Plan Commission Meeting — Minutes

1 | P a g e Plan Commission Minutes MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION TOWN OF SCOTT BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN June 25, 2026 at 5 p.m. 1. Call to order/Roll Call. Meeting was called to order by Chair Cari Langenberg at 5 p.m. Attendees: Chair Cari Langenberg, Al Herrman, Steve Janquart, Paul Vanden Plas, and Cindy Ducat Excused: Erin Lemoine, Mike Van Lanen Staff: Clerk/Treasurer Jaime Fuge, Administrator Dave Cerny Also Present: Town Supervisors Debbie VandenLangenberg, Kurt Baenen, Norman Strebel, Gene Wojcik 2. Approve Plan Commission Minutes of May 14, 2026, Meeting. Moved by VandenPlas, seconded by Janquart to approve the minutes of May 14, 2026, Plan Commission Meeting as presented. Yes-5, No-0. Motion Carried. 3. Review/Take Action on a request for a 4 -lot Certified Survey Map (CSM) located on the northeast corner of Fischer Rd. (CTH K) and Leanna Lane. Parcel #SC-301-3. Mark DeGroot applicant. Cerny recapped the request. He said the property is zoned R-R Rural Residential and consists of approximately 6.08 acres. The adjacent parcels on both sides of Leanna Lane are all zoned R-R Rural Residential. This zoning category requires a lot size minimum of 1.5 acres and 125’ of road frontage. The CSM as proposed meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements with each lot being 1.52 acres and no lot has less than 146’ of road frontage. He said the archeological survey has been completed. Artifacts were found, but they shared no concerns with creating the parcels as illustrated. Staff recommended approval. Cerny said that they will need to get a county driveway permit, however, the County will not issue a permit until a parcel is created. He said that it does not make it a subdivision since it is not more than five parcels. Kris Skaleski, 3967 Leanna Ln, spoke on the item. She said she had concerns about the development of a subdivision as the owner owns multiple parcels, which would not be in line with the goals of the current comprehensive plan. She added the area does not have sewer or water services. She is concerned about potential subdivision development, that would not fit in the parameters of the comprehensive plan. Cerny responded to the subdivision’s concerns. He said property owners have a right to divide their property but are restricted to less than five parcels per parent parcel. The request fits the parameters of the current ordinance. Janquart asked if people could divide parcels again. Cerny said DeGroot has a neighboring parcel, which could be divided into 4 parcels. However, the current parcel could not be divided again without prompting additional approvals and criteria needed for a subdivision. Shane Brady, 3973 Leanna Ln, said he bought the property nearby the proposed CSM. He said many of his questions were answered in the previous comments. He added that he moved out of the City of Green Bay to get away from traffic and would not be in favor of additional expansion. Langenberg said this item will go to the board at the July 14, 2026, meeting. She noted the Plan Commission is an advisory committee to the Town Board. Herrman said the request fits within the rules of the Town’s guidance. He moved to approve the item. 2 | P a g e Plan Commission Minutes Moved by Herrman, seconded by VandenPlas to approve a request for a 4-lot Certified Survey (CSM) located on the northeast corner of Fischer Rd. (CTH K) and Leanna Lane. Parcel #SC-301- 3. Mark DeGroot applicant. Yes-5, No-0. Motion Carried. 4. Review/Take Action on a request for a single lot CSM at 4138 Fischer Road. (Parcel #SC-313). Rob Wurm, applicant. Cerny said The Plan Commission previously approved a parcel split of 7 acres with almost 400 feet of frontage along Fischer Road (CTH K). The property owner now wishes to modify the request; to create a 2-acre parcel, with the same frontage as the original request. The new proposed parcel meets the zoning requirements for A-1 Agriculture. Cerny added the property under consideration is zoned A-1 Agriculture and consists of approximately 30 acres. As pictured in the attached area map it consists of multiple buildings, with some forested land, fallow land, crop land, and corrals for horse pasturing. This parcel’s land use and zoning match surrounding properties. Cerny recommended approval of the request with the following requirements: 1) Provide a wetland delineation (if any) on the face of the CSM. 2) Soil borings to determine suitability for on-site septic systems (can be provided as part of the POWTS application) (Personal On-site Wastewater Treatment System = POWTS) 3) An Archeological Inventory. 