Agreement could benefit township property owners

By STACY VOGEL ( Contact )   Monday, Oct. 5, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
 

If you go


Milton City Council meeting

When: 7:30 p.m. Tuesday

Where: City Hall, 430 E. High St.

Milton Town Board meeting

When: 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 12

Where: Milton Town Hall, 23 First St.

PhotoVideo


Patrick and Valarie Kelly have been waiting for two years for the city and town of Milton to sign a boundary agreement so the Kellys can subdivide their property into residential lots on Serns Road.

Patrick and Valarie Kelly have been waiting for two years for the city and town of Milton to sign a boundary agreement so the Kellys can subdivide their property into residential lots on Serns Road.

PhotoVideo

— For two years, Patrick Kelly has wanted to subdivide his land into residential lots.

Kelly owns 35 acres in Milton Township, but the city of Milton has jurisdiction over the land. City ordinance prohibits land division in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, City Administrator Todd Schmidt said.

But Kelly could get his land division soon if the city and town approve a boundary agreement this month.

"I can't do anything with this land until this (agreement) gets signed," Kelly said.

The two governments have been fine-tuning the agreement for more than two years. The city council could vote on its approval Tuesday, and the town board plans to take it up Monday, Oct. 12.

Under state statute, the city has the right to approve or deny development a mile and a half beyond its borders. The agreement would limit that right to an area bounded by Interstate 90/39 to the west, Klug Road to the north, Vickerman Road to the east and Milton-Harmony Townline Road to the south.

In return, the town would agree to not oppose city annexation within that boundary.

The biggest winners would be township landowners who would no longer be under the city's jurisdiction, said Bryan Meyer, town chairman.

Kelly is one of those landowners. He hopes to divide his land on Serns Road into four parcels. He plans to build a house on one of the parcels and has accepted offers—contingent on the boundary agreement—from two buyers who also want to build homes on the lots.

"If they (the buyers) move on, the town and school district of Milton might not be the benefactors of those tax dollars," he said.

Peter Riesterer owns a farm on Manogue Road. All of his land is within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction now, but only part of it will be if the boundary agreement is approved.

He wishes all of his land were going to be under town jurisdiction because the city's authority over his property makes him nervous, he said.

"If the time ever comes when we want to milk more cows, I wonder what they'll say," he said. "They get the OK or the say of what happens with your farm, (and) we wonder what happens next."

Meyer said the agreement will build good will between the city and town and give the town control over more township land.

In fact, the city and town already have demonstrated good will in their discussions about the agreement, he said.

"It's been really kind of a relatively comfortable process talking to the city staff, trying to create this language," he said. "It's just taken some time."







reader COMMENTS (9)
carlitosway
Oct 6, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal

It is their land they own it and should be allowed to make choices for it. My family were tobacco farmers and the Gov. took that from them and people need to step up and defend what is rightfully theirs but then again the Government is going to do what ever they choose!!!!!! Whether state, Fed., or city.

cheddar
Oct 6, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal

Reporter, what are the consequences to the city of Milton? Why did the restrictions exist in the first place? I agree with biggirl - this article isn't finished.

mespl
Oct 6, 2009 at 7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal

"I can't do anything with this land until this (agreement) gets signed," Then why did you buy it? If you planned on subdividing it to begin with you should have researched the topic. Maybe you should have found out what could be done with the land before you wrote the check, which would have saved the rest of us the agony of hearing you complain about how incompetent your decision was.

dogs_rule
Oct 6, 2009 at 6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal

Here we go again. People still want the gov't to tell them what they can do with their own property.

JohnDoe
Oct 6, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal

It's oh so easy for everyone to know what's best for someone else's land...as long as it's not their money that's invested.

leftofcenter
Oct 6, 2009 at 12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal

35 acres to 4 parcels? That's 8-1/2+ acres per parcel for one house! Talk about "dumb growth." The Kelly's should leave the land as they found it.

fedprop
Oct 5, 2009 at 8:51 p.m.
Suggest removal

The City ONLY has the right to approve, deny, or "take no action" (which defaults to approval) of any land division request in their extra-territorial area. Limiting uncontrolled sprawl is the whole point of that particular State Law, that the City is considering abandoning.
The City can't enforce Zoning Standards outside of their City limits (Mr. Riesterer's concern) unless there is joint Town/City zoning board in place, which it doesn't sound like there is.

janesvillean
Oct 5, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.
Suggest removal

It's unfortunate that neither of these property owners is acting in the most sustainable way. One is encouraging exurban development ("rural sprawl"), some of the most inefficient land use in human history, specifically wanting it to be outside the city limits. The other is resisting inevitable development in an area proximate to expected growth. Ideally, maybe Riesterer could buy the farmland from Kelly, and the development could take place in the most appropriate place -- adjacent to the existing city boundaries.

biggirl
Oct 5, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal

What, if anything, is the downside to the town? This seems to be written only from the view of a handfull of property owners.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT