Building moratorium in Welsh Road area OK'd

By Adam Tobias of the Daily Times staff
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:24 PM CDT

By the slimmest of margins the Watertown Common Council Tuesday approved a resolution endorsing a temporary 12-month building moratorium in the area of Welsh Road that has experienced flooding problems for many years.

The building moratorium was approved by a vote of 5-4, with aldermen Diana Johnson, Fred Smith, Brad Blanke and Tony Arnett is opposition. Aldermen Mark Kuehl, Ken Berg, Steve Zgonc, John Meyers and Bob Wetzel voted in favor of the resolution.

The moratorium, which was recommended by the public works commission, will run from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, 2009. According to the resolution, the moratorium could be lifted before Sept. 30, 2009, if corrected storm water improvements are implemented and the installation of detention ponds is completed.

The city is in the process of installing a larger, concrete ditch on the west side of Welsh Road that will direct the storm water to the two detention ponds at the northwest corner of West Main Street and Welsh Road near Farm & Fleet.

The moratorium will allow residents in certain areas to maintain their structures during the 12 months, but no new building additions will be approved. However, platting, planning and planned unit development processes may proceed or be approved during the temporary moratorium.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith said he could not support the moratorium because the language in the resolution infringes the rights of property owners. He also said he could not approved the resolution because the public works commission has not given proper information as to why it approved the moratorium when it was unanimously defeated by the plan commission in July. A revised moratorium was approved by the public works commission earlier this month by a vote of 3-2. Not all of the public works commission members were present during that meeting.

“Our plan commission has extensively studied this issue,” Smith said. “They are tasked by the city to be the experts on issues relating to planning and they unanimously recommended that this moratorium be defeated.

“When it came to the public works commission, with 30 percent of the commission members absent, there was a 3-2 vote in favor of the resolution,” he added. “The problem I have from the procedural point of view is nowhere in the minutes or any other official location is there a rationale by the public works commission as to why they are rejecting the unanimous recommendation made to them by our plan commission. I believe that the justification must be extraordinary, it must be articulated and it must be understood.”

Mayor Ron Krueger also said he was concerned about the process that has been taken with the moratorium and added that he feels it could tear the process of the city apart.

“Now the plan commission looked at a resolution and unanimously turned it down,” Krueger said. “Now you're telling me that the public works commission takes it up, changes the words and passes it on and the plan commission has no say in this. Is that's what's happening here?

“I mean, the plan commission is in place for a certain reason and they took a proposal, they studied it based on studies that we have spent thousands of dollars with qualified, professional engineering firms and they said no to a moratorium,” he added. “So now it goes to a city commission who then takes it and changes the words and completely ignores the plan commission. I see a disconnect here. I see something that's just going to tear apart the process of the city.”

Some of the aldermen who voted against the moratorium said they could not support it because they felt more development would actually help the flooding issues.

“What struck me at the time was a moratorium against development undermines your interests because with development, the impermeable surfaces will channel the water into a storm water system of detention ponds and pipes that will move the water quickly out of your area. It is the impermeable surfaces, the undeveloped surfaces, that allows the water that falls in great volume to soak into the soil and become and exacerbation for the unabatable ground water problem that you have. The more development you have, the more the water is going to go into the storm water system that will be moved out of your area.

“It is the land that isn't developed that will soak up that water, will send it down to the bedrock and right up against your foundations,” Smith said. “Development is the best thing that can happen to alleviate the only problem we can't address.”

More stringent changes have also been made to city's storm water ordinance. Developers are now required to make sure that less water comes off the property than what occurred before construction.

When Smith was trying to explain his rationale for denying the resolution, a few members of the audience laughed at his answers and made remarks. The audience interaction caused Krueger to smack down his gavel a few times and Smith turned to those in attendance and reminded them that they should be respectful.

“You know I'll tell you one thing,” Smith said. “The vast majority of the people who have come to public hearings and contributed their input in this governmental process have been respectful and have been completely a positive influence, but I will tell you, at the committee meeting of the whole where there were people here who were in my opinion outrageously rude to the engineer who was making the presentation and I do not think that it lends any kind of credibility to anybody's position when rudeness infuses itself in the governmental process.”

“If we can't respect each other's point of view without being rude there's something wrong,” he added. “What I'm trying to do as objectively as I can is try to tell a roomful of people who don't agree with what I am saying why I believe what I believe. Now if that's not worthy of consideration, then there is a serious misconnect among our body politic.”

Berg, who is also the chairman of the public works commission, said he feels the moratorium is a step in the right direction and commission members made compromises when revising the resolution.

“I just think it's premature and a bit inconsistent to feel that we have to endorse development in order to actually improve the conditions of the people that live in that area and I think it needs time for us to put more things in place,” Berg said. “I think this (moratorium) allows that.”

“The reason for the moratorium is to fix the water problems first and take care of the current homeowners who have been there forever putting up with this for a long time,” Zgonc added.

Several residents who live in the area of Welsh Road spoke during the time for public comment at the beginning of the meeting and urged the council to approve the building moratorium.

“I think it's only fair to us because of all the problems that we have experienced and we need something in place to ensure that before any further development goes forward that our problem is resolved,” said Eugene Ulbricht of 1319 Heritage Court.

“The moratorium won't stand in the way of the placement of the (detention) pond, that's not the intention at all,” added Steve Stratford of 703 Western Meadows Drive. “What it will help us with is some peace of mind.”