4) A County Road Access Permit to allow connection to Fischer Road (CTH K). 5) Covenants and Deed Restrictions that building sites will be no closer than 200’ from the centerline of STH 57 and not exceed an elevation of approximately 705’ due to the DOTs Scenic Easement Restrictions; in accordance with V688 P.18. Moved by Ducat, seconded by Janquart to approve a request for a single lot CSM at 4138 Fischer Road. (Parcel #SC-313). Rob Wurm, applicant, with the following requirements: 1) Provide a wetland delineation (if any) on the face of the CSM. 2) Soil borings to determine suitability for on-site septic systems (can be provided as part of the POWTS application) (Personal On-site Wastewater Treatment System = POWTS) 3) An Archeological Inventory. 4) A County Road Access Permit to allow connection to Fischer Road (CTH K). 5) Covenants and Deed Restrictions that building sites will be no closer than 200’ from the centerline of STH 57 and not exceed an elevation of approximately 705’ due to the DOTs Scenic Easement Restrictions; in accordance with V688 P.18. Yes-5, No-0. Motion Carried. Herrman asked if the property owner has the right to develop later. Cerny said yes. Langenberg asked if the frontage is changing. Cerny said no. 5. Review/Take Action on a request for a single lot CSM at 5023 Van Lanen Road (Parcel #SC - 389-1). Joseph Cain, applicant. Cerny said the applicant requested to recreate a single parcel around an existing farmstead. The commission were provided with diagrams from Cerny for reference. The request is for a new lot consisting of almost 2 acres with 264.72 feet of road frontage. The new lot would encompass all the existing farm buildings and houses. Previously the farmstead had been separated from the agricultural field with an 11.67 -acre parcel, that parcel was later reconnected to the agricultural parcel. That lot split and later merger is illustrated on the CSM with a dotted line. 3 | P a g e Plan Commission Minutes The current proposed CSM meets all zoning requirements for the A-1 Agriculture Zoning District. Langenberg asked about the graph provided on Brown Dog. Cerny noted that this had previously been two lots but is now one. Herrman noted the applicant’s request was in the rules of the ordinance. Herrman had a point of clarification about lot 2. Moved by Janquart, seconded by Ducat to approve a request for a single lot CSM at 5023 Van Lanen Road (Parcel #SC-389-1). Joseph Cain, applicant. Yes-5, No-0. Motion Carried. 6. Discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Survey. Vanderite, who filled out a public comment form, was called on but not present. Madison Stolen of Bay Lakes spoke to the Commission regarding the Plan Survey results. 231 responded, 128 were filled out via a mailing. Fuge notified that the mailed responses were entered by the Deputy Clerk J. VandenLangenberg. Stolen read The Town of Scott Comprehensive Plan Results Summary (attached at the end of the minutes). Stolen read the information in the demographic section. At the end of the section, she asked if anyone had questions on the demographics. There were no questions. Langenberg commented that she wished younger applicants would respond. Stolen recapped the quality-of-life section. Rick Gorbette, 3330 Bay Settlement Rd, added his comments about the quality-of-life section. He asked about how people defined “Small town feel” as there could be varying definitions. Langenberg added that her opinion of it is not about amenities but rather people knowing their neighbors. Stolen recapped the Natural & Agricultural resources section, noting that peace and quiet were buzz words found in multiple responses. Stolen recapped the Infrastructure and Transportation responses, highlighting that services were mostly rated at good. Stolen recapped the Development & Land Use section, noting that many surveyors commented they wanted to preserve the rural character and small-town identity. She highlighted there were 54 surveys that mentioned opposition to apartments and large multifamily developments. Langenberg commented she was surprised that so many responded strongly disagreed regarding development. Doug Hoppe, 3859 Shore Crest Trail, asked for more detail about Langenberg’s comment. He said the lure to the Town of Scott is quietness. He added that he is not opposed to single-family smaller homes but did not want to lose what the Town of Scott is. Janquart added that number doesn’t surprise him as the comments have a theme of keeping the Town of Scott a rural community. Cerny said he looked at the population 20 or 25 years ago. He noted that the Town has barely changed our population, whereas Ledgeview and Lawrence have increased in population. 