Site preparation began last week in the northwest corner of Lena after the village board voted Aug. 20 to approve a developer agreement over the objections of several dozen people in attendance and a petition with more than 150 signatures.
Jayme Sellen, executive director of the Tourism and Economic Development Corporation for the Oconto Region, reported to the Oconto County Board two days later that the project is expect to result in 80 apartment units built in three phases.
“We’re excited about that project,” Sellen said. “That’s one of the projects we’re helping to fund through the Capital Catalyst revolving loan program that you entrusted us with.”
The county board approved the loan program using part of Oconto County’s allocation of federal American Rescue Program Act funds. The loans are available to Oconto County businesses with 250 or fewer employees and $20 million or less in annual net revenues. Any loan must be approved by the TEDCOR executive board, which includes four county board supervisors, and cannot exceed 30% of the total project cost.
A company called Rival Properties purchased land at the end of Third and Fourth streets for the apartment complex, and the village board last October approved rezoning the land from agricultural/residential to multifamily. The project is a centerpiece of the village’s planned Tax Incremental District 2, which has yet to be given final approval. A public information session on TID 2 was held Aug. 8.
The “statement of opposition” petition argues that the development is not consistent with the village’s comprehensive plan and would significantly change the neighborhood’s rural residential nature.
Three residents repeated those concerns during the community input portion of the village board meeting.
“Many of us believe that we could use maybe 10, 20 apartments, which is a far cry from the 80 being proposed – or maybe even a mixed development with one or two apartment buildings, some single-family homes and maybe some duplexes,” Mary Joe Heise said, adding that the board has not been forthcoming on a number of questions, including why a project of this size and scope is needed. “If this is something beneficial to the community, where are the answers? Where is the transparency, and what is the rush?”
Graig Auers said he moved to Lena from Bloomington, Minnesota, three years ago to get away from the hustle and bustle of traffic.
“Now I heard that these apartments are coming in, and traffic’s going to be flying by my house,” Auers said. “I wish they would have put a different road in somewhere else to accommodate all the traffic that’s going to be coming by.”
Margaret Steier said her family has been in Lena for more than 100 years.
“This is the first time in 40-plus years that I’m completely disappointed by some of the things that are going on in this village,” Steier said. “We have nothing here, and we’re going to add all these families. We don’t have the police force, we don’t have the infrastructure for any of that, fire department.”
She questioned the background of Rival Properties and asked the board to reconsider its support of the project.
Village Trustee Nicholas Heise, who is Mary Jo Heise’s husband, was the only dissenter when the board voted 6-1 to approve the development agreement with Rival Properties, pending final approval of TID 2.
“Though I’m in the minority as a member of the elected village government, I represent the majority of the Lena voters who oppose the development,” Nicholas Heise said. “The reality is our only recourse is to appeal directly to the board with the ultimate goal of changing your minds to stop this development and come together as a community to work on a plan in line with the traditional fabric of the village and backed by the majority of the people.”
He questioned some of the practices, including that public hearing materials were not made available to the public until two days before an Aug. 10 public hearing on the project.
Heise also said there were out-of-town private meetings between Village President Steve Marquardt and the developer. Marquardt disputed that characterization.
“Anytime a meeting was to be held outside of the village hall, I had retained permission from the village board to represent the village in those meetings,” Marquardt said. “And obviously nothing was voted on or said or whatever; everything always came back to the board.”
Later in the meeting, attorney Terry Bouressa of the Hanaway Ross Law Firm said he was asked what action, if any, the village board is required to take in response to the petition, which was submitted July 11.
“While certainly it speaks to the board as to the opinions of those who signed the petition, I conclude that it does not give rise to any legal obligations on the part of the village board basically to take any action or to implement any steps as a result of the petition being filed,” he said.
Bouressa reminded the board that rezoning was approved last October and the project has been proceeding ever since.
“At this point, any legal obligation that the village has undertaken with respect to this project would be affected by any reconsideration of the issue,” he said.
wbluhm@newmedia-wi.com
Categories
