Why Flood Housing Market, Destroy Farmland & More?

To: Ruekert-Meilke

From: Pat W., Town of Dunn

Please file this in the public comments on the Fitchburg Northeast Neighborhood development.

I live just east of the proposed development and have attended two of the public information sessions. I can't say that I am encouraged by what I have seen. From a very basic standpoint, why in the world would anybody propose to build over 1,400 new homes in a housing market that is in serious decline and by all reasonable accounts, is likely to stay in decline for a long time, if not permanently? The housing market in Dane County is very much overbuilt right now and flooding the market with this many new homes is not a responsible action for the city to take. It is also not a reasonable action for any developer to take. Nobody will gain from such an action, except the developer, and any area residents trying to sell a home will be negatively affected for a long time.

Regarding roads and traffic, I spoke at length with a member of the city council and one of the Ruekert-Mielke associates at the last session. I was amazed at how little understanding they had of basic traffic engineering and how this development would impact existing residents. That, or they simply didn't care. Several very basic questions I asked (pedestrian/bike traffic, rush hour flow/through traffic from Town of Dunn) were met with a shrug of the shoulders or something like, "Well, we'll have to address that in the future." No, traffic and roads need to be addressed before one more dollar is spent in planning. This time, by competent and knowledgeable people and presented by the same.

Another thing that struck me was how, in this age of supposed awareness of sustainability and lessened environmental impact, how the Northeast Neighborhood is just another gigantic, suburban development, with no regard whatsoever for the land or surrounding area. Stormwater runoff into the wetlands, obscene amounts of fresh water being taken from an aquifer in decline, a stated danger to polluting the Nevin Fish Hatchery and most of all, an automobile based lifestyle that depends on fossil fuel and asphalt.

Finally, I can't understand why there is such a push to destroy what little farmland and true greenspace Fitchburg has left. I lived in Fitchburg for nearly 12 years, but moved a few miles east five years ago to Dunn simply because I couldn't believe how little regard the city had for farmland and open space. Now, this monster is being proposed right up on the Dunn line, literally across the road from several nationally recognized prairie and wetland restorations and a world class lake. A true wildlife refuge for sandhill cranes would be paved over. One of your session displays had the audacity to say something like, "We will preserve the rural character of Larsen Road." If rural character includes 1,400+ homes within sight of what is left of the greenspace, somebody needs to check the definition of rural character.

Again, all I am able to gather from what I have seen, is a complete lack of understanding of how this development will affect anything other than Fitchburg's immediate tax base. And how it will make one developer very rich.

It's time to put a stop to the Northeast Neighborhood. Please, give yourself a reality check before this goes any further.

Out-Dated Plan Not in Community's Best Interest

Submitted by Mel “Butch” Powell, Town of Blooming Grove

Please consider the following points of concern relating to the Final Draft of the Ruekert-Mielke Northeast Neighborhood Plan.

Introduction

The Swan Creek Resource Area, designated by the City of Fitchburg as the Northeast Neighborhood, is a system of distinctive natural, social, and cultural features. Likewise, the proposed Neighborhood Plan is a system of components that involve “natural” (storm water management and residential water delivery), social, and cultural features.

In considering the RM plan, one must keep in mind that the proposed system is radically different from the current system and the RM plan would be imposed on the area in a relatively short period of time. Hence, the current functional balance between human and ecological components would be severely impacted and replaced by a new and unpredictable relationship of human-to-earth.

Thus, any new plan for land use in the Swan Creek Resource Areas should include as a primary consideration, the impact on the plan to the functional aspects of the current land use of the Area.

It is imperative to recognize that the functional aspects of the Swan Creek Resource Area extend beyond the City of Fitchburg’s political boundaries and potentially adversely effect nearby State and County parks, sensitive wetlands which are already impacted by municipal well pumping (Nine-Springs E-Way), property along the shores of Lake Waubesa, and the extensive preserved lands in the Town of Dunn.

1. Environmental Impact

The plan makes little mention of the importance of Swan Creek to the Waubesa Wetlands and the Lake, although it does recognize it as a significant natural feature.

The plan emphasizes the E-Way and Nine Springs Creek is in need of protection, however it does not recognize that Nine Springs Creek is classified as impacted while Swan Creek is classed as less effect by development, at this point in time. Hence, more attention should be given to the sensitive nature and significance of Swan Creek.