4 | P a g e Plan Commission Minutes Gorbette mentioned a community developed in Sun Prairie where properties were closer together and close to businesses. Stolen discussed the parks and playgrounds. She said there was a lot of support for parks and walking trails. Gorbette asked what connectivity meant. Stolen said it meant neighborhoods to neighborhoods to go place to place. Stolen asked if there were any other thoughts, concerns or questions regarding the survey. Stolen said that the surveyors emphasized they wanted to preserve the rural character, avoid urbanization, opposed data centers, and wanted more road maintenance and ordinance enforcement. Langenberg asked what the next step with the information is. Stolen said Cerny and her would look at the responses to draft objectives. Cerny said he will compare previous surveys to this one and find similarities. He noted that natural preservation was a previous theme in the last comprehensive plan. That theme was reinforced in this survey. Cerny said the next meeting there will be a draft with goals and objectives. Gorbette asked if there will be future discussion with the public. Stolen and Cerny said the summer will be used to put something together. The next two meetings will have the context, and they will continue to seek public response. He said there will be an official public hearing before action. He said there will also need to be workshops held. Stolen added once goals and objectives are established there will be open houses. Cerny said the goals and objectives will establish future action, like drafting an ordinance. Langenberg summarized that Stolen and Cerny will come back on July 16 with the draft of goals and objectives. Chuck Servi, 3867 Champeau Rd, said the survey was well written and easy to understand. He said it went well. 7. Communications. There were no communications. 8. Schedule next meeting. July 16 at 5 p.m. 9. Adjourn. Moved by Herrman, seconded by Janquart to adjourn. Vote: Aye-5, No-0. Motion Carried. Meeting Adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jaime Fuge, Clerk/Treasurer, Town of Scott Jaime M. Fuge Page 1 of 14 TOWN OF SCOTT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 227, 98% 4, 2% Residency Year-round Seasonal 231, 100% 0, 0% Occupancy Own home Rent 3%, 6 11%, 24 12%, 28 10%, 23 9%, 21 55%, 126 Less than 1 Year 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years More than 20 Years Years Residing in Town 0%, 0 0%, 0 9%, 20 14%, 32 23%, 52 44%, 100 10%, 23 Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-54 55-54 65-79 80 or Older Age of Respondent The City of Green Bay, 36% Green Bay Metro (excluding the City of Green Bay), 8% Retired, 27% Remote, 6% Scott, 8% Other, 15%If you are currently employed; in what town, village, or city do you work in? Page 2 of 14 QUALITY OF LIFE 2. What aspects of life in the Town do you value the most? 1. Peace and Quiet (78 mentions) a. Residents most frequently cited the aspect of life most valuable was the peaceful environment. Residents commonly used the words ‘quiet’ and ‘peaceful’, as well as mentioning a slower pace of life compared to the nearby urban area. 2. Rural Character and County Living (64 mentions) a. Residents value Scott’s rural landscape, farmland, and country lifestyle. Many respondents specifically mentioned they live in Scott because it offers a rural environment. 3. Proximity to Green Bay and Amenities (47 mentions) a. Many residents appreciate being able to access employment, shopping, healthcare, schools, and entertainment opportunities in Green Bay while living outside the city. 4. Small-Town Character and Community Atmosphere (39 mentions) a. Residents value the Town’s local identity, commonly using the phrase ‘small-town feel’. 5. Low Taxes and Affordability (26 mentions) a. Residents cited lower property taxes and overall affordability as important reasons they enjoy living in Scott. 6. Safety and Low Crime (24 mentions) a. Residents described Scott as a safe place to live and raise a family, citing low crime rates and a sense of security. 7. Natural Environment (22 mentions) a. Residents expressed appreciation for the Town’s natural resources, including the Bay of Green Bay shoreline, Niagara Escarpment, wildlife, and overall scenic landscapes. 8. Larger Lots, Privacy and Separation Between Homes (18 mentions) 21%, 48 21%, 47 10%, 23 30%, 69 13%, 30 5%, 12 Nicolet Drive / Edgewater Beach Road area (former Bayshore Sanitary District) Royal Scott Neighborhood New Franken Southwest portion of the Town (if you have municipal water, check here) Rural area outside of the above described area. Other In which part of the Town do you live in? 4%, 8 2%, 4 17%, 37 50%, 112 27%, 61 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1. The Town of Scott provides a high quality of life. Page 3 of 14 a. Residents value the larger lot sizes and privacy that the Town offers compared to more urbanized communities. 