Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't know. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. How are you? We see you about once a month now. Chad, how you doing? I need to

Oh, you okay? Good evening. We'll get the meeting uh going here. It is April 9th, 2026 for the joint plan commission village board meeting absent the plan commission. If you could all stand for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Uh roll call. Stigler here. White here. Niles here. Adams here. Who here? compliance check for the open meeting laws verifying that the agenda was posted and and properly done so before 6:30 on the 8th of April. Yes.

Citizens comments. Anyone like to come and speak? Uh one at a time come up to the microphone, give us your name and address and then give us your comments. Sandy Ham, West 230 South 3827 Milky Way Road. Well, I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge uh the uh two super trustees that have signed on again for another two years and I want to make sure everyone knows how much I appreciate that that effort and your willingness to do that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on. Uh discussion possible action items. First, environmental corridor disturbance request for petitioner Mary Rulkkey for the property located at uh lot 2 CSM 1000114 Sunset Drive, Tax Key, WAKT 132498002 for a single family home.

Sure. Thanks. Um the property is on the overhead. It's essentially right here off of Sunset Drive. It's a little bit hard to see. You can see the property is mostly wooded. Um, there is an environmental corridor on the property. I'll bring it up. I'll kind of show you the extent of it that still loading up here. So, it may be a little bit hard to see, but essentially there's a there's a swath of of green here that comes up and then comes north into this larger wetland complex here. So, the the subject property is really at the east end of this environmental corridor. Um, and it's an environmental corridor on the property, this particular property because of the steep slopes and the in the woods. What the petitioner is looking to do um is is build a house on it. And so the green area that's on the map here represents the environmental corridor. Again, it just kind of ends at the eastern edge of the property. Uh Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan Commission actually delineated the corridor in 2023. And as part of of the delineation, they found a critical species habitat in the property, which um happens to be butternut trees um here in the the eastern portion of the property. What they're looking to um disturb is essentially delineated by the by the blue lines here. So south of this blue line and then the septic area in this blue line. And so you can see that clear here. So what would be left essentially would be just the green. So they'd be disturbing this for the house and then the septic area here. And this would be the remaining environmental corridor. Um this this lot was actually created in 2005. It was separated from the property to the north. Um so that was you know over 20 years ago. The environmental corridor was in the property at the time as well. And what

our ordinance essentially says um this is zone R1 and it's got the environmental corridor overlay essentially that um if you have a property where that's you know partially in and partially out of the corridor and that's the case here because you know there's only a very small portion of this property that's outside of the corridor currently. What that means is that the village board has to approve the disturbance area. an envelope, a maximum disturbance area that's got to be recorded as part of a CSM, a plat or a a some other deed restriction. In this case, they're looking to have this recorded as a basically a deed restriction that's specifying the maximum disturbance envelope. Um, that's essentially how it works. Um, it's up to the board whether or not to approve the disturbance area and uh and the limits that are being requested.

Okay, Greg, is there any All right. Uh petitioner represent representatives for the petitioner. You have anything you want to add? The microphone if you do. Okay. Board discussion preference. Is this all one lot now or is it still two lot?

It's it's two it's two lot. Well, the lot to the north is already built on and then lot two is just this one that's being requested um tonight. I I would add that we have approved these in the past for couple I don't remember if we've ever done one for a home, but we have done them for accessory buildings, at least two or three over the years where we've allowed accessory buildings to be in the disturbance area. Again, this was a lot that was created. Um I'm assuming for the purpose of a home. Um there's there's not much left. You know, you obviously can't locate the home in the area that's outside of the corridor currently. there's just not enough space with setbacks and and everything else. So, I guess it's up to you to determine what they're if what they're proposing is reasonable uh in terms of location of the house, the grading and the and the sanitary system. Again, they are preserving the critical species habitat there.

I guess my main question was was um the septic going to be on one lot and the house on another lot? No, they're on the same they're on the same lot. It's just they're two disturbance areas. Okay. Where's the setback line? Just make sure we're not the the 50 foot setback line is right here. And so you can see there's only a tiny little sliver of non-environmental quarter that's outside of the setback line. So we're as close as we can be reasonably.

The house has pushed up to the setback pretty far. I mean, you might be able to orient it a little bit different, but I'm not sure how much you're going to save of the corridor if you do.

