Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission tells Village Board to keep Oakmont right-of-way option after developer seeks vacation
Summary
After resident objections and questions about a private adjoining road, the East Troy Plan Commission voted to recommend the Village Board reject a developer's request to vacate a stub of Oakmont Drive right-of-way, preserving the option for a future connection; the Village Board will hold the public hearing July 20.
The East Troy Plan Commission voted to recommend that the Village Board reject a developer's request to vacate a portion of the Oakmont Drive right-of-way in the Lake Bluff subdivision, preserving the town's option to require or construct a future road connection.
Staff told the commission the request concerns the Oakmont Drive right-of-way shown on subdivision plat 51751 (recorded in Walworth County) between Lots 42 and 43. The public hearing on the vacation is scheduled for the Village Board on July 20; the Planning Commission's vote tonight was a nonbinding recommendation.
Resident Jane Hafner of Red Oak Lane urged the commission to uphold the 2006 plan and retain the three‑entrance design, saying the existing layout helps divert traffic and that many neighborhood residents walk in the area with children and pets. The applicant, John Donovan of Balinski Homes, argued the stub currently lacks utilities (no sewer, water or storm sewer), serves no present function, would require village maintenance if left in the right-of-way, and that vacating it would allow the adjacent corner lots to be developed without reduced building footprints caused by corner-lot setback rules.
Commissioners pressed whether Seminary/Divine Word Road to the east is a public street; staff and participants said it appears to be privately owned and would need sale, annexation or conversion to a public right-of-way before it could serve as a public connection. Staff pointed out the access strip on the adjacent parcel is only about 35 feet wide, while the village's standard right-of-way is 66 feet, and that the official map shows a future road network but that meeting current street-width standards would require additional actions by other property owners.
With outstanding questions about the feasibility of any connection and absent clarifying testimony from the village engineer and department of public works, Commissioner (Speaker 10) moved that the commission recommend rejection so the village retains the option of a future connection. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The commission's recommendation and record will be forwarded to the Village Board in advance of its July 20 public hearing, where the board may take the final action.
Next steps: the Village Board public hearing on July 20 will consider the formal vacation request; the commission recommended more detailed input from the village engineer and DPW prior to that hearing.