9. Friendly Neighbors and Community Relationships (15 mentions) a. Residents highlighted positive relationships among neighbors, including kindness and friendliness. 10. Town Services and Local Governments (12 mentions) a. Residents expressed appreciation for several Town services, including garbage collection, and complimented staff responsiveness and service. 3. What factors do you think attract people to live in the Town? 1. Affordability and Low Taxes (58 mentions) a. Residents believe people move to Scott to enjoy lower property taxes and an overall lower cost of living. 2. Rural Character (52 mentions) a. Residents believe that people are attracted to Scott because it offers a rural lifestyle with open space and farmland, and lower-density development. 3. Location (50 mentions) a. Residents indicated that Scott’s location allows residents to access jobs, healthcare, schools, shopping, and entertainment opportunities while avoiding “city life”. 4. Peace and Quiet (39 mentions) a. Residents identified Scott’s peaceful environment and slower pace of life as important factors that attract new residents. 5. Small-Town Character (28 mentions) a. Residents believe people are attracted to Scott because of its “small-town feel” and neighborly environment. 6. Natural Environment (27 mentions) a. Residents cited Scott’s natural features, waterfront, scenic views, and other environmental amenities as important attractions. 7. Safety and Security (18 mentions) a. Residents described Scott as a safe place to live and raise a family, citing low crime rates and a sense of security. 8. Privacy (15 mentions) a. Residents described specific qualities of the Town’s rural character, such as large-lots, more space, privacy, and less crowded neighborhoods as important to prospective residents. 4. What factors do you think attract people to visit the Town? 1. Natural Attractions (58 mentions) a. Residents cited the Town’s natural resources as its strongest visitor draw. Wequiock Falls was the most cited attraction, while others mentioned the Bay of Green Bay shoreline, and general natural features of the area. 2. Restaurants, Bars and Local Establishments (38 mentions) a. Residents identified locally owned restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues as important destinations that attract both residents and visitors. 3. Golf and Other Recreational Amenities (27 mentions) a. Royal Scot Golf Course was repeatedly cited as a recreational destination that brings visitors into the community. 4. Family and Friends (19 mentions) a. Many residents indicated that visitors primarily come to Scott because they have family or friends who live in the town. 5. Waterfront, Boat Access and Fishing (17 mentions) a. The Bay of Green Bay, public boat launches, waterfront access, and fishing opportunities were frequently identified as assets that attract visitors. Page 4 of 14 6. Location (14 mentions) a. Residents noted that Scott benefits from its location between Green Bay and Door County, attracting travelers who stop for dining, recreation, or scenic views while passing through the area. 7. Parks, Trails, and Outdoor Recreation (14 mentions) a. Residents identified parks, trails, and outdoor recreation opportunities as additional amenities that attract visitors and enhance the Town’s recreational appeal. 8. Religious Destinations (10 mentions) a. Residents recognized Holy Cross Church and the National Shrine of Our Lady of Champion as factors that bring visitors to the Town. 9. The University of Wisconsin – Green Bay (8 mentions) a. Residents identified the UWGB campus, arboretum, and trail system as nearby recreational and educational destinations that attract visitors to the area. 10. Few Attractions / Primarily a “Pass-Through” Community (13 responses) a. Residents indicated that Scot is primarily a residential community rather than a tourism destination. Several commented that visitors are generally passing through rather than traveling to the Town specifically. NATURAL & AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 5%, 11 0%, 0 1%, 2 31%, 71 63%, 146 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 5. It is important to protect the Town's natural resources. 