Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees tell developer to clear compliance items before Hidden Harbor moves forward; private‑road access remains unresolved
Summary
The board said the Hidden Harbor developer must provide clean letters from the county highway department, fire protection district and health department and resolve major issues in a staff executive summary before the village will advance approvals; the board said Salem Avenue appears to be a private road and the village cannot grant access without owner permission.
Trustee (S5) told the board the village has been working with the Hidden Harbor developer, referred to as Mike, and reiterated that the village wants the project to succeed but that the developer must resolve substantial compliance items identified in Tim’s executive summary and obtain formal letters from outside agencies.
"We asked him to please get a clean letter from the county, a clean letter from fire protection, a clean letter from the health department and work with him of getting in compliance with our existing ordinances," Trustee (S5) said, adding the village had repeatedly sought documentation and would withhold support until the items were resolved.
The board discussed access from Salem Avenue, which trustees said is likely a private road possibly controlled by the Oakland subdivision homeowners association; trustees noted the village does not control that road and cannot legally grant access if it is private. Trustee (S5) said the village could state it would not object to a crossing from one side of the developer's parcel to the other, but any access that permits traffic would require permission from the road owner and could be policed or closed by the private owners.
Trustees expressed concern about requested deviations from PUD setbacks and buffering, noting the developer's plan showed a 16‑foot‑high wall as close as 6 feet to adjacent parcels while the village ordinance normally requires 50‑foot setbacks; staff said findings of hardship must be demonstrated to justify such deviations. Trustee (S5) and staff said the village has spent significant staff time coordinating with the developer’s engineer and the county, but the outstanding technical and documentation problems remain.
The board did not vote on the development; trustees said they would continue to work with the developer but insisted on receipt of clean agency letters and corrected technical submittals before advancing planning‑and‑zoning action.
