This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Committee Recommends Mooseheart Annexation Plan to Batavia City Council

The Batavia Community Development Committee voted in favor of the agreement, but requested further wording in the plan about the optional vehicular bridge over Mill Creek.

With the latest committee vote behind them, Batavia and Moose International officials this week plan to finalize language in the Mooseheart annexation agreement.

Even though committee members on Aug. 8 voted 6-1 in favor of recommending the agreement to the Batavia City Council, they asked for parameters to be written in for the optional vehicular bridge that would cross Mill Creek in Parcel D. This parcel is a parks and open space area in the proposed land annex.

The Parcel D space has been of concern to residents and interested parties, who have voiced their opinions publicly about insuring the land is protected, if the annexation is approved. To read about the 100+ people who came to Batavia City Hall Aug. 1 to show their support for the land, click .

Find out what's happening in Bataviawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Committee members and Aldermen Garran Sparks, Alan Wolff, Dan Chanzit, Susan Stark, Lisa Clark and Dave Brown voted in favor of the agreement. Alderman Lucy Thelin Atac dissented from the group.

The agreement between the city and Moose International would annex 470 acres of Mooseheart property along Randall Road and south of Main Street into Batavia. Moose International, a charitable group, plans to add commercial and high-density residential developments on the land to help support the Mooseheart orphanage and school.

Find out what's happening in Bataviawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The City Council could vote to adopt the annexation agreement as early as September, said Jerry Swanson, Batavia Community Development Director.

A Bridge Too Far

Since a vehicular bridge is an option in the annexation plan, the committee requested city and Moose officials to include “triggers” for what would determine a bridge to be necessary, Swanson said. Triggers could include how much development or traffic takes place in the area.

“We would only do the bridge if it was absolutely necessary,” said Joe Segobiano of Hudson Burnham Reality Consultants, an adviser for Moose International. “At a certain point in time, a traffic analysis will be done and it will determine if a bridge is needed.”

According to the Community Development Committee meeting memo, the following items in the agreement have been agreed to in concept, but the language has not been finalized with Moose International:  

  • Removal of all permitted uses from Parcel D except picnic shelter, pedestrian/bicycle trails, pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Mill Creek, traditional Moose uses and an optional vehicular bridge.
  • Removal of the requirement for a vehicular bridge across Mill Creek and leaving it as optional.
  • Tree preservation terms have been added.
  • Park land dedication/fee in lieu terms remain the same except that the Park District will pay Mooseheart $5,000 for every year it actually uses the property until the area is platted. The Park District has agreed to it, but the written agreement has not been done.

Also, according to the memo, the city strengthened the agreement regarding stormwater issues, but Moose has not yet concurred with the following language:

  • No detention facilities in Parcel D
  • No detention may occur in a floodplain

The Final Word(s)

Since the language regarding Parcel D and the bridge is not final, Thelin Atac said she voted against recommending the annexation agreement to the City Council. 

“Some good progress has been made to Parcel D, but I want to make sure everything we talked about is included," Thelin Atac said. "I want to make sure protecting the natural area is clearly defined in the annexation agreement.”

Alderman Dan Chanzit said preserving the natural areas of the property also was a concern for him, but he is confident with the language. 

“I couldn’t consciously vote yes for a project that would create a problem,” he said.

Chanzit said he was generally in support of the annexation agreement from the beginning.

“I always thought the land belonged to Batavia and it was a natural progression for (the Mooseheart property) to join the town," Chanzit said. "As negotiations progressed, the environmental issues came to the forefront. I do believe Mooseheart wants the land protected and will do a great job of taking care of this asset.”

Segobiano said he is pleased with the agreement.

“It’s a good agreement on both sides of the table," he said. "It enables us to move forward and really work with the city in a partnership fashion.”

Here are some ways to follow this story:

  • Click on the green "Keep me posted!" button below this article. You will receive an e-mail notification only when we run future updates on the Mooseheart annexation, or efforts to preserve the natural areas within the proposed annexed land.
  • Click here and then click on the green button at the top that says "Get the Patch Newsletter." You will receive Breaking News Alerts.
  • Log on to facebook.com/BataviaPatchClick "Like" and see our posts on your page.
We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?