The RM plan indicates that development in the plan’s region of analysis would most likely need additional municipal well ( s) to service the area. An additional well is indicated as likely to be placed on West Clayton Road, on the edge of the Nine-Spring E-Way and just outside of the “Northeast Neighborhood” area. No mention is made of the previous degradation of the springs in this area due to municipal pumping. This omission does not sufficiently indicate the impact that development of the scale indicated in the plan will have on the wetlands associated with the E-Way.

There is a significant area of Cluster Residential Housing south of Goodland Park Road and on the rim of the steep banks of Swan Creek. This is, at the very least, reckless. Not only would the construction of cluster homes impact the Creek, but permanent human settlement and its associated activity would severely impact the Creek.

Land is recognized as a resource and not a commodity by the plan (see p 19). This is a positive aspect of the plan because it recognizes the obligation to account for and recognize the environmental service and functionality to the surrounding region entailed in the current land use pattern. The plan does not sufficiently address the consequence to the region of losing this resource if the plan is implemented.

2. Planning Principles underlying the Plan and Map

This plan places the existing land use plan (1995) and the FUDA study of 2003 (Appendix H of the 1995 plan) as the basic conceptual justification for developing the area. See page 4: it portrays this plan as being a contiguous extension of an existing development plan—Green Tech, which is not actually existent.

Note that two other FUDA’s were also identified in the FUDA study. The implementation of the plan should recognize the relative merits of implementing this plan, in this FUDA as compared to the other designated FUDA areas.

This plan under-represents the planning principles that the Committee of the Whole set out during their Nov. 15, 2006 meeting which were designed to give guidance to the Plan Commission in their consideration of future land use in the Swan Creek Resource Area.

The RM plan under-represents the extensive revision of the 1995 Plan as the mandated Comprehensive Plan is created. It appears to justify intensive urbanization of a sensitive area by reference to an out-dated plan that is under revision. These mandated revisions, to be done encompassing Smart Growth principles, testify to the recognition that current and projected economic conditions, resource scarcity, and the need to promote sustainable community development, all make land use policy based on the old 1995 Plan highly likely not to be in the community’s best interests.

High density and medium density housing are positioned so as to minimize the impact on Larsen Road, but the Nora Lane extension (to give the citizens of the Town of Dunn access to the “exciting places” to be created in the Mixed Use area) and the Meadowveiw Road extension contradict the efforts to buffer the border with the Town of Dunn.

3. Socio-cultural and Economic impact

The plan seems to over-estimate the market demand created by the non-existent Green Tech Village. It fails to specify what type of economic activities would support the residential areas. The term “Employment Hub” is too vague to be helpful in assessing the viability of the plan as a blueprint for a functional neighborhood.

The plan makes little mention of affordable housing accommodation except what is implied in the high-density area.

The study recognizes that there will be significant impact on the Oregon School district, yet does not indicate how this impact will be addressed by the Oregon School district. Hence, a major stakeholder in the plan is left unrepresented.

The plan seems to eradicate agriculture from the entire area and replace the economic activities with something like Hatchery Hill and a vague “employment hub.” No discussion in the plan is given to the relative merits/demerits of not retaining more of the working farmland or the possible advantage to Fitchburg’s economy to supporting small scale, sustainable agricultural production of fresh produce for local markets.

Over-all pattern does put new residents in close proximity to parks/possible garden areas and seems to create the potential for walkable neighborhood, however, the area is not really tied to any realistic economic development other than its proximity to Green Tech. There are significant barriers to pedestrian and bicycles transportation between the Green Tech area and the Northeast Area. An opportunity to truly erode the dependency on individual automobile travel is lost by not mitigating this barrier to non-auto travel.

4. Transportation

The plan is contingent on the new interchange, a significant impediment

The plan mentions the possibility of integrating the area with extended bus service, bicycle paths, and regional rail as an option for decreasing auto travel, yet seems to be based on the assumption that auto commuting will continue to be the norm. Bus stops and passage through the US HWY 14 barrier to east/west travel are missing from this plan.

5. Sewers

The plan admits the need for approval with Madison Metropolitan Sewer District to see if they can/are willing to accommodate the new flowage. It seems that little or no consultation has been done on this. This, like the lack of information on impact to the Oregon School District, leaves input from a major stakeholder out of the plan.

