Elk Mound Plan Commission still does not act on Independence Drive Certified Survey Map

By Cara L. Dempski

ELK MOUND — The Elk Mound plan commission’s second meeting in a week came to an abrupt halt after a developer made allegations of a conflict of interest against an engineer present to provide expertise.

The commission came together with land owner Mark Nelson and developer Gene Caron May 17, one week after a meeting during which Caron was requesting approval of a Certified Survey Map application and rezoning of another section of land south of Independence Drive.

Neither measure was approved at the previous meeting held May 10 after Caron balked at the news he would be responsible for developing utility service all the way out to property lines per village ordinance. There were also questions in the May 10 meeting regarding the parcels of land that would be developed.

Cedar Corp engineer Len Schreiber was on hand on behalf of the village to assist in interpreting village ordinance and provide insight into the project.

Commission chairman Terry Stamm spoke briefly with Caron prior to the meeting to provide a “heads up” on the information discovered after the group completed the research that kept it from making a decision May 10.

“Things are a little more complicated than we’d like to believe,” Stamm said to open the meeting. “We would like to do the right thing here.”

The issue under question at the meeting was whether or not a CSM for the land owned by Nelson was considered part of one parcel since it is attached to land owned by Laverne Ausman. The answer to that question would determine whether the land was subject to a CSM, or a platt survey.

Stamm asked Schreiber to summarize the issue for the board, Caron and Nelson. The Cedar Corp engineer launched into a brief description of village ordinance and state statute regarding the number of land parcels and how they determine what sort of survey is necessary.

Schreiber indicated he had just become involved in the issue that morning and had not yet seen any survey maps, but read directly from a village ordinance indicating any division greater than five parcels would need to done by a platt.

“I know the property in question, they have two lots done last year, and two additional lots this year, and then an out lot, which is considered per your ordinance to be a fifth lot,” Schreiber said.

Stamm clarified that it was unclear if the tract of land was divided into four parcels, requiring only a CSM, or if it was five parcels and in need of a platt map. He requested feedback from Caron and Nelson.

Caron indicated the tract of land is already two different parcels, stating there was a CSM completed five years ago when Nelson’s lot was under different ownership. Stamm responded that raised another question, and would require further research regarding definitions.

“As we’re looking at the definition, it’s the same tract of land regardless of the ownership,” Stamm informed Caron.

Stamm clarified the developer was arguing Nelson’s lot was not the same tract of land, as he had purchased it from Laura Hayden, who in turned purchased the lot from Ausman over five years ago. However, by state statute, since it was part of the original tract of land, it is still considered to be so. Schreiber verified this, saying if the division happened more than five years ago, then it would likely still be considered part of the same parcel.

Stamm informed Caron the commission was not trying to hold up further development of the land, but was instead keeping the best interests of the village in mind by trying to do everything according to village ordinance and state statute. He further stated Schreiber, as the village’s engineer, would likely be helping the plan commission navigate the process.

After several minutes of discussion regarding whether the land was being broken into four parcels or five, Caron spoke up to point out Cedar Corp has a conflict of interest.

“We are involved in a legal struggle,” Caron indicated.

Len Schreiber confirmed this, at which point Stamm indicated he would close discussion on the matter. Commission member Mike Teitz spoke up to inform the commission chair it might be in the village’s best interest to consult with the contracted attorney regarding the conflict, and Stamm said he would likely do so.

The meeting was adjourned after several unrelated pieces of communication were discussed.