Muskego City council adopts 2035 comprehensive plan after removing 'eco industrial' designation amid resident concerns about concrete crushing
Loading...
Summary
The Muskego City Common Council approved Ordinance 1508 adopting the 2035 comprehensive plan on second reading after amending the document to remove references to an "eco industrial" desired development area. Residents urged deferral, citing a nearby concrete‑crushing site and health concerns; council members said zoning and enforcement—not the comp plan—are the proper tools.
The Muskego City Common Council on March 24 adopted Ordinance 1508, the city's 2035 comprehensive plan, after voting to amend the plan to remove all references to an "eco industrial" desired development area.
The amendment to section 4 of the ordinance, moved by an alderperson and seconded, passed on a roll call with Hamill voting yes and Decker voting no; the remaining members voted yes. After the amendment was approved, the council voted to approve the plan as amended and the chair declared it adopted.
Why it mattered: Several residents used the meeting's public‑comment period to urge the council to delay approval of the comp plan until the city resolves problems at a nearby site where concrete was reportedly crushed without full compliance. Speakers said the pile of concrete, fugitive dust and the prospect of on‑site crushing posed health and property‑value concerns for nearby homeowners and condominiums.
Resident Kathy Shavarati told the council she wanted the city to adopt an ordinance establishing a minimum separation distance between heavy industrial uses (M‑2/M‑3) and residential areas before the plan moved forward. "We should wanna protect all the residential properties," she said.
Steven Van Gogham described a timeline in which city officials became aware of on‑site crushing in August 2025, and he said enforcement did not occur until the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) intervened in January. Van Gogham said the site lacked required stormwater retention work and urged the council to remove the pile instead of allowing on‑site crushing.
The city's presiding official and Planner Adam (first name given in the record) responded that the comprehensive plan is a broad guidance document that does not set zoning‑level detail such as notification distances or exact permitted uses. "The land use plan is kind of this overriding general guidance document. It doesn't give specific uses," Adam said, explaining that items such as required buffers and notification distances belong in the zoning ordinance.
On enforcement, the council said it had sent notices requiring that crushing equipment be removed and that the owner move the concrete pile; the chair added the city would "enforce our zoning very jealously." City staff said the property owner has engaged an engineering firm and that a site plan and related materials would need to go to the planning commission for review if a change of use or rezoning is sought.
Planner Adam clarified that crushing at the site would require a rezoning to M‑3 (landfill and extractive) and a parcel‑specific amendment to the comp plan; he said the owner's engineering firm indicated it would provide a first plan by the end of the month for staff review.
Council debate reflected the split between residents urging delay and members pointing to process: one council member said deferring the plan would not address the zoning issues residents seek to fix, while another said the council should heed public concern and defer. A motion to defer was introduced but lacked a second; the council then moved to amend and approved the plan with the eco‑industrial references removed.
Votes and procedure: The amendment to explicitly remove the eco‑industrial designation passed on a roll call (Hamill yes; Decker no; Bryce yes; Dilge yes; Madden yes). The plan as amended was then approved by the council on roll call and declared adopted.
What comes next: City staff said enforcement and any parcel‑specific rezoning or site plan would return to the planning commission and then to council for separate review. The council also indicated willingness to discuss possible changes to how the city notifies nearby residents for zoning petitions, including ideas such as more visible placards at affected properties.
The meeting record shows the council sought to balance residents' immediate enforcement concerns with the technical role of the comp plan as a guide document; staff and the mayor said they would continue coordinating with the DNR and expect engineering/site‑plan material from the property owner before further actions.
The council's final action on Ordinance 1508 was recorded as approved following the amendment.