Too Many Unknowns in NEN Plan

My name is Phyllis Hasbrouck, and I’m the chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition. We are in favor of preserving farmland, preserving and improving the quality of Lake Waubesa, its wetlands and tributary streams, of creating a dense city core near Fitchburg’s City Hall, promoting the use of trains and buses instead of cars, and of helping farmers stay on the land, make a decent living, and find another farmer to sell their farm to if they want to retire.

We are not in favor of development that proceeds without any assurance that the land and waters nearby won’t be harmed. This neighborhood plan and map, and this conceptual storm water plan, for the Northeast Neighborhood, give no such assurances. Dr. Cal DeWitt, professor of environmental sciences at the Gaylord Nelson Institute of the UW Madison, says that this development could damage the lake in several ways, including:

- runoff polluted by gasoline, anti-freeze, lawn pesticides, etc. damaging the plant and animal life downstream, including the Northern Pike hatchery in Swan Creek;

- floodwaters from all the impervious surfaces causing erosion and silting of Lake Waubesa, which is only 33 ft. deep (if it gets too shallow, wetland plants can take hold and turn the southern end into a wetland.);

- phosphorus from manicured lawns washing downstream and contribute to eutrophication of Lake Waubesa, which means it would become a big stinking mess of algae, with all other life destroyed;

- the water necessary for 1432 residences and 103 acres of commercial establishments robbing the Waubesa wetlands and the southern half of Lake Waubesa of water, which would also encourage eutrophication;

Given all these unknowns, it would be irresponsible for the city of Fitchburg to approve this or any other development near bodies of water or wetlands. Instead of committing $8 million to a highway interchange to open up this far corner of Fitchburg, they should spend a much smaller amount on the studies that would show them where and how to develop responsibly.

We urge the citizens of Fitchburg to learn more about this costly and unnecessary development, and to tell their leaders that they expect them to be better stewards of our land, water, and money! People can visit our website at www.westwaubesa.org. Thank you.

Phyllis Hasbrouck, Town of Dunn

NE Neighborhood "Plan" is Flawed

Submitted by Terry Carpenter, Fitchburg

The new Ruekert-Mielke Neighborhood Plan for the Northeast Neighborhood (NEN) is flawed in many ways including its name. A “plan” should create a vision of what you want to see happen, not just assume that trends of the past will continue to be the trends of the future, and then figure how to accommodate those trends.

As one example, take this quote from page 11 of the plan:

“The convenience of US Highway 14 will only be enhanced with the addition of the planned interchange at the western edge of the neighborhood, increasing the appeal of the area as a residential location for workers who are employed elsewhere in the Madison metropolitan area.”

Is it the job of the city of Fitchburg to encourage more automobile traffic at a time when global climate change is running amok? Half the country is suffering a drought. The West is experiencing triple digit temperatures. Tropical diseases like West Nile Virus are spreading northwards. And Ruekert-Mielke is enthused about creating a new, car-centered development on farmland. This doesn’t make sense.

Yes, an interchange would make driving from the NEN more convenient, which is precisely why the city should be discouraging it and encouraging mass transit instead. What if they took the $8 million that they’d have to spend on that interchange and put it into rail, buses, bike paths or other more efficient transit? I realize that the interchange is planned as part of Greentech Village but I don’t see how adding an interchange contributes to the green in Greentech. Bikes, rail and other mass transit are green -- highways are not. So, if this interchange can be avoided, it should be. And then where does that leave the Northeast Neighborhood with all that traffic on MM and the now quiet country roads to the east.

I hope Fitchburg's city government will wake up to its responsibility to make changes that will slow global warming before it’s too late. We are responsible for what we leave our children and grandchildren. And we need to start now on crucial and authentic planning that takes new realities into account.

There are many reasons not to develop according to the typical residential/office/retail plan created by Ruekert-Mielke. There are several other options for this land that:

• bring needed education and implementation of local food systems into the area;
• improve runoff problems by restoring and buffering degraded wetlands identified by a UW class study in 2006;
• and promote small-scale farming so that Fitchburg’s future includes a major farming component.

Fitchburg doesn’t need leapfrog development or more houses miles away from its city core. The 2007 Business and Community Guide lists only 4 businesses under Agriculture. While a few additional farms aren’t listed, there is a shortage of locally grown food. The "highest and best use" of this land is a combination of small-scale agriculture, wetlands and parks (or other low impact use) that blends with its surroundings and not only protects but also improves the quality of water, and therefore life, in the entire area.