4%, 10 2%, 4 10%, 24 36%, 83 47%, 109 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 6. It is important to preserve farmland and agricultural resources within the Town. Page 5 of 14 Any comments regarding Natural & Agricultural Resources: 1. Preserve rural character, farmland, and open space (31 mentions) a. Residents overwhelmingly support preserving Scott’s rural character, farmland, open spaces, and agricultural landscape. Many respondents specifically stated that these qualities are what make the Town unique and attractive and should remain a priority moving forward. 2. Manage Growth / Prevent Overdevelopment (28 mentions) a. Residents generally support slow and strategically planned growth that would protect the Town’s rural character. Many comments discourage the idea of multifamily housing. 3. Opposition to Data Centers (15 mentions) a. Residents expressed concerns about water consumption, energy use, and overall environmental impacts, along with the incompatibility with the Town’s rural character. 4. Water Quality, Groundwater, and Pollution Protection (15 mentions) a. Residents expressed strong interest in protecting groundwater, private wells, and the Bay of Green Bay from pollution, including development related and agricultural impacts. 5. Agricultural Practices and Manure Management (13 mentions) a. Many residents expressed concerns about manure management, runoff, odors, and road impacts associated with farming operations. 6. Support Agriculture and Protect Farming (11 mentions) a. Residents strongly support maintaining agriculture and protecting farmlands to preserve the Town’s culture and identity. 7. Property Rights and Balanced Regulation (8 mentions) a. Some residents emphasized the importance of balancing resource protection with private property rights and avoiding restrictive regulations. 8. Natural Resource Preservation and Biodiversity (8 mentions) a. Residents support protecting environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and ecological systems throughout the Town. 5%, 12 3%, 6 7%, 15 37%, 85 48%, 111 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 7. The Town should encourage responsible growth that balances development with the preservation of rural character. Page 6 of 14 INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Any comments regarding Infrastructure & Transportation: 1. Road conditions, maintenance, and reconstruction (34 mentions) a. Residents strongly support continued investment in roadway maintenance and reconstruction. Many respondents expressed frustration with deteriorating pavement conditions, repeated chip-seal applications, and perceived inconsistencies in how road improvement projects are prioritized. 2. Drainage, Flooding and Stormwater Management (19 mentions) a. Drainage and flooding emerged as one of the most significant infrastructure concerns, Residents repeatedly cited poor ditch maintenance, recurring flooding, stormwater runoff, and inadequate drainage systems that affect both public roads and private properties. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (17 mentions) a. Many residents support expanding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, particularly multi-use trails and connections between neighborhoods, parks, schools, and natural areas. 4. Snow Plowing and Winter Maintenance (15 mentions) a. Many residents expressed concerns about plowing response times and damage to property. 5. Traffic Safety (13 mentions) a. Residents expressed concern about speeding and unsafe driving behaviors and certain intersections that require improvements or enhanced enforcement. 6. Water, Sewer, and Utility Infrastructure (8 mentions) a. Residents generally support maintaining and strategically expanding infrastructure while ensuring growth does not outpace available capacity. 7. Transportation Alternatives (2 mentions) a. A few respondents expressed interest in transportation alternatives that would improve mobility to the surrounding areas for older adults, youth, and other residents. 8. Broadband and Internet Access (2 mentions) a. A few respondents noted that portions of the Town continue to experience limited broadband access and would like service to expand. 5%, 12 14%, 32 32%, 74 43%, 100 5%, 12 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 8. The condition of local roads in the Town is adequate. 