The Salem Lakes Plan Commission heard proposals for three residential developments at a special meeting Tuesday.
All three developments were proposed by Bear Development of Kenosha.
Two of the conceptual development plans received mostly positive feedback from the commission, but one drew a more mixed response.
The most controversial plan — given a preliminary name of Silver Lake Parcels — was for a single-family home development to be located in Silver Lake west of Highway B and east of Lakeview Drive.
Bear presented a plan for a 19-lot subdivision along with another 3 lots along Dells Road. The subdivision would have a rural profile using roadside ditches with no curb and gutter.
Commissioner reaction to the plan presented was mixed. Citizen comment was not allowed at this meeting due to the preliminary nature of the plans, but many of the about 35 audience members also appeared to oppose this development, applauding commissioner comments that criticized it.
Commission Chairman John Day said “I don’t like to see things compact. We don’t want Lake County (Illinois) here.”
Commissioners John Walker and Dave Hart said they would also favor less density.
Commissioner Eric Ericksen, a Silver Lake resident, said he felt the proposal presented Tuesday was very consistent with existing Silver Lake development.
“Everyone that lives there is used to living on lots that size,” Ericksen said.
Commissioner Roger Johnson, also a Silver Lake resident, had a a similar opinion to Erickesen.
Commissioners Andy Phillips and Bryan LaManna did not express an opinion. Commission Vice Chairman Jeff Albrecht was absent.
The property has seen several proposals for development over the years, from from condos to a more recently rejected 27 lot proposal.
Jonah Hetland of Bear Development said his company originally approached the village this time with a plan for 5 large lots with a single home on each parcel, but was encouraged by village staff to return with more homes.
“Silver Lake is a great community and a great school and they would like to see more families in Silver Lake,” said Hetland, who also said he lived in Silver Lake at one time.
Hetland said the 5-lot plan or the 21-lot proposal would be financially viable for Bear.
The other concept plans presented Tuesday were:
Salem Hills Addition — This plan called for a 11-lot single-family home development just east of a current subdivision at the northeast corner of Highway 50 and Highway B. Lot sizes vary but all will be at least one acre and the largest 12 acres. This plan as proposed would need some rezoning, Hetland said. He said it is similar in type of home to those being developed in the Duck Pond development in Paddock Lake west of Highway BD and south of Highway K. “There’s a market for this, there’s a demand for it,” Hetland said. “It would be a quick (development) and get some nice tax base going for the village.” These lots would be served by private wells and private septic. Most of the subdivision would be serviced by a private road that joins the road in the subdivision to the west. An existing driveway from Highway 50 would provide access to one of the lots. There was no direct feedback from the commission on this plan.
STH 83 Parcels — This plan calls for a single-family home and duplex development on the west side of Highway 83 (Antioch Road) at Falcon Way. The plan presented Tuesday calls for 46 single-family lots and 68 duplex homes (34 buildings) on 34 acres. The proposal would require rezoning from its current commercial zoning. It will have a rural street cross section (no curb and gutter) with a sidewalk on one side of streets. It is a sister development to a 70-lot all single family development proposed for land just to the north in Paddock Lake. A concept plan for that development has been approved by the Paddock Lake Plan Commission and Village Board. One parcel would be reserved for commercial development on Highway 83. Bear’s plans call for an emergency vehicle access to the subdivision from Highway F to the west. Village administrator Cassandra Hiller historical village documents have shown a desire by the village and preceding town board for a connection road open to the public from this parcel to the west. SR Mills from Bear said a traffic impact analysis and county planners do not see a need for the road. Hiller said the road would be positive for fire and safety and traffic flow, adding “If you don’t’ put the road in at the time of construction you can’t go back and do it later.” Plan commissioners weighing in on the road mostly were opposed, saying they feel it would become a cut through to Highway F and Highway 83. “I think it would get used more by people who don’t live there then who do live there,” Johnson said. Hart said “you’re going to upset a quiet neighborhood.” Regarding the development in general, Day said he would like less density adding “It’s a busy area already.” Ericksen and Swartz said it is a good place for a high density development. Mills offered that the density adds tax base and that there is a market for duplexes currently as prices of single family homes rise. LaManna said he felt the village would be giving up too much valuable commercial property by allowing homes. These homes would be connected to Salem Lakes sanitary sewer service.
All three developments would have to come before the Plan Commission and Village Board again before being able to be built.