Conceptual Stormwater Study Insufficient

Comments submitted to Ruekert Mielke
By Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg

The city of Fitchburg recently received a Draft Conceptual Storm Water Study which, if approved, would attempt to mitigate runoff pollution from a proposed development in the Northeast Neighborhood. I reviewed this draft Stormwater study using current statutes and recent published studies to determine whether it could be implemented to protect the natural resources and the public health.

Additional Studies Recommended

The authors of this plan state,“The Northeast Neighborhood planning area and surrounding properties have significant natural resource features that require protection.” They further recommend additional studies prior to development which “would include a more detailed evaluation of how the proposed development would affect the groundwater system, including storm water recharge, water quality and spring flow protection.”

To the authors’ credit, the plan area is indeed situated near a natural treasure in Dane County. The area is home to woodlands, wetlands, hydric soils (historic wetlands), Big Fen, Murphy and Swan Creeks, Deep Spring, and Lake Waubesa. Thus, I encourage the city to await results from several ongoing studies that will evaluate many of the stated concerns.

Spring flow protection is relevant because Deep Spring helps freshen the lower two-thirds of Lake Waubesa, and depends on adequate groundwater flow and recharge. Wisconsin has taken steps to protect springs under (2003 WI Act 310, p.2); and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is now charged with evaluating whether groundwater pumping by new high-capacity wells will impact these springs.

A groundwater study should also be conducted. In Dane County, large water withdrawals from the aquifer and the diversion of about 50 million gallons per day to Badfish Creek results in a net deficit to our aquifer. Waukesha, New Berlin, and Green Bay are examples of cities that have depleted their clean groundwater and will spend tens of millions of dollars to clean the contaminated water that’s left or find a new source.

Water levels in the region have dropped enough that the computer model used to calculate the impacts of new wells on the aquifer and surface water in Dane County will need to be updated before future decisions on groundwater use are made, according the model’s author, hydrologist Ken Bradbury.

Additional research, including a graphic model of key hydrologic interactions of the study area, is also being conducted by UW scientist and world renowned wetlands expert, Professor Cal DeWitt.

No Implementation Plan

According to the authors, the purpose of this stormwater plan is “to provide directions and standards” to reduce runoff pollution resulting from development, avoid the creation of future problems, and protect natural resources, using seven goals. However, the plan also states that “no recommendations on how or where storm water management measures will be implemented are included as part of this report.”

A plan based on “goals” without specifying enforceable measures to meet those goals cannot ensure that pubic health and natural resources in the area will be protected.

For example, the goal to “preserve and reproduce existing hydrologic conditions,” by itself, represents a major challenge to the city. In simple terms, the “hydrology” of a watershed is dependent on two main criteria: adequate surface flow which feeds both spring flow and the lake, and adequate infiltration for groundwater recharge. Changing either criteria, even by small amounts, can alter existing hydrology. So the real question becomes can infiltration and groundwater recharge be preserved?

Inadequate Measures for Groundwater Recharge

The 2005 Dane County Water Body Classification Study showed that even low levels of development upland from a watershed will impact and often degrade the hydrology and predictability of the water system. In fact, the County recently revised its stormwater ordinance (Ch 14) to replace caps on maximum land area required for infiltration. New language aims to maintain pre-development groundwater recharge through new design practices and flexibility to the developer.

However, groundwater recharge rates are highly difficult to measure directly or to estimate accurately, and vary with geologic conditions, land use, soil class, and changes in precipitation. Without a specific site evaluation, it would be hard to determine what standards are needed to protect or improve upon the water quality, groundwater supply, or flood protection for this area. Neither the State Code (NR 151) nor County standards are “resource based” (watershed specific).

Moreover, would existing models allow developers the flexibility to develop new approaches to improve infiltration at the site when specific site data is lacking? This question further demonstrates the need to wait for site-specific research.

Finally, this study makes no requirements for testing, monitoring, inventorying, or reporting infiltration amounts. There are no funding resources at the County to capture and maintain these inventories and there are limited resources at the city level. How will the city verify that any implementation of stormwater controls meets the original goal?

Pollution Standards Lacking

According to a 2002 EPA Water report, pollution from runoff during and after rainfalls is now the single largest cause of water pollution. A 2006 EPA Report shows 40% of streams to be in poor condition due to increased sediments. This suggests current protections under the State and County Stormwater Management Standards do not necessarily guarantee the protection of public health and safety or the natural resources in the plan area.

