Developer asks Hartland to lower utility and impact charges for proposed 124‑unit senior living project

During a public hearing July 14, 3 Leaf Development asked the Village of Hartland to amend a preliminary PUD for a senior living project and to reduce the development’s sewer and utility impact charges, saying the proposed use consumes far fewer utilities per unit than single-family homes. The developer requested the board charge the senior facility 37% of the single‑family equivalent for peak utility flows rather than full single‑family rates, a change the company said would lower fees by about $382,874. The project as proposed is a 124‑unit senior housing development (previously 120 units) that developers say would provide a mix of independent living, assisted living and memory-care units on roughly four acres. Why this matters: The developer said the use generates fewer utility demands because the average occupant per unit is far lower than single‑family homes, and the board must decide whether to treat the development as a hybrid residential use with reduced infrastructure charges. The decision affects the project’s financial feasibility and the village’s near‑term revenue from impact fees. Developer case and data presented At the public hearing the developer summarized a detailed market and engineering analysis. He said industry peak‑flow statistics support applying a 37% factor versus single‑family, and that a nearby operating senior development’s actual quarterly water use averaged about 11,000 gallons per day — roughly 15% of the single‑family benchmark — while the engineering peak statistic was 28,000 gpd. The developer outlined site costs and impacts: the project’s impact-fee total had been calculated at roughly $1,265,000 (about $204,000 in municipal impact fees and about $1,061,000 in utility fees). The developer said the project’s estimated annual property tax revenue would be about $225,000 to $250,000 once assessed and online, and argued the site produces relatively large tax revenue per acre compared with single‑family development. Public comments and trustee responses Several members of the public spoke in the hearing opposing a fee waiver. One resident urged trustees not to “support the developer” or waive fees for a prime parcel. Trustees and planning commissioners asked technical questions about the basis for reduced usage factors, the engineering comparables, and whether the developer had trimmed construction costs through value engineering. At least one trustee expressed support for the project’s goals and the developer’s cost reductions, saying the company had already reduced its ask from initial proposals and that the development would meet a community need for senior housing. Procedure and next steps This item was at second reading and will return to the board for a third reading (scheduled for July 28 unless the board suspends rules to act sooner). No vote was taken on July 14. The developer and staff said they will supply comparative water‑use bills, engineering support, and further information to the board ahead of the next reading.