0%, 1 4%, 8 26%, 60 52%, 118 18%, 40 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 9. Investing in infrastructure improvements should be a priority for the Town of Scott. Page 7 of 14 Rate the quality of the following community services: 3%, 7 16%, 35 27%, 60 41%, 91 8%, 17 6%, 13 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Police Protection 1%, 3 5%, 12 20%, 45 48%, 107 21%, 47 4%, 9 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Fire Protection 3%, 6 12%, 26 25%, 55 42%, 95 11%, 24 8%, 18 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Ambulance Service 5%, 12 23%, 53 25%, 57 40%, 93 7%, 16 0%, 0 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Road Maintenance 15%, 35 27%, 61 12%, 27 34%, 77 9%, 21 2%, 5 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Snow Plowing Page 8 of 14 3%, 7 11%, 25 24%, 54 46%, 105 9%, 20 7%, 16 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Parks 0%, 0 1%, 2 7%, 16 51%, 118 41%, 94 0%, 1 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Garbage & Recycling 0%, 1 0%, 0 9%, 21 51%, 117 27%, 62 12%, 27 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Sewer Service 1%, 3 5%, 12 12%, 26 35%, 77 20%, 45 27%, 60 Poor Needs Improvement Neutral Good Excellent N/A Potable Water Page 9 of 14 DEVELOPMENT & LAND USE Comments: 1. Preserve Rural Character and Small-Town Identity (49 mentions) a. The common sentiment expressed throughout responses was a desire to maintain Scott’s rural identity and small-town atmosphere. Residents repeatedly emphasized that these qualities are the primary reason they chose to live in the Town and should remain priorities moving forward. 2. Support Slow, Managed, and Thoughtful Growth (37 mentions) a. Many respondents acknowledged that some growth is inevitable and desirable but emphasized that future development should be carefully planned and occur at a pace that protects community character, infrastructure, and quality of life. 3. Opposition to Apartments, Condos, and High-Density Housing (23 mentions) a. Many residents expressed concerns that higher-density housing could increase traffic, strain infrastructure, alter community character, and contribute to urbanization. 4. Concern about Green Bay Annexation (11 mentions) a. Residents expressed concern that continued expansion by Green Bay could threaten Scott’s independence, taxes, and rural character. 5. Desire for Additional Growth and Tax Base Expansion (11 mentions) a. Respondents expressed concern that insufficient growth could limit economic opportunities and increase financial burdens on existing residents. 6. Preserve Farmland, Open space and Natural Resources (10 mentions) a. Residents connected future growth concerns to the potential loss of agricultural land, forests, open space, and scenic resources. 7. Opposition to Data Centers (9 mentions) a. Respondents specifically identified data centers as an undesirable form of development due to concerns about resource consumption and compatibility with community character. 8. Water Supply, Infrastructure, and Utility Capacity (8 mentions) a. Residents expressed concern that future growth could strain existing systems and infrastructure. 9. Commercial Development and Business Growth (7 mentions) a. Some residents supported selective commercial development, including small businesses, grocery stores, and a community center. 10. Traffic, Noise, and Other Quality of Life Concerns (6 mentions) a. Residents worried that future development could amplify existing traffic and noise concerns, along with other impacts commonly associated with urbanization. 3%, 6 8%, 19 23%, 52 39%, 88 26%, 59 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 11. I am concerned about how future growth and development will change the Town of Scott over the next 20 years Page 10 of 14 Comments: 1. Opposition to Apartments and Large Multifamily Developments (54 mentions) a. Residents were strongly opposed to apartment complexes and other multifamily developments. 2. Preserve Rural Character and Low-Density Development (34 mentions) a. Residents emphasized that future housing decisions should support the Town’s rural identity, including preserving open spaces and low-density development patterns. 3. Concerns about Crime, Property Values, and Transient Residents (30 mentions) a. Residents associated apartments, rental housing, and higher-density development with concerns about property maintenance, neighborhood stability, public safety, and declining property values. 4. Support for Limited Housing Diversity in Appropriate Locations (18 mentions) a. Residents supported expanding housing options, provided development is carefully located and designed to fit community character. 5. Support for Starter Homes, Smaller Homes, and More Affordable Options (12 mentions) a. Residents recognized affordability challenges and supported housing options to help younger households enter and remain in the community. 6. Support for Senior Housing and Aging-in-Place Options (8 mentions) a. Residents noted that long-term residents have limited options for downsizing while remaining in the community and supported housing options geared toward older adults. 