Suamico board adopts new three-tier residential zoning after heated public hearing

The Suamico Village Board on Monday approved Ordinance 2025‑05, amending municipal code sections 18.05 and 18.09 to split the existing RS (residential) classification into three tiers — RS‑1 (single‑family), RS‑2 (single‑family and duplex) and RS‑3 (multifamily permitted) — in a 4‑3 roll‑call vote after a public hearing and extended discussion.

The vote follows months of meetings and a public hearing in which local real estate and development representatives urged changes to expand housing options, while several trustees and residents warned that denser zoning could increase demand for services and school capacity. Ordinance 2025‑05 was moved by Trustee Andrews and seconded by Trustee Stevens and carried 4 to 3 (Andrews, McKeefrey, Stevens and President Van Razon voting yes; Trustees Eckert, Neto and Romas voting no).

Why it matters: supporters framed the change as a planning tool intended to give the village more flexibility to encourage development and increase housing supply. Opponents said the ordinance as drafted would reduce lot-size protections for existing neighborhoods and could shift costs for sidewalks, schools, fire and police to residents.

Board and staff said the code change does not itself rezone any property. Administrator Kaker told the board the measure “doesn’t rezone a single piece of property to RS‑2 or RS‑3” and described the amendment as “a first step in a process” that would later rely on the comprehensive plan and standard rezoning procedures to identify where higher density would be appropriate.

Local housing and development proponents urged the board to act. Jennifer Sundstrom, director of public relations and government affairs at the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, told the board “a healthy real estate market has about a six‑month supply,” and said the region has far less inventory, arguing the zoning change is a needed tool to increase the housing supply. Pat Castor of River City Realtors said builders have produced starter homes at the $350,000 price point only where developers combine mixed lot sizes, zero‑lot‑line units and HOA maintenance to lower lot cost.

Opposition focused on service and school impacts. Trustee McKeefrey said the proposed RS‑2 and RS‑3 “are definitely not — it’s gonna force not just residential sewer, but all of us to have to pay for a lot more…sidewalks, more schools, neighborhood parks, 24‑hour fire,” and other municipal services. Several residents, including Amy Rubreit (who said she also sits on the school board), urged clearer outreach to the school district; Rubreit noted enrollment limits and asked that the district be involved as planning proceeds.

Board members repeatedly stressed the next steps are a public, multi‑phase process. Zoning administrator Dunks and Administrator Kaker said any rezoning to RS‑2 or RS‑3 would require future public hearings, review against the comprehensive plan and a formal rezoning application process. Kaker highlighted that a comprehensive plan update is scheduled next year and that the ordinance merely provides additional zoning categories to be applied (or not) later.

The board’s debate referenced local development history and fiscal context. Trustees and staff cited Chambers Hill as an example where denser lot layouts would have increased lot counts and taxable value; staff presented a comparison showing the same development under the RS‑1 standard could produce roughly 30% more lots and a roughly 42% increase in development value in that example. Trustee discussion included concern about village debt levels and utility cost recovery, with several board members saying modest growth is necessary to fund existing infrastructure commitments such as the recently approved water tower and well.

The ordinance text and packet materials note minimum lot widths proposed for the new designations (RS‑1: 70 feet minimum, with smaller minimums proposed for RS‑2/RS‑3; packet discussion referenced 65 and 60 feet for other tiers). The record indicates some ambiguity in draft tables that staff corrected during the review process; staff told the board RS‑1 is intended to be the closest match to today’s single‑family standard and that existing RS properties would be designated RS‑1 under the new code if the ordinance is adopted.

What happens next: Ordinance 2025‑05 is now part of the municipal code. Any specific rezoning to RS‑2 or RS‑3 would require a developer application or a board‑initiated rezoning, public notice and hearings, and assessment for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Board members urged public engagement during the upcoming comprehensive plan update.

Sources and evidence: public hearing testimony, staff presentations and the roll call vote are in the meeting record.