So, this would again require if it's approved tonight, um would require a deed restriction with, you know, with the map the the disturbance area mapped as part of it. Okay. board. What was the plan when this got split with lot one and lot two? Was there any stipulations as to what they could or couldn't do here? There wasn't. Um, again, there was no as part of the CSM back then, it noted that there was an environmental corridor on the lot, but there was no notes in terms of where the house could be or couldn't be. Okay. Is is there a limit on disturbance area that we can do on this or there's no um there are no

there's no restriction. Thanks. Normally if there's a if there's a lot that's entirely within an environmental corridor. What the rules state is basically you have I think it's like 33,000 square feet of disturbance area that you can do or 15% of the lot essentially um when it's entirely within the corridor. I'm sorry. 15% of a 5 acre lot, which equates to the 32,000 square feet. So that's much a much larger disturbance here than they're they're actually proposing here. Okay. Any other questions

or a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing none. Uh motion the floor is to approve the request for the disturbance to the environmental corridor as discussed. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries.

All right. Up next, a minor modification determination regarding the modification to the existing wireless telecommunication facility on the property located at West 234 South 3555 West Paul Parkway. tax key WAKT13520007 for Kathleen Growark doing business as insight uh to remove three existing radio units and 12 existing antennas to be replaced with three new radio units and nine antennas and ancillary equipment and cabling on the existing tower. So this is the um Catholic Memorial Sullivan campus and the tower that's there essentially there's a 190 foot monopol tower and then a separate compound for the for the for the ground equipment they're separate um they're surrounded by concrete block. Um, as you know, you've seen a number of these. It's if for towers 200 feet or less in size, as long as um the proposed changes don't increase the overall height of the structure by 20 ft or the width by 20 feet or increase the ground crown compound by more than 2500 square feet, it's considered non-substantial. And so, if it's determined to be non-substantial, it essentially needs to be approved. And so, in our case, the village board makes a determination. I have looked at it. It appears to be non-substantial to me, but it needs your approval.

Any discussion board? This is merely a modification of the current correct. Yeah. Current current structure out there just swapping antennas out and ground equipment out. I make a motion we approve the modifications to the tower park. All right. Motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. All right. Uh just verify, gentlemen, neither of you are the part of the commissioners for this. Correct. Okay. All thank you. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the minor modifications as discussed say I. I.

Anyone opposed? That carries. Up next, award bid for 2026 road program.

Yes. Thanks, Chad. Um, so we opened bids yesterday at 10 in the morning for a 2026 road program. Um, I think we had a pretty successful bid. We had five biders. Um, see them in in the summary here. And just as a refresher, uh, we talked about this a couple months ago, decided to bid as a base bid, replacing South Prairie Avenue with concrete. The mandatory alternate one replace South Prairie Avenue with asphalt pavement and mandatory alternate two was to pulverize and overlay Donald. And so all five biders submitted bids for all three of those um bid portions. Um whether you look at the base bid or mandatory alternate one for um Prairie Avenue, Stark Pavement is the low bidder, parent low bidder. um who is the same contractor that we had do the 2025 road program last year. They did a pretty pretty good job. That was obviously a much bigger project, much bigger scope. Um whether we do concrete or asphalt, we've worked with them in the past and they do a pretty satisfactory job. Um we analyzed their bids, we took a look at their numbers, everything checks out. Um they've obviously completed similar projects in the past and you know looking at this as you remember village set a road budget this year of around $500,000 um to complete the base bid concrete pavement which of course South Prairie Avenue is currently concrete pavement. This um their bid of $420,756,00065 um falls within that number. Um, our recommendation is to accept the base bid, but of course the the decision the board kind of could make looking at both is, you know, whether or not you wanted to do South Prairie and asphalt for less money, $334,239.65

um versus the concrete. Of course, South Prairie is a bus route. It's currently concrete pavement. Concrete pavement generally a better product for the type of traffic South Perry's looking to get. Um, so again, our recommendation is to award the base bid to Stark Pavement. Um, but happy to answer any questions on on anything the board's seen here given that there are a number of options to choose from. I'm going to agree with the fact that prairie is a height heavy heavy traffic areas. There's a lot of trucks on that boat for the street park in the back which is any benefiting us. But I don't want to have to repave this thing in a couple years again because the pavement broke apart. Yeah, not only that, it is a bus route. We have a lot of buses that travel down prairie. Um, you know, that that bus stop, replacing that with asphalt, I don't think would hold up extremely well. Um, I think it was still worthwhile to look at the asphalt cost versus the concrete costs, knowing I mean, asphalt obviously came in fairly cheaper even with the thicker section of asphalt. Um but I think the price starks giving the village to replace prairie with concrete is um pretty favorable in this case. So

just so I have an understanding on this, what what is the projected difference as far as where and tear as far as where uh asphalt to concrete? Is it double for concrete or is it you know is it

so I think so for asphalt obviously we do a lot more roads than asphalt. You take good care of an asphalt road meaning crack filling um you're replacing surface defects. You're getting as much as you possibly can out of an asphalt road. I'd say the most you can get out of it is 30 years. Um, you're not looking at double for concrete, I would say, but you're looking at substantially more than that with probably less cost for maintenance. I mean, you're going to get some some raveling. You're going to have to fill in some areas, but it it's going to hold up longer over time without the need to, you know, come back in two years and crack fill and five years after that and do a mill and overlay.

