By Kellen Olshefski
Correspondent
The Walworth County Zoning Agency voted 4-1 at its recent meeting in favor of recommending approval of a rezone request for the Norman L. Brummel and Jean A. Brummel Trust to the Walworth County Board of Supervisors.
In October, the Sugar Creek Town Board voted 3-0 in favor of approving the rezone request, which is intended to allow for the construction of a Dollar General retail store on the property. It would be located across from and in the area of Tibbets Elementary School and the Mobil Gas Station off of County Highway A in the town.
Both the Sugar Creek Plan Commission and the Town Board approved the rezone, noting that the Comprehensive Plan already calls for the land to be rezoned to B-2. Town officials noted if it were to deny the rezone, the Town could face legal action.
Numerous concerns have been brought up by residents – at previous meetings as well as at the Feb. 20 County Zoning Agency meeting. Among the concerns are increased traffic, potential for burglaries and crime, a potential decrease in home values, the safety of children at the nearby school, and whether or not a Dollar General store is the best fit for that location.
At the Feb. 20 meeting, residents again noted a petition opposing the rezone with signatures from 550 sugar creek residents and 220 residents from surrounding areas, including County Zoning Agency Chairman Tim Brellenthin, who recused himself from the discussion and from the vote at the meeting. In addition to echoing concerns listed in previous meetings, residents noted at the CZA meeting a landowner’s protest is on file stating they do not want and will not patronize the store, if it’s built.
After hearing from Ken Silverthorn of the Farnsworth Group, which is representing Overland Properties, the company looking to develop the property for Dollar General, as well as hearing from concerned residents, the board discussed the topic.
Citizen Member Jim Van Dreser said he wouldn’t support the rezone as he didn’t feel it was right for the community.
“I think any more traffic is going to be a problem there,” he said. “I don’t think it’s the right place for that type of store, and for that reason I will be opposed if this motion’s approved.”
Van Dreser said he believes the committee has some responsibility to consider the effect construction of a retail store at that site might have on traffic and safety coming through that area of Sugar Creek and the nearby intersection of Highway A and Highway 12/67.
Supervisor Rick Stacey pointed out that Silverthorn had previously noted the store would not be a destination point but more for residents in the area, meaning it wouldn’t bring high amounts of traffic from the highways, but more likely local residents stopping in the morning and afternoon on their way to and from work and school.
Silverthorn later said the estimated store traffic count would be roughly 62 cars a day, 20 of which are already driving through the area each day.
Supervisor Susan Pruessing noted the Sugar Creek Town Board had previously approved the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which called for that piece of property to be rezoned for commercial development.
While she said she was receptive of the opposition’s concerns, Pruessing said it would be a “slippery slope” to “get into the business” of picking and choosing what businesses could go into a property slated for commercial use.
“If it’s zoned commercial and they should be able to do whatever they want to it, why even have a hearing, why even have us vote on it,” Van Dreser said.
“I think we have a hearing because we do have some responsibility to look at how it fits in the location and how safe it is. So, I think we should take that responsibility seriously, and in this case, I do think there are some concerns,” he added.
Stacey again noted it’s not intended to be a destination store and he doesn’t believe it would draw traffic from other communities, such as Elkhorn and Whitewater.
Van Dreser said he doesn’t think a company would build a store for only a few visitors a day.
Pruessing said unless there’s “huge, compelling evidence” present, she likes to respect the decisions of the local elected officials.
“I feel that they’ve done their due diligence, they’ve had hearings and such and so forth,” Pruessing said, adding that only in the instance that something “quite compelling” comes forth would she recommend taking a second look “and maybe make a decision against a town board.”
Supervisor Jerry Grant said while he understands the concerns, he does think other residents would use the store and he doesn’t think the crime rate would increase because of the store.
“I guess I hate to see a building go up like that and have it fail, and yet, at the same time, I have no authority or no knowledge of why it would not succeed,” Grant said.
Land Use and Resource Management Director Michael Cotter said at last week’s meeting he didn’t want the committee to feel pressured into making a decision that night and if they wished, the County could take video or look into a traffic study to help answer questions they might have.
Ultimately, a motion to recommend approval of the rezone request was approved by the board 4-1, with supervisors Stacey, Grant, Pruessing and Dave Weber voting in favor and Van Dreser voting in opposition. Committee Chairman Brellenthin, who had signed the petition in opposition, recused himself from the discussion and vote because of the conflict of interest.
