Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed 61-acre annexation south of Waverly raises road, zoning and infrastructure concerns
Summary
A landowner’s inquiry about annexing 61 acres south of Waverly prompted council discussion about road upgrade costs, comprehensive plan designation, utility limits and the need to renegotiate the Orderly Annexation Agreement with Woodland Township before considering annexation.
Waverly — Council members on May 12 discussed a preliminary annexation inquiry from purchaser Kevin Ryks for a 61-acre parcel south of the city off Highway 8 and agreed the request cannot be advanced until the city resolves obligations in its Orderly Annexation Agreement with Woodland Township.
City Planner Robin Caufman said Ryks’ stated intent includes storage units along Highway 8, a commercial/industrial park behind a wetland, and a homestead off 75th Street, with access proposed from 75th Street. Council members noted the city’s current Comprehensive Plan designates the area residential, meaning commercial or industrial uses would require a plan amendment and rezoning and could raise spot-zoning concerns.
A key hurdle is the city’s Orderly Annexation Agreement with Woodland Township; under that agreement a road bordering an annexed parcel could become a city responsibility. Attorney Rhonda Pagel warned that using 75th Street for industrial or commercial traffic could obligate the city to upgrade the gravel township road to a 9-ton standard, a cost the city is not prepared to accept. Pagel also advised that the agreement has not been reviewed since the early 2000s despite language requiring periodic review and that a meeting with Woodland Township should be scheduled to revisit the terms before the city considers annexation.
Caufman said sewer and water infrastructure do not currently extend to the parcel, and Pagel clarified the Orderly Annexation Agreement does not require the city to extend utilities as a condition of annexation. Council consensus was to decline consideration of annexation until the Orderly Annexation Agreement is renegotiated; Council Members Jacobson and Duske agreed to participate in a meeting with Woodland Township to address the agreement and an outstanding billing dispute over prior road work.
The city did not take formal action to accept or reject an annexation petition because Ryks has not filed one; staff was instructed to communicate that the city must resolve annexation-agreement issues before considering a petition.