So, is the use uh how much longer would you get for concrete or are they both about the same except it's the matter of maintenance that makes a difference. Yeah, the matter of maintenance makes the difference. I I would say you can still expect to get somewhere between maybe 30 and 40 years with concrete. Um it's going to it's still notice noticeably some wear and tear on that over time, but um the maintenance costs are are less and for this type of traffic, particularly truck traffic, bus traffic, um it's just going to hold up better over time than asphalt ever would. I drive the a lot. But I guess I haven't been on this actual section until today in quite a while. And

we got done. Yeah, it's bad. It's worse than I thought it was at the stop lights there. Um I I have one probably dumb question. Line one in each of these is mobilization. What does that mean?

That's just that's the cost for the contractor to kind of mobilize their equipment and get it on site. And so ideally, you only have one of those costs throughout construction. Um but let's say for whatever reason contractor mobilized um and then due to an oversight by the village or something going on they had to pull all their equipment off and then later put it put it back. They you know the village would incur another mobilization charge. So it's really just kind of a standard line item for all these projects for the contractor to mobilize their equipment and get it on site. I just I just I asked because I saw one was at 511,000. So I just I'm assuming there was a typo there because that's crazy different in is that in the alternate bid compared to

So is that the is that Zigggo's mandatory alternate? Zignego is a concrete contractor and so the mandatory alternate one um was for asphalt pavement on prairie. Yeah, I think you know we say mandatory because we're asking contractors even if even if you don't do this type of work you know submit a bid or find a sub that can do that work for you. I think it was pretty obvious they didn't want to do that. They just priced themselves out. They priced themselves out of that. So, I just didn't know if it was a because that was and Chris can vouch for me. When I read the bids, I was I was like, there's no way that's right. But it added up and that's what they submitted, right? Okay,

that's good. I will make a motion that we award Stark Asphalt the 2026 road paving bid at 420,700. Yeah, 7656 and65. I'll second it. Okay. Any further discussion? We should say which alternates are not alternates just to be specific. Base bid. base bit only with no alternates. Okay. Right. And that's correct. Sorry.

Okay. No other discussion. Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor of approving uh the contract to Stark for the base bid only uh say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries as well. Very good. Up next, we're moving pretty well tonight, folks. Good job. Municipal separate uh storm sewer system MS4 permits 2025 annual report.

Yes. Uh at the end of every March, we along with help from village staff submit the villages annual report for the MS4 program, municipal separate storm sewer system. um essentially just tells the DNR every year, this is what we've done to remain in compliance with the villages MS4 permit. It's very standard this year. Really nothing out of the ordinary. Um but we do have a requirement to summarize it for the board. So this was submitted at the end of March. There are six primary programs that we collect information from and document for the DNR every year. Um public education and outreach. Currently the village satisfies that with involvement from Walkshaw County and that was no different this year. Uh public involvement and participation um same village satisfies that permit requirement with help from the county through things like adopt a drain and citizen stream monitoring. Um elicit discharge detection elimination is the third program. Um villages is current on this program. We did three inspections of major falls last year as you may remember found no hits of elicit discharge but still you know put together the report submitted that to the DNR. So um village is up to date on that program. Um construction site pollutant control villages program um is completed with assistance again from county on this. All active construction sites with land disturbance over one acre are inspected by the county. So there were three total sites that fit that requirement. and I believe 17 total inspections. Um post construction storm water management. This is also handled with assistance from the county. Um county assists with review and enforcement. Overall, there were no enforcement actions taken this year for the post construction stormwater management. Um county also has ordinances in place to to handle a lot of that for the village.

So again, no changes from last year on that. the pollution prevention program um village is in compliance with this through the municipal it's called a SWIP that was completed the storm water pollution prevention plan completed that for the village's DPW yard so it's just a plan uh on how that site uh prevents pollution um so really no changes in that again this year um that in addition with the villages ongoing um street sweeping catch and cleaning program, um, winter management, road management, things like that. We document everything that went on this this past year. Um, so again, that was submitted last March. No action needed on this, just a summary for the board to to enjoy.