7. Infrastructure, Traffic, and Service Capacity Concerns (7 mentions) a. Residents expressed concern that additional housing development could strain roads, utilities, and public services. 8. Let the Market Decide Housing Types (4 mentions) a. Residents felt housing decisions should be driven primarily by market conditions rather than local regulation. 31%, 71 26%, 59 18%, 41 16%, 37 8%, 18 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 12. The Town of Scott should allow for a wider variety of housing types such as smaller residential lots, and designated locations for duplexes, condos, and apartments, in appropriate locations in the Town, to provide more housing options for residents at Page 11 of 14 Comments: 1. Support for Additional Parks, Trails and Recreation Opportunities (18 mentions) a. Residents support expanding recreational opportunities. 2. Support for Walking Trails, Bike Trails, and Connectivity (15 mentions) a. Specifically, the strongest support was for expanded trail systems and non -motorized transportation connectives. Residents frequently expressed interest in safe walking and biking routes linking neighborhoods, parks, schools, and natural areas. 3. Improve Existing Parks Before Building New Ones (10 mentions) a. Residents indicated that improving and maintaining existing parks should be prioritized before developing new facilities. 4. Additional Specialty Recreation Facilities (8 mentions) a. Residents expressed interest in recreation facilities beyond traditional playgrounds, including dog parks, pickleball courts, and athletic fields. 5. New Developments Should Include Parks (7 mentions) a. Residents supported requiring new residential developments to incorporate parks or recreational amenities as part of project design. 6. Concerns about Cost, Taxes, and Maintenance (7 mentions) a. Residents emphasized that new facilities should be financially sustainable and not create excessive tax burdens. 7. Opposition or Limited Need for Additional Parks (6 mentions) a. Residents felt that existing facilities already met community needs. 8. Safety, Enforcement, and Crime Concerns (6 mentions) a. Residents expressed concerns that poorly managed parks could become gathering places for undesirable activities and emphasized the importance of maintenance and enforcement. 9. Need for More Family Amenities (5 mentions) a. Residents noted that younger families need additional recreational opportunities, particularly playgrounds. The Royal Scot neighborhood was repeatedly identified as lacking park facilities despite having many families with children. 10. Preserve Natural Aras and Nature-Based Recreation (5 mentions) a. Residents preferred nature -based recreation opportunities over highly develop ed park facilities and emphasized protecting the Town’s natural assets. 5%, 11 8%, 19 45%, 102 30%, 68 13%, 29 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 13. I would like to see more parks and playgrounds in the Town in both existing and new development areas. Page 12 of 14 Comments: 1. Opposition to Further Annexation (30 mentions) a. Residents expressed opposition to additional annexation and support maintaining Scott’s independence as a separate municipality. 2. Pursue Border Protection Strategies (17 mentions) a. Residents encouraged leadership to proactively pursue strategies, agreements, and efforts that help preserve boundaries and maintain local control. Exploring village status was mentioned approximately four times. 3. Preserve Rural Character (16 mentions) a. Residents connected annexation concerns directly to preserving Scott’s rural atmosphere, small-town character, and identity. 4. Concerns about Higher Taxes Under Green Bay (13 mentions) a. Residents expressed concern that annexation would increase that tax burdens that residents tried to avoid by moving to Scott. 5. Annexation Could Improve Services (2 mentions) a. Residents acknowledged that annexation could provide service improvements. 6. Neutral/Unsure About Annexation (2 mentions) a. Residents indicated that they lacked sufficient information to form a strong opinion. 15. What are the top 5 land use or community issues/needs for the future of the Town of Scott. 1. Environmental Protection, Farmland Preservation, and Rural Character (59 mentions) a. Residents mentioned protecting Scott’s natural environment, farmland, open spaces, water resources, and rural identity was the most important priority. Residents repeatedly emphasized that these resources are fundamental to the Town’s character and long-term quality of life. 2. Transportation, Roads, and Traffic Safety (48 mentions) a. Residents identified roadway conditions, drainage issues, traffic safety, speeding, and winter maintenance as major infrastructure priorities. 