Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suamico board edits housing objectives in comprehensive plan, debates defining 'adequate' supply and aging‑population needs
Summary
Trustees debated and revised language in the comprehensive plan housing section, agreed to remove a vague 'promote reinvestment' objective, and to revise another objective to 'define, promote and invest' in an adequate supply and mix of housing types; they also discussed conservation‑by‑design, infill priorities tied to utilities and options to encourage housing for an aging population.
The Suamico Village Board conducted an extended review of the housing section of its comprehensive plan and proposed several textual changes to clarify goals and to align objectives with pending infrastructure investments.
Trustees agreed to strike an initial boilerplate objective that read "promote reinvestment in the existing housing stock" after several members said the wording was vague and could imply a loan program the village does not run. Trustee Anders and others supported removing that language as redundant and replacing it with clearer statements.
On a central objective, trustees debated whether to keep the word "adequate" and how prescriptive the plan should be. After discussion they agreed to revise the objective to state they will "define, promote and invest in an adequate supply and mix of housing types for individuals of different life stages, physical abilities and income levels, while maintaining the village's rural and residential character." Several trustees emphasized making the definition of "adequate" measurable and holding the village accountable through periodic reviews.
The board discussed the village's aging population, with one trustee citing a projection (discussed in the meeting) that the share of older residents could reach about 40% in the coming years; trustees debated whether to encourage development of residential opportunities that support older residents rather than use the phrase "residential facilities" which some said conjures institutional connotations. The board edited language to "focus development of residential opportunities that help care for an aging population." Board members also discussed targeting infill and areas already served by utilities to maximize the return on upcoming investments (water tower and well) and considered conservation‑by‑design subdivisions as a tool to preserve open space while allowing development.
Trustees discussed whether to explicitly reference nonprofit or government programs; after debate the board reworded that item to "explore and utilize nonprofit, volunteer and government programs to diversify the village's housing stock," with direction that staff and any subcommittee evaluate program availability and eligibility (several trustees noted some Brown County programs referenced in older drafts may no longer be available).
No final vote adopting a new comprehensive‑plan text appeared in the meeting; the board directed staff to incorporate agreed edits, prepare clearer definitions (a definitions page), and bring revised language back for subsequent review.