Conceptual Study Insufficient

This study is only a concept. Each goal that might be implemented omits an objective assessment of efficacy. It is impossible to evaluate what the outcome might be with respect to probable percent reduction in stormwater runoff and erosion, even if all of the suggested measures were employed in response to development in the Northeast Neighborhood Plan area. Therefore, the city should not use this study as a means to approve any neighborhood development plan, any growth boundary, or any extension of urban services.

Recently, a newly formed regional planning body was created by Governor Doyle. The Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC), charged with planning growth and protecting the county's water resources, should be able to further study this issue and the aforementioned ongoing studies to determine whether this plan, and others submitted, merits extension of Urban Services to develop the environmentally sensitive Northeast corner of Fitchburg.

A version of these comments was published in the June 28, 2007 issue of the Fitchburg Star.

Additional comments:

1) The level of protection specified under Stormwater Management Standards (Appendix A), does not guarantee the protection of public health and safety. One need only look to the best management practices (BMPs) used in Waukesha (the home site of Ruekert Mielke), to see that the public health protection is not guaranteed. Radium levels in drinking-water, there, remain over federal drinking water standards.

2) Where are the study elements for protecting Wetlands? This study merely pays lip service to the wetlands located to the south (Waubesa) and north (Nine Springs) but does nothing to ensure their protection. Any real stormwater plan must include the protection of the wetlands as part of the special, natural, integral features of this area. (See p. 41of Dane County Water Body Classification Study):

“- Since wetlands are degraded by the same processes that affect streams and lakes and greatly contribute to their overall health and well-being, they too should be afforded the same level of protection and emphasis.
- Even wetlands smaller than 2 acres play important roles, individually and cumulatively. Protection should be based on field delineation, working around these areas or incorporating them into the design.
- Prior-converted wetlands and others that have been ditched or drained should be restored and enhanced.”

3) Further studies related to development in the NEN should be conducted including:

- A groundwater (hydro-geologic) study of the aquifer in the NEN showing the effects of development from increased well pumping.

- Cost of Community Services Study related to costs of development (i.e, water, sewer, and new roads and interchanges), that are passed on to the community. Virtually all of these cost studies show that residential land is a net drain on local government budgets and that it brings costs to the community that are not fully borne by the new residents but are instead distributed throughout the community. Findings show that for every dollar collected in taxes and non-tax revenue, between $1.15 and $1.50 must be spent in the form of local government services. (see study from the Town of Holland in La Crosse, WI: http://www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/TownOfHolland/Docs/COCSreport.pdf

and this study from the towns of Dunn, Perry and Westport http://www.pats.wisc.edu/abscost.htm).

In fact, proponents of farmland and open space preservation now have an important economic argument on their side.

- Transportation Study showing the impacts of traffic flow and increases in traffic and pollution to the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments.

Open Doors Make Good Neighbors

[This Letter to the Editor appeared in the Fitchburg Star on June 28, 2007.]

I would like to congratulate the Fitchburg Common Council, Mayor, and Plan Commission for working in a thoughtful way to plan for the city's future. And I thank them for the courteous reception that they have always given all concerned citizens even those residing outside of Fitchburg.

Though some might complain about "outsiders," our leaders realize that everyone in the area has a stake in questions of development, and that living on one side of a line on a map does not negate a persons ideas or concerns.

I've heard the Mayor point out that Fitchburg officials and residents participate in discussions about Allied Drive, even though it is in Madison, because being just across the border, it affects Fitchburg. Similarly, there are neighborhoods in the Towns of Dunn and Blooming Grove that are just across the border from Fitchburg's Northeast Neighborhood. In fact, they are much closer to it than I am, even though I live in Fitchburg.

Through my concern with land use (especially how it affects farmland, natural areas, streams, wetlands, Lake Waubesa, the aquifer and groundwater), I have made many new friends and acquaintances in the surrounding cities and towns. I've worked closely with several of them and know them to be deeply concerned about the threats to our habitat imposed by the Urban Growth Boundary Map as it is currently drawn. I've seen their dedication to protecting what's left of a beautiful area on the urban fr'inge. I've watched them pour hundreds of hours into educating themselves and others about storm water, New Urbanism, PDR and TDR, economic benefits of local food production, sustainable living, etc. They are a tremendous resource to the entire region and especially to Fitchburg since it is here that so many important decisions, affecting everyone in the area, will be made.

I urge my fellow Fitchburgers to welcome input from everyone willing to look seriously at the issues we face and find solutions that benefit all future residents of this region.

Terry Carpenter

Fitchburg