2/18/2009 10:02:00 AM Too many or too few houses in rural Fitchburg?
Ryan Dostalek ConnectFitchburg.com
The city is making another attempt to revise some of the regulations governing the location of houses that have irritated some landowners in rural areas.
Landowners say the regulations are too restrictive and subjective. Critics say relaxing the standards will lead to uncontrolled sprawl that requires expensive services.
In a preliminary review of the proposal on Feb. 3, not everyone on the Plan Commission agreed with the proposed changes..
John Freiburger said the proposed changes "have gigantic implications" and would eventually mean 200 to 240 more houses scattered around rural Fitchburg, "each subsidized by taxpayers."
But proponents said the changes would be more understandable and logical. Ald. Jay Allen said even if all potential parcels were approved as home sites, each would probably require no more than 1.5 acres (which is encouraged under the new proposal), thus taking 300 acres of the 11,000 undeveloped acres in rural Fitchburg.
Despite previous warnings about the "floodgates" being opened for house in rural Fitchburg, This has never occurred, Allen said.
Roger Cohee, chair of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, said it was unlikely that all eligible tracts would be used for houses.
In an e-mail from Ed Kinney, the new criteria would emphasize "the common sense factor so glaringly missing in the previous point system."
City planner Tom Hovel said it was ironic that rural residents once complained that the criteria gave too much discretion to the Plan Commission had now endorsed a system that gave even more discretion to the commission.
The commission will vote on the changes after the ag committee prepares a final draft.
The Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recently proposed revisions to the system that determines where houses can be constructed outside the urban service area.
Landowners have complained that the system, which requires earning 12 of 15 points in several categories, wasn't completely objective and unnecessarily restricted the number of houses.
The city revised the system in 2006, but landowners said it didn't go far enough.
Under the.latest revision to the Rural Residential Development Criteria, an applicant must meet five required criteria. There are also four variable criteria, which the Plan Commission can waive at its discretion by imposing different requirements.
The ag committee eliminated the criterion of viewscape, which awarded a point if a house was not visible from streets during the summer. Ald. Jay Allen said the idea that a house is automatically less attractive than other features in the landscape "is about as subjective as anything in the city."
The committee rejected a proposal by Ald. Steve Arnold that the Plan Commission review the design of houses in rural areas, as is required for houses in the urban service area.
Marc Jones emphasized the importance of rebuilding the trust of rural landowners. Arnold said this could be done by clearly indicating what houses will be allowed in rural areas and the reasons underlying these decisions. Tom O'Brien, who operates a farm at the intersection of Lacy Road and Seminole Highway, referred to urban residents who encroached on their cropland. In one instance, residents took corn from 16 rows more than 300 feet long.
The five required criteria involve compatibility with adjacent farm operations, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, lot shape, woodland cover and the protection of heritage trees. The variable criteria discourage location of houses on land with a history of tillage, encourage smaller lots and locating houses next to other residential buildings, and limit construction on sites conducive to erosion.
The new criteria must be approved by the Plan Commission.
