This story is courtesy of the Vilas County News-Review.
The will of the public was heard resoundingly by decision makers in Vilas County at the Jan. 27 county board meeting as they contemplated the sale of Riverside Park in Eagle River.
The Vilas County Board of Supervisors voted 16-2 against the sale after receiving intense opposition from constituents — a far cry from the needed two-thirds majority in order to approve the move. Most of the supervisors referenced the numerous phone calls and emails they received in the week or so leading up to the vote, none of which were in favor of the sale.
Board Chairman Jerry Burkett said 77 letters were received ahead of the meeting, as well as “probably a thousand emails.”
He recommended early on in the meeting that the board should table the decision until at least June, but in order to allow public commentary a motion was made and seconded to move forward on the agenda item pertaining to the sale.
City level first
The question of whether to divide and sell the approximately 5-acre land has been met with resistance, and in some cases open hostility, from residents in recent weeks.
Although the consideration of selling the property has been being discussed for nearly two years by the board and various committees at a county and city level, talks started in earnest at a public hearing held Jan. 8 by Eagle River Planning Commission on whether or not to rezone the Riverside parcel from Park/Recreation to Single Two-Family Residential.
Despite the public objections, the commission recommended the change to the Eagle River City Council, which then okayed it at its Jan. 13 meeting. People turned out in a big way at both meetings against the zoning change, which preempted the sale discussion at a county level. That zoning change still stands
Board decision
Many were in attendance for the board meeting, but it had been decided ahead of time that, in the interest of eliminating repetitive comments and streamlining the process, citizens would be allowed three people to speak against the sale.
Bill Marshall, who resides in the Town of Lincoln, focused on the small financial gain that would come from the sale, weighed against the forever-lost greenspace, and the need for various studies and corrections that needed addressing before a decision was made. He said the sale was “not in the best interest for taxpayers.”
Nancy Moriarty, who lives near the stalled development at the Lake Forest Golf Course property (now The Crossing at Lake Forest) in the Town of Washington, expressed serious concerns on how that project was handled, and the lasting environmental damage that could have been prevented if due diligence had been done. She brought this as evidence of the type of damage that can be done to the North Woods when due diligence is not undertaken, and why the Riverside Park project should not be rushed.
Joe Panci, a Town of Lincoln resident, was the final public speaker and directed his comments toward how unique the Riverside Park property is, and urged the board to approach the sale “legally, properly and sustainably” by getting the necessary impact studies in place.
He also focused on the Democratic process, appealing to board members to listen to the public voice.
“We have expressed our opinions, how will you represent us?” he asked. Panci, who was in attendance at previous meetings, added, “Citizens have packed rooms and given input; all opposed. Yet, each time a vote was taken, the result was the opposite of what the public wanted.”
Following the public comment period, the board then had a turn to speak.
Most of the 18 members present (three were not in attendance for the meeting), said they were either not in favor of selling the parcel, or were in favor of tabling the decision until after environmental and market assessments could be completed.
Only two supervisors present voted in favor of selling the park — Lake Edwards, District 13, Town of Cloverland, Wards 1 and 2; and Leah Trojan, District 6, Town of Arbor Vitae, Wards 3 and 4. Trojan said she found it “fiscally irresponsible” for the county to hold onto the property, and added that “Vilas County is not just the City of Eagle River.”
Others on the board spoke either in favor of tabling the decision, or in straight-out opposition. Nearly all of them thanked residents for their input, and seemed to have been swayed by their criticisms of the sale.
A number of supervisors urged the formation of a committee composed of town, city and county officials, citizen representatives, and tribal members to decide what the best course of action is going forward. While that committee was not created at this meeting because it was not on the agenda, Burkett said “it will happen.”
Pat Weber was one of the supervisors who recommended that the Vilas County Fairgrounds also be taken into consideration when deciding what to do with the park area, as they are so close to one another. He feared that turning the parcel into housing would cause future conflicts when homeowners didn’t like how close the fair was to their expensive home and want to “chase the fair out.”
“I really feel that needs to stay a part of it and get included into the long-range plans with the fairground,” Weber said, which was something that other supervisors agreed with.
A number of supervisors shared their affection for the North Woods, using that as reasons to not sell the parcel.
Vilas County’s newest board member, Aron Houdini, lovingly likened the North Woods to a Bob Ross painting, adding “and I’d like to keep it that way.”
Supervisor Richard Logan said he was “opposed to selling the property in any way shape or form,” speaking about his travels to other Wisconsin towns and Upper Peninsula towns that have spaces like this in their city limits. “That tells me they have value,” he said. Supervisor Michael MacKenzie called the sale “a short-term gain that wouldn’t benefit us in the long run.”
Supervisor Tom Maulson from District 8, Wards 2 and 3 in Lac du Flambeau, proposed the county should give the land back to the tribe because it was originally their land. “That was our land you’re talking about. It was taken from us,” he said. “Maybe you should give it back to us.”
Supervisor Robert Hanson recommended the board not table the topic and just vote to not sell the land. “Let’s just drive a stake in its heart today,” he said, which was ultimately what happened.
Although the sale has been denied, the zoning change of the park remains in place within the City of Eagle River. What that means for the parkland is still in question.
Zoning change remains in place
Although the sale has been denied, the zoning change of the park remains in place within the City of Eagle River.
Eagle River City Administrator Robin Ginner explained that under the single- and two-family residential zoning, a park remains a permitted use by right, so Riverside Park can continue as it exists today without rescinding the zoning change. And if the county were to move forward with the sale of the property in the future, the zoning is in place to support residential development.
Ginner added that, as far as she knows, because the property is located within the city the zoning could be amended again at any time, so long as it follows the required process.
“That means review by the Planning Commission, a public hearing and a recommendation to the Common Council. If future development plans shift to a different use, such as a hotel or resort, the zoning could simply be brought back through the Planning Commission for consideration at that time.”
Editor's Note: Bill Marshall is a WXPR Board Member.