That's it on that. Any questions? Very well. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on then. Uh operator's license for brick Brook Walling. Uh looks like it's all completed properly and she says uh no criminal offenses or anything in the background check. Verified that's correct. Correct. No record was found. Okay.

She taken some extra training too as well. And so that's always a good thing. I'll make a motion to approve the operator's license for Brookwelling. I'll second it. All right. Any other discussion? All those in favor of approving the operator's license for Brook Walling say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? I abstain.

Okay. Public works capital outlay purchase for 2023 John Deere 324P compact wheel loader with a bucket and tying pallet forks. Rob, you want to talk? Come on up. Or sit, whichever. Thank you, Greg. Go

ahead. All right. I guess it started when we wanted to replace a forklift and we approved possibly a skid steer and I had brought up the compact wheel loader. Um, did a lot of digging and looking. What I found that I'm bringing to you guys, I guess, is a a used machine that's two years old. That's 301 hours on it. Um, it would come with the remainder of the factory warranty, plus they've added 42 months, 2,000 hours of additional warranty, which puts it very, very close to what the brand new machine would be for a warranty. Um, and it does come with a bucket and forks. Um, the brand new one of the same machine would be 123,500. This one's $999. Um, it would be very beneficial. It'll do 23 m an hour driving around where skid steer we're limited and have to haul everywhere we would want to use it. Um, all skid steer attachments still fit this machine and it'll do everything that we want to do with a forklift in our yard and in the buildings. So, I guess I'm open for questions. I do have bids on other brands that are the same setup as the machine, but then we're we'd be going back towards a new one. I felt that the money we'd be saving on this um used one would be very good for the village for the very light use it's had. You may have said I maybe skipped over it but with the 123,000 that was just

machine for what we talked about previously, right? So the attachments you have with this deal would be extra above and beyond that the 1235 I did have a bucket and pallet forks written in with that. Okay.

I know you said that the your factory warranty what what are we getting with factory warranty? What what are we with it? The factory warranty was 3 years um 2,000 hours. So, we still have I'd have to get the exact date from them. There was, if I remember correctly, they had said there's about 14 months of factory warranty left on it, but then we would also be getting an additional 42 months or 2,000 hours. I don't feel we're going to hit the hours. It's going to be the months that are gonna affect affect it.

So, we'll have a 56month warranty total. Um, essentially, yes. Okay. And a new one would pro I believe the new ones have a 60. So, we're just short of what a new what a brand new one would be for warranty. I just felt that the warranty is a pretty important part of making the purchase. board questions

and you are saying that the attachments that we have now work dubtailed right into the use of this machine. We don't have currently any attachments for this machine currently. We would have a bucket and forks when we purchase it that would come with it. We don't have a skid steer here

or anything with skid steer things on it right now currently. But the goal would be in the future whether it's two years, 5 years, 15 years. You could add them either purchase all that skid steer stuff's available to rent. If we had a small project where we needed it, we wouldn't have to purchase it. We could rent attachments still. money's in the budget for this, right?

There is um someone I was going to bring up. So, this is higher. Either way, the total for this is higher than what we had originally budgeted. However, uh out of this group of purchases was also the firetr we just vote on at the last meeting and then the um wood chipper that we had done with Rob earlier in the year. So collectively we still are well under the total budget and all for all three items even with this purchase as as it is. So yes, we we have money within the budget. I will make a motion that we purchase this loader at $99,900. I'll second that as presented.

I'll second it again. Any other discussion? Any other questions? I will say thank you. I know you've done a lot of work on this. Just so the board knows, he's he's done quite a bit in the last couple months trying to figure out what what our best option is and he's gone back and forth with the vendor on this one. So, we're we're u definitely getting our money's worth out of it. I thank you for the work you've done on this project. Okay. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Uh all those in favor of approving the purchase as discussed for this specific machine, say I. I.

I. Anyone opposed? That carries. We'll work on get it going. Thank you. Uh, accounts payable authorized for the payment of the bills in the amount of $156,869.34.

I'll make a motion to pay the bills of $156,869.34.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Ste. All right. All those in favor of paying the invoices in the amount stated say I. I. Anyone opposed? It carries. Adjournment. I'll move to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor of adjourning I I record time I think. Good deal. Right at 7 o'clock. Good deal. Good deal.