it.  One other point – I believe there’s like 15 commercial parks in La Crosse County and I think 11 have empty space. Yes, we have a lot of open residential areas, but there’s also a lot of commercial areas that are open and I think we’re just trying to grow way too fast.  A lot of this could be farm area for many years to come and no necessarily for John McHugh, because he wants to get out of it, but there still are other people that want to farm – maybe need to – I don’t know the answer.  Maybe like Terry says, maybe it needs to be talked about.  Maybe there’s funds or something that can help somebody in regard to that.  Thank you.

HANSON: Thank you.

Remarks BLUSKE: Mr. Chairman, just in response to Mr. Lien’s request in response to the petition.  On October 30^th we received a petition that was signed by 94 people, and if Charlie could lift it up to the bottom of the screen, I’ve got the breakdown.  I’ve got two columns that indicate they were valid.  I’ve got some center ones that were beyond the 300 feet, but they are still town residents, there was 42 of those.  There was 46 in the column that met the criteria for, what we call a “legal objection,” and I’ll go over that in a minute.  And then I had 6 that signed that were not listed as property owners at that address – maybe they’re renters or something like that.  So there’s 94 signatures on that.  Just so everybody’s aware, because there was another petition that was floating around that I’ll get to, that’s called a legal protest petition according to state statutes, and that indicates when there’s a zoning petition like this, we add up the perimeter, we have a total perimeter around the outside of this of 15,834 feet, and this is plus or minus because we don’t have surveys on a few of these so we have to assume that the 40’s are 1320 feet.  In order to make a legal objection, you need over 50 percent of the adjacent owners signing the petition.  Everything I have colored here (refers to map), not on this one – but another I have – that petition only had 39.69 percent of the adjacent, but as was indicated, it’s 80 percent of the residents that are adjacent.  I’ll explain that a little more when the time comes.  That’s what happened to the first one.

Remarks HANSON: I’m sure we’re gonna go through that a little bit longer before we get done here this evening.  I’d almost guarantee it.  Anybody else?

Lora Schaldach  N7811 Amsterdam Prairie Road  Holmen WI.   My husband and I are opposed to this.  Most of my concerns have already been said so I won’t repeat them.  But we built our home thirty years ago and there was only one home south of us and one house north of us and now it’s all built up – most of them are young couples with young children.  And I’m 80 years old – I worry about air pollution – I’m not worried about living there too many more years.  My biggest worry is these young children.  I think Holmen is adopting a 4-year-old kindergarten, and with all this traffic, trucks and what not, those trucks are gonna be right out my picture window, which I don’t like, but I’m worried about these little kids out there waiting for buses.  I see the two little children next door now – one is so little she can’t hardly make the school bus to get on the bus.  And how is she going to stand out there with this truck traffic?  Thank you.

HANSON: Any questions?  I think you’re going to live there another 30 years at least.  Is there anybody else wishing to speak in opposition?  Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?  Las call, anybody else wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

MEYER: Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing are you going to give Mr. McHugh the chance to rebut some of this?

HANSON: Would you like him to?

MEYER: Yes.

HANSON: Mr. McHugh, would you like to come back up to the podium?  Does the whole committee agree with that?  (Consensus to allow this)  One things that was said was the number of trucks McHugh has – that was one thing directly said about your company.

Reply MCHUGH: The only person that got up here and spoke in opposition to this that’s came up and asked me a straight-forward question since this started is Mary Naegle.  She was very respectful with her question and I hope I was respectful with my answer.  I answered her as best as I could.  At this point in time, our owning this property is contingent upon it being rezoned, so us offering up who the potential people are that are interested is very speculative at best.  SO we can only answer for those people right now.  When it’s suggested we haven’t told them how many vehicles or trucks, how do we know?  We know four or five businesses.  Your question was specifically about our business.  If you want to define a truck as over a certain weight or if you want to classify everything from a pick-up on up.  If you want to say anything larger than a service truck/pickup; so if you want to say dump trucks, semi-tractors that pull equipment around, if that’s what you want to classify as “trucks,” that’s what most people think about when they think “trucks.”  Our company would have in the neighborhood of a dozen of those.  If you want to start talking about the service type pickups that have tools and get the foremen to the jobsite and stuff like that – that would be several dozen, 40 to 50 I’m guessing. 

Question MEYER: Okay, there were a lot of other things said during the discussion.  Would you respond to any of those?

