Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sellers tell West Bend plan commission developer seeks zoning change to avoid profit sharing; action tabled
Summary
Sellers and their attorney told the West Bend Plan Commission that a provision in the sale contract entitles sellers to profit sharing if the land is used for anything other than single‑family or duplex housing; the commission opened public hearings and voted to table action until August to consider a PUD overlay and site plans.
Mayor opened the July 7 meeting of the West Bend Plan Commission and the commission opened public hearings on a requested change to the 2020 comprehensive plan for roughly 72.3 acres at the southeast corner of South Main Street and West Rusco Drive.
Josh Tagitz, an attorney representing the Bone family, told the commission he provided an addendum to the purchase agreement that, he said, entitles his clients to profit sharing if the buyer uses or sells the land for any purpose other than single‑family or duplex housing. Tagitz said he believes the developer, Scott Simon, is seeking to remove multifamily from the land‑use designation to avoid triggering that clause. “The sole reason Mr. Simon is requesting these changes is an attempt to improve his legal arguments in the inevitable civil dispute,” Tagitz said, asking the commission not to adopt changes that would “deceive my clients out of profit sharing.”
Lynn Bone, a seller who drove over four hours to attend the hearing, told commissioners she does not accept the developer’s stated technical reasons for the amendment — grade constraints, sprinkler systems, ADA or fee‑simple ownership — and said prior statements by the developer contradict his new justification. “Scott does not need 0 lot lines as fee simple ownership,” Bone said, and asked the commission to keep the development as it was recommended and approved in May.
Developer Scott Simon briefly addressed the landscaping concern and characterized the dispute as a civil matter he would “leave alone,” saying his plan is to build only single‑family homes or duplexes. Staff and commissioners reminded speakers that the commission’s legal standard is land use and zoning, and not civil contract enforcement; one commissioner noted that standing and remedies in a private contract dispute may be for the city council or a court to consider later.
Staff said the developer has revised the plan by changing road patterns and building types and that the overall unit count in the proposal is down by 16 units compared with the original plan (examples cited by staff: single‑family units 96→88; ranch villa units 146→128; townhouse villas 140→150). Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that they lacked a detailed PUD overlay and site plan at this hearing and that a PUD/site‑plan review will provide the technical detail necessary for a land‑use recommendation.
Rather than act tonight, the commission voted to table formal action on the comprehensive plan amendment (Amendment #47) and the associated zoning amendment until the August meeting so the PUD overlay and site plan can be reviewed and notices can be properly published. Staff recommended holding public hearings now for the two items and the commission agreed that final action should await the PUD overlay and any new information submitted by the developer.
Next steps: the item will return to the commission in August with a PUD overlay and site plan for detailed review and possible action.