3. Parks, trails, and other recreational opportunities (42 mentions) a. Residents expressed strong support for expanded recreation opportunities, particularly trail systems, parks, community spaces, and nature-based recreation. 4. Economic development, including small businesses and commercial development (40 mentions) a. Residents support economic development that expands local services, strengthens the tax base, and provides amenities for residents while remaining compatible with the Town’s character. Frequently mentioned needs include grocery stores, small businesses, restaurants, and other employment opportunities. 5. Public Safety, Police, EMS, and Fire Protection (29 mentions) a. Residents expressed interest in strengthening emergency services, law enforcement visibility, ordinance enforcement, and overall public safety resources. 6. Water, Sewer, Utilities, and Infrastructure Capacity (28 mentions) 2%, 5 1%, 3 14%, 31 25%, 54 58%, 127 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 14. I am concerned that the Town will continue to be anexed by the City. I think the Town's leadership should adopt a comprehensive plan that focuses on preserving the Town's borders and prevents further annexations. Page 13 of 14 a. Residents identified utility infrastructure and water services as important considerations for future development and community sustainability. Residents also expressed a need for improved broadband services. 7. Housing and Residential Development (23 mentions) a. Residents’ comments reflected competing viewpoints, but many emphasized the importance of maintaining compatibility with community character, while accommodating future needs. 8. Opposition to Data Centers (21 mentions) a. Data centers emerged as one of the most frequently cited development concerns. Residents linked opposition to concerns about water consumption, energy demand, and preservation of rural character. 9. Growth Management and Development Controls (20 mentions) a. Residents generally support growth that is carefully planned, strategically located, and consistent with the Town’s rural character. 10. Taxes and Fiscal Sustainability (14 mentions) a. Residents referenced balancing improvements with affordability and maintaining reasonable property tax levels. 11. Increased Town Engagement/ Community Activities (8 mentions) a. Residents expressed interest in improved communication, community events, and other opportunities that promote engagement and relationships between leadership and residents. Any other thoughts or concerns? 1. Preserve Rural Character and Avoid Urbanization (20 mentions) a. Residents emphasized that Scott’s rural character and slower pace of life are the community’s greatest assets and should remain central considerations in planning decisions. 2. Overall Road Maintenance (18 mentions) a. Winter maintenance and roadway upkeep generated operational concerns, with many residents citing delayed plowing, ditch issues and gravel displacement, and roadway deterioration. 3. Data Center Opposition (13 mentions) a. Residents expressed strong opposition and encouraged proactive action to prevent future proposals. 4. Ordinance Enforcement and Property Maintenance (13 mentions) a. Residents expressed frustration with perceived inconsistencies in ordinance enforcement and frequently cited concerns regarding property maintenance, nuisance conditions, and neighborhood appearance. 5. Traffic Safety and Speed Enforcement (10 mentions) a. Residents identified speeding and traffic safety as persistent concerns and expressed a desire for greater enforcement and roadway safety improvements. 6. Housing Density and Opposition to Apartments (9 mentions) a. Residents reiterated concerns that higher-density housing would alter community character and increase urbanization. 7. Economic Development and Business Growth (8 mentions) a. Residents reiterated support for commercial growth that would expand local services while remaining compatible with rural character. 8. Environmental Protection (8 mentions) a. Residents emphasized environmental stewardship and encouraged stronger protection of natural resources, wildlife habitat, and ecological systems. 9. Water, Sewer, and Utility Costs (6 mentions) Page 14 of 14 a. Residents expressed concern regarding utility costs and the long-term affordability of services. 10. Yard Waste Collection (6 mentions) a. Residents expressed interest in having increased opportunities to dispose of yard waste, including increased hours at the collection site and collection pick-up multiple times a year.