Reply MCHUGH: I made a few notes Mr. Meyer – I really didn’t come here tonight to engage people in public debate.  There were a number of things said by some people that I agree with, I think were valid points.  There were a number of things that were inaccurate.  I don’t know if this is the forum for me to start nit-picking – I know others have nit-picked at my comments - but I don’t know if that’s what the public hearing is for.  I would say that as far as us not being present at a majority of the meetings, that’s by design.  In our work we do a lot of work for municipalities.  We’ve done work in Mr. Hanson’s village, we’ve work throughout the state for different municipalities.  It’s best to do our work through the elected officials, let the elected officials interface with the townspeople.  I’m not interested in standing up in front of a room and being a target and trying to please thirty different folks.  As you’ve heard from the people in opposition – some people are in opposition for a lot of different reasons – so who are you pleasing?  One thing you may decide to change from a plan to satisfy one individual may be the exact opposite of what another individual would prefer to see, and I think that’s why the Town has a planning committee and a board.  Those people can speak to them about their concerns.  The individual members of the Committee and the Town Board have relayed some concerns on to us since early on in the project, and we’ve attempted to address those.  The only thing that I would say is, the school keeps being brought up.  I’m not trying to minimize young children – I have young children myself – that school is more than a mile away from our project and across the interchange of a 4-lane highway.  That school is not across the street from this project.  It’s quite some ways away.  Would that increase traffic on that road?  Probably would, that road already has an awful lot of traffic on it.  But the reason you’d place a commercial corridor like this near a 4-lane is the idea you’re getting that traffic on the 4-lane heading where they have to go.  If a business within this park is an electrician and he’s got a job in Holmen, he’s gonna drive down Holmen Drive there and go into Holmen past the school.  But that fellow needs somewhere to put his business when he outgrows where he is.  Are we better off to designate an area of a town or a county to put these kind of folks together, or are we better off following what’s happening now where people are trying to get conditional use permits for individual properties scattered throughout?

Question BINA: It came up a number of times tonight whether it should be Commercial “A” or “B” rather than “C.”  What would be your answer to that?

Answer MCHUGH: The developers I’m with do not feel that would be sold off as Commercial “A” or “B.”  I’ll give you a few examples of some of the types of things that are in “A” or “B” – I don’t have my list with me, but it lists things like hotels, bakeries, banks, dry-cleaning shops.  This property does not have its own direct frontage onto Highway 35.  I think those are the types of businesses that would be appropriate for Mr. Temte’s property that does have access in direct view onto Highway 35.  When you’re thinking retail you’re thinking convenience and things you drive by.  For example, where John McHugh’s house is up there across the street from some of those other folks; I got a feeling that if you put a bank up there the only people who would frequent that bank are the ones who live across the street.  It’s not an ideal place for a lot of those businesses and I don’t think it would sell off, therefore, I wouldn’t be interested in putting myself on the hook to go out and borrow the money and buy this for something I was pretty sure would not sell.

Question BINA: Road width and the number of roads come up a couple of times.  I’m under the assumption the developer would put the road in at the request of the municipality and build it according to specs and therefore it would be as wide as it needed to be in order to carry any traffic that was planned for it?

Answer MCHUGH: Both in width and in depth, the factor being that there would be larger vehicles especially on that north/south road, might dictate a thicker asphalt section than a typical town road.  It certainly would dictate a wider width than say Old 93 which is quite a narrow road with little or no shoulders.

Question BINA: In regard to the Rustic Road, isn’t there a 300 feet setback along a rustic road that we ran into in the past?

Answer MCHUGH: I think you’re thinking about the scenic easement – that’s on the River Road, Highway 35. 

Answer BLUSKE: That’s 300 feet on each side.

Question RAUK: It sounded as if you prefer more lower key and subtle in your information exchange, but you have heard tonight an awful lot of what you think is misinformation.  Don’t you really think that by answering those tonight might put people at ease?  And don’t you think more public participation by yourself, your firm and the other developers all alone might even forestall this kind of meeting?
Answer MCHUGH: No, I’ve been involved in enough of these, Tom, and I respect everybody’s opinion to disagree with me.  And I do not live out there.  Most of the people that spoke here live directly across from us.  They have concerns about it.  As I said before, some of those concerns are valid, some of them I feel may not be as valid as the person making them; it doesn’t make it less valid to them.  Our experience being involved in these kinds of things as a developer or as a contractor in the city, if somebody is opposed to something, they’re opposed to it.  Mr. Lien talked about it.  I’ve met Mr. Lien several times; you asked him a question – if this was A & B would you be in favor – his answer was pretty much no.  I’ve got a feeling the prevailing sentiment in the room, whether that’s what you prefer to follow or not, but if you asked for a show of hands I think everyone would pretty  much wish this to stay farm land.  Is that feasible or realistic?  It’s not worth the price a developer would pay to John McHugh if it were farm land.  Farm land’s worth, I don’t know, a fifth, a tenth, pick a number, of what commercial or residential land would be worth.

