Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution on further multifamily development; developer asks council for TIF flexibility
Summary
Public commenters urged the council to avoid approving more multifamily units on land they said is better suited to single-family homes, while a developer representative asked for a negotiated resolution to a TIF agreement tied to the Sugar Creek Commons project.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VERONA, Wis. — At the start of the Jan. 26 meeting, public commenters urged the Common Council to weigh neighborhood compatibility in upcoming land-use decisions and to consider the local housing market before approving additional multifamily projects.
A resident from the Backus/Shady Bend area cited December Dane County data (a 7.6% vacancy rate), arguing that more apartments would exacerbate an oversupply and that the city should instead encourage single-family homes. The speaker said the comprehensive plan calls for single-family development on specific parcels and asked the council to ‘‘pump the brakes’’ on new multifamily approvals until existing projects reach occupancy.
Earlier in the public-comment period, Connor Kearney of Forward Development Group, speaking for Sugar Creek Commons LLC, recounted the project’s decade-long history and credited TIF for enabling environmental cleanup and infrastructure upgrades. Kearney acknowledged the hotel originally included in the TIF plan was not constructed and requested a collaborative review with staff to reach a "fair and equitable" resolution that recognizes both the unfulfilled hotel component and the remediation and other public benefits completed.
Dale Betsky, a Shady Bend resident, reminded the council of a resident letter raising traffic, safety, noise and environmental concerns should the Shady Bend site be considered for the public works facility; Betsky asked that any annexation and development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The council took no immediate action on those public comments but later in the meeting advanced a formal site-selection process for a replacement public works garage and considered the developer’s TIF request in the Sugar Creek Commons agenda item.

