Mount Pleasant pauses public hearings after notice error; residents press board over proposed multiunit housing

The Village Board of Mount Pleasant paused action on four agenda items after a village attorney said required statutory notice was not posted, and several residents used the public-comment period to press the board to reject a proposed multiunit housing development across from nearby subdivisions.

The attorney told the board that, because one of the village's required public-posting locations failed to publish notice for the public hearings, the board “cannot legally go forward with any action under agenda items G1 A through D,” and the hearings must be reposted and rescheduled. The attorney said the board had no discretion in the matter.

Residents who had signed up to speak nonetheless addressed the board during the public-comment period. Troy Ruffalo, a resident of 7003 Braun Road, said he moved outside Racine to live on a working farm and opposed “6 18‑unit townhomes, apartments” planned across the street. He described concerns about noise, traffic and the effect on his property view and value. “I don't want to sit on my front porch and look across the street at that,” Ruffalo said.

Other speakers raised safety and traffic concerns. Anthony, a resident of 6555 Carnation Drive, said children play in the subdivision and that narrow neighborhood streets, lack of sidewalks and fast traffic on nearby roads make increased vehicle volume hazardous. Wendy, of 3742 Blossom Drive, noted two bus stops on Biscayne and said the neighborhood lacks sidewalks and street lighting. “We live in a quiet neighborhood, a safe neighborhood… I don't want that taken away from us,” she said.

Royce Markey, 6555 Carnation Drive, described existing cut‑through traffic and emergency‑vehicle activity, and expressed worry that high‑density development would increase speeders and create shortcuts through the neighborhood. Megan Bray, who said she grew up in Mount Pleasant, urged the board to preserve neighborhood character and raised a traffic estimate used by speakers: “adding 600 cars… maybe there's 2. 600 to 1,200 cars coming and going,” she said, attributing the estimate to the likely number of residents and vehicles in the proposed project. Tony Martino, 6710 Braun Road, said he met with village staff before the meeting and accused a staff member, Sam Schultz, of providing misinformation about the posting; Martino asked the board to investigate that interaction and offered to present evidence in closed session.

The attorney's notice ruling meant the board took no action on the four public‑hearing items during the meeting; the president said those items would be placed on a future agenda after proper posting. Board members later proceeded with other agenda business not subject to the defective posting.

The public comments covered recurring themes: traffic and public-safety risks at nearby intersections (including Braun Road, Brown Road and Green Bay Road), the lack of sidewalks and lighting in affected subdivisions, potential impacts on property values and the character of existing neighborhoods, and concerns about density and the appropriateness of rental or assisted‑housing products near single‑family homes. Several speakers referenced nearby assisted‑living facilities and school‑age children as groups potentially affected by increased traffic.

No board motion or vote on the proposed development occurred at the meeting because the associated public hearings were postponed. Several residents asked the board to consider alternatives such as locating housing nearer existing commercial or industrial areas, but the board made no formal direction beyond the requirement to repost those hearings.

The board accepted public comment under its usual rules (speakers limited to three minutes) and closed the public-comment period before moving on to unrelated consent and business items. The board did not adopt or deny any zoning or land‑use approvals at this meeting; any future action on the postponed items will follow reposting and the required public‑hearing procedures under state statute.