Question HANSON: I want to ask you one question.  Your expertise – Amsterdam Prairie Road – what shape do you consider that road in?

Answer MCHUGH: The majority of it would not be up to the standard we’d be looking at to put in this development.

Question HANSON: Would you also consider that road not being able to take much more traffic without having a major overhaul done?

Answer MCHUGH: If you were to use Amsterdam Prairie Road as a main entrance in and out of this project, for truck traffic you’d need to widen and deepen that road.  That’s my opinion.

Question HANSON: One other question, this came up by quite a few of the people opposed to your project.  They were talking about buffers and that, they’d like to see some different lay-out of this park.  Are you open to that kind of dialogue with the people all around there?  I realize your statement a few minutes ago – and that probably is true – that if they’re opposed, they’re opposed.  But there were some people who talked.  It seemed to me they’re not completely opposed, but they’d like to see some things changed in how you’re going to put this together.

Answer MCHUGH: We spoke very early on about the possibility of some kind of residential around the perimeter.  My personal opinion is that increases the traffic problem, but I could be wrong.  But you’re talking about 2 forties along the western edge and 2 forties along the northern edge.  What would that be, about 2600 lineal feet Jeff?  You’d be adding a mile around the perimeter of that of residential housing.  Let’s say you made the decision the town needed more residential of whatever type and now you have the driveways of those, 26 more houses so you’d have 26 more driveways as well, if you make the determination that’s what you want to go for.  There are plenty of vacant residential lots especially in the Township but throughout the Holmen School District.  That wasn’t our first choice, but rightly or wrongly, that was discarded fairly early on by us, as being more of a traffic problem to shoot all you driveways out on the road people want to keep traffic off from than have everything somewhat internal.  If Jeff works at a business inside there and drives a passenger car to work, might he zip up Amsterdam Prairie Road and go up and over?  Absolutely, you can’t stop him from doing that.  But at this point, that’s about all I can say about traffic.  People have asked about the Village of Holmen, and yes, the Village is growing that direction.  Our first choice is not to have this park in the Village of Holmen, there are reasons why we’ve chosen to pursue the way we’ve gone.  I think this project being rezoned as Commercial “C” within the Township not only makes it more likely this stays in the Township, but probably makes it more likely other surrounding proposed commercial development stays within the Township.  There are other folks, surrounding properties that have already had discussions with the Village, and as you know the Village is basically all the way to the 4-lane right now, Gundersen Lutheran has annexed, so that’s where the Village is. 

Question RAUK: I live in a residential area that was developed with a number of streets and homes and there are covenants there.  From that experience I have a very clear understanding of the virtual unenforceability of covenants, so I don’t have a lot of faith and trust in that word.  Could you as the developer live with a mandate that the developer’s agreement in fact pass through the Town of Holland’s Planning Committee and come out of that with the enforceability of a site ordinance?  Before it was approved with the Town Board?  Could live with that strong of a mandate or developers agreement?

Question MCHUGH: Do you mean making the developers agreement the equivalent of the siting ordinance?

Answer RAUK: Yes.

Reply MCHUGH: There are two different issues.

Reply RAUK: A siting ordinance would describe the general conditions for Commercial “C.”   If the developers agreement passed through the Planning Commission and came out of that with the authority of an ordinance.

Question MCHUGH: So you would have a specific ordinance that would deal just with this development?  Is that what you are suggesting?

Answer RAUK: Yes.

Answer MCHUGH: From our standpoint, I don’t know if there would be a difference.  The only way you can get anything to happen in just a covenant is that you have to get enough neighbors willing to go to the mat on it.  I understand what you are saying there.  I think the siting ordinance itself would have more teeth than covenants.  But if you wanted what is typically the developers agreement; I don’t know of the process you are saying, but I don’t think we would have a problem with that.  I think the intent of signing the developers’ agreement are the things you intend to do.

