Graton property annexation tabled

Posted 9/12/01

Graton property annexation tabled

By MaryHelen Swanson
This week, for the first time in many months, the council chambers in Rush City held a number of individuals from the public - most there to attend the public hearing on a proposal to annex land owned by Larry Graton and Fegowi Development, Inc.
After a lengthy hearing, during which many local residents aired their views on the subject of city growth, the council voted unanimously to table any action on the annexation request.
Jeff Widman, a neighbor on the east border of the property in question, was among the most vocal in his objections.
He suggested that the city stick to growing from the inside out and that the many undeveloped lots within the city limits be used before thinking about expanding to the border areas.
Widman, who has lived in the area for 15 years, talked about his five children, large class sizes in the school, his love of hunting and how things could change if more homes were built around him.
Others, such as Dwight Hahn, were concerned about safety issues such as speed and the number of accesses that would be needed if a housing development were established on this property.
Rollin Whittaker asked about the affects on property owners in Rushseba, saying he wanted it to stay rural and he wants it to stay Rushseba Township.
The discussion grew more intense when it was learned that Gratonís developer could go through a subdivision process through the county and develop on five-acre parcels if not annexed.
Widman said he believed it would be too costly, but Graton assured everyone it would not be.
Jon Moulton favored development around the city rather than spreading out in five-acre chunks. He said it would be better to have the growth around the city than take up small parcels all around the area.
Some nearby residents were concerned about the extension of utilities and who would pick up the cost.
Ron Nelson echoed Widmanís comments that Rush City should grow from the inside out.
City Administrator Daniel Hoffman said the city will need to decide if five-acre parcels are a good idea. He believes they are an inefficient use of land, especially on the edge of town.
Yet at one point during the hearing, Hoffman stated that growth is not all negative.
When asked about the ability of current utilities handling more development, Mayor Mike Skalsky said water should be okay, but it would be taxing the sewer system. Hoffman said the cityís lagoon system probably would have to be expanded.
Mayor Skalsky said he did not favor development in that area (southeast of town) for a long time.
Local realtor Clare Lillis asked the council if what he was hearing was that the city would annex the property to gain control and at some time in the future could make a decision about development.
Hoffman confirmed this.
The city has to be careful, Hoffman said, adding that in a perfect situation, utilities would be extended from the inside out.
With the public hearing concluded, Mayor Skalsky suggested the tabling of action until the city could get some answers about their options in the future, i.e. what kind of control it would have over a development request.
As it stands, if the annexation takes place now, the developer has formally agreed not to bring a development request to the council for three and a half years.
Hoffman assured the crowd that the city should have some answers by the next regular meeting. He also noted that no notices would go out to adjacent property owners, so interested citizens should call City Hall to see if the issue is back on the agenda for the Sept. 24 meeting.