Question HANDY: When you were discussing trucks at the very beginning you discussed the term “speculative at best.”  Would you consider this rezoning a speculative rezoning?
Answer MCHUGH: No.  We are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place Charlie.  We put a lot of cards on the table early on because we wanted to show that we aren’t just taking a huge parcel of land with nobody interested in it and then try to change the zoning.  Unfortunately, you have sat here and hear people belittle trucking companies and porta-potty companies and excavating companies and roofing companies.  A lot of us work at companies like that and there are a lot of good paying jobs at companies like that and they need somewhere to be.  At the Town of Holland Planning Commission I attended, there were several other people in addition to the people that have showed up here tonight who were small business owners similar to the effect of Randy Larson, that said:  I’m interested in this, we need somewhere to go, we would be very interested in.  The people we put on the plan are very interested in purchasing.  There are other people that have asked us a lot of questions because this has been in the paper.  And as you might suspect, some of the companies have had a few shots taken at them.  And there are people interested that would rather have their names not go on there at this point.  Just from a public relations standpoint.

Question HANDY:  So you could get some of that information from those interested parties, not on a name basis, but the number of trucks and things like that if you needed to do a transportation study?

Answer MCHUGH: I don’t think it really got addressed tonight, Charlie, but it does show clearly on the map phase I, II and III to that.  The first phase is an eight acre parcel.  I don’t remember exactly what percentage of the acreage that was already spoken for. I think you might be able to do a decent assessment by taking the types of businesses that have already showed strong interest, and have them give you their projected number of vehicles and types.  Let’s say you had half of it spoken for and you took that number and double it.  I think that would be a reasonable approximation for that phase.

Question HANSON:  When you do phase I are you planning on putting in that future town road immediately?

Answer MCHUGH: No.

Question HANSON: So in other words, there is no outlet in the phase I.  Is there a road that comes down?

Answer MCHUGH: The road will go out to the south.  It will not go all the way through to the north in phase I.  So your outlets for phase one, for your main traffic will be south as it has been all along.  There will also be an exit on Street “B” for smaller vehicles.

Question HANSON: So you’re talking about building the road at the end of phase one, then you do phase II and you will expand the road up to the phase II boundary and then with Phase III you would connect with Old 93?
Answer MCHUGH: The way we are looking at it in phase I, Street “B” would be built in its entirety.  The road starting at the State Highway on the bottom would come up to either Street “B” or a little bit beyond it because that little piece in the corner is also within phase I.  That would be the roads constructed under phase I.  And as you went to phase II, you would build that main artery up past Street “A” up to the phase line.  You won’t have an entrance to spill traffic out on Old Highway 93 doesn’t occur under our scenario until we are ready to develop businesses up there.

Reply HANSON: I just wanted to make sure you would have the town road in so that if you were to do this development you wouldn’t use Street “B” before you build a town road, but you answered my question.

Remarks MCHUGH: The town road going out to the south, through the entrance that Mathy is already establishing, that would still be our main entrance and built at the beginning.     

HANSON: Any other questions?  Seeing none, I think we will close the public hearing.  Jeff, I will give the whole thing to you.

Correspondence:

BLUSKE:  Everybody bear with me and listen closely.  On October 30^th that was the first public hearing that this Committee heard.  The Department’s recommendation was this:  The current Town and County land use plans indicate this entire area is designated as “CS” which is countryside, which means ten-acre lots or larger.  The proposed rezone is a significant departure from the existing land use designations for this area.  The Department recommends deferral on this petition until such time as the comprehensive planning process is completed by both the Town of Holland, and when that process is done, La Crosse County.  That portion is not done.  No further correspondence.  The motion was made, however, it was made but never seconded, the motion that was seconded was to defer action until the February, 2007 meeting.  That is why we are here.  The correspondence that came in after that meeting or since that meeting was sixty-one petitions and I think these are some of the same ones that the Committee has received either by mail or hand delivered.  I have several here for Bob Keil that are addressed to him and he is not here.  He is out of the state, but he will get them.  Those petitions or correspondence are all in the form of a form letter and that was actually the form letter that Mr. Lien read on behalf of Becks I believe.  The Town of Holland took action on this on October 11^th and it was moved to approve and it was approved unanimously on a condition that said including a developers' agreement is part of the final approval.  The protest petition – and petitions can come in two different forms, so I didn’t want to indicate when Mr. Lien was up here that the 94 people that had signed the original petition had done it in naught – but a protest petition can be something that anyone can go house to house on and they can set it on a table at a meeting somewhere and anyone can sign it.  This one did have some facts associated with it so hopefully the people that signed it, read it also.  That’s what I reported prior.  There were 46 legal objectors – and I’ll explain ‘legal’ – 42 that were outside the legal objection area which is 300 feet, and 6 that had signed that had signed as possible renter or non-owner for the property that they had listed.  On January 22^nd a protest petition was filed with the County Clerk and our Corporation Counsel.  A protest petition is something that is outlined in Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and in that this is what the statute actually says:  “The undersigned title owners”, the ‘title owner’ is every single person that owns the property, i.e. husband and wife, both have to sign to make it a legal signature.  If only one signs it cancels because the other one didn’t sign.  “The undersigned title owners who are over 50 percent of the area proposed to be rezoned.”  That statement does not qualify because that portion of the statute indicates you could include someone else’s property in the rezone petition even if you object, but if over 50 percent of the property owners within this area proposed to be rezoned object, it would force the County Board to a three quarters vote.  Part II of this is:  “or altered, or by abutting property owners of over 50 percent of the total perimeter of the area adjacent to the area proposed to be rezoned or altered.”  That’s the petition I have in front of me.  That means if you add up the total outside perimeter the people that signed each petition and gave us their address would have to add up on the outside to over 50 percent.  When we went through this we actually ended up with 39.69 percent.  Now when a petition like this is filed -  and I’m going to have Charlie put this one on there so everybody can see – everybody that signed in red is who is on the petition.  The County Board would still be made aware of the fact that there was a protest petition.  And what impact that has on the County Board is up to the County Board.  The record already indicates and the whole County Board will get a copy of the minutes that 80 percent of the people that are on the perimeter actually signed it.  Even though they weren’t 50 percent of the perimeter.  All this information is on our files and it’s public record anybody can come in and get copies of it which they would have to pay for, but it’s all public record.  All these lots here that were signed in red were the ones that made up the 39 percent.  The big property owners, like the ones with a whole 40’s worth of frontage, didn’t sign.  So this will go to the County Board as part of the report.  The other piece of information that my staff has to look at is the County’s existing Development Plan.  This has been in place since 2001, and we have started enforcing this with the hiring of our County Planner.  Now you will notice, this is the section we are in and highlighted in purple is actually the petition that we are covering tonight and we put this line in here so if somebody is looking at this and they see R-20, the R-20’s are all the lots on the west side of Amsterdam Prairie Road.  R-20 means that they need to be at least 20,000 square foot lots.  This parcel (looking at the map) is located in “CS” or Countryside Estates, where the parcels are supposed to be 10 acres in size.  Now the original Committee and Town Board that looked at this took a lot of things into account when they indicated that they wanted to see 10-acre parcels.  That’s why the nitrate issue has been brought up.  I’m sorry that nobody did any testing or any of the people that are adjacent in these subdivision didn’t have their water brought in and indicated that it’s high.  Some people just don’t like to do that because if their house is ever for sale they don’t want that know.  There are nitrate problems in this area.  It came out at the bank down here that the bank had high nitrates.  High nitrates affect little kids and not adults.

Department recommendation:

BLUSKE:  All staff can recommend at this time, even though the Town plan calls for commercial, the County Plan still calls for “Countryside” ten-acre lots.  The County is in the process of amending and updating their current plan; that will not be done until November.  This Committee has the option, because of something that happened at our Business Meeting, to defer this again if they feel.  We’re supposed to come up with some recommendations on how to amend the plan in an interim process, between now and November, I’m thinking that could take at least 2 more months.  So as it stands right now we have no choice but to recommend denial because that is the only plan we have; right now the County plan calls for 10-acres residential.

Question KAPANKE: Jeff, I don’t know if you can answer this or not, but in the letter we got the number one thing said the Town of Holland Plan Commission recommended that the Town of Holland Board change the zoning from “C” to “A” or “B”, the plan you received was “C”, correct?

Answer BLUSKE: It was for “C.”

Question KAPANKE: So is that a fact or not, can anyone answer that?

Answer BLUSKE: I can’t, the Planning Committee usually recommends to the Town Board and I think we heard that that didn’t happen.

Remarks KAPANKE: That’s the thing that’s throwing me off there, my express was on the lighting.  I don’t know if you were thinking about putting anything in on that, I do know, like I said, I was all for Hot Line, that was a great thing, but boy when you come down the Interstate that is bright, almost a bad distraction, so I have an issue with