DATE: April 27, 2004
Committee members present: Ashford, Lehman, Cassity, Wiese.
Others Present: Gurney, Brenson, Simmert, Franklin Cook, Terry Turnquist, David Werneke, Nichelle Martin, Greg Fauerbach.
Chairman Wiese called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. and staff certified that the meeting had been properly posted.
Motion by Cassity, seconded by Ashford to approve the agenda as prepared.
Minutes of previous meeting were unavailable. They will be reviewed at the next Committee meeting.
Communication: None
Business Items: None
The Committee reviewed the vouchers for the Mapping Department. Motion by Cassity, seconded by Ashford to approve payment of vouchers in the amount of $41.61.
Motion carried.
Mr. Lance Gurney updated the Committee on recent bills in the State Legislature. These included:
AB 551 Required that before a County Comprehensive Plan take effect it must first be approved by the Towns—vetoed by the governor.
AB 411 An exemption to nonmetallic mining reclamation for ponds—vetoed by the governor.
Livestock sighting ordinance signed into law. This ordinance only allows local governments regulatory authority with respect to the sighting of livestock operations of 500 units or more. If a local government already had an ordinance in place regulating livestock operations of less than 500 this would take precedence. It was suggested that Sauk County consider the development of a livestock sighting ordinance.
AB 608 Reduced the number of land use decisions a community can make that must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Prior to this bill, land use decisions were relatively all inclusive. This bill reduces the land use decisions that that must be consistent to local zoning ordinances, official maps, and subdivision ordinances.
AB 728 As part of the development of comprehensive plans, this bill requires the development of written notification procedures and actual notification to landowners that have an interest in non-metallic mining on their lands. Interested individuals must contact the Town to be notified.
SB 87 Annexation. Under this bill, incorporated communities annexing lands from a Town must pay taxes for a five-year period equal to the amount the Town levied on the property. These requirements only apply where there is not unanimous approval by all property owners involved.
Mr. Gurney spoke about the Town of Greenfield Moratorium and explained that the Town has contracted with Schreiber Anderson Associates to aid them with the development of a Comprehensive Plan. In lieu of this planning process the Town felt it was desirable to adopt a moratorium.
Terry Turnquist, Town Chair of Greenfield indicated that as part of the planning effort over 500 surveys were sent with a return rate of more than 50%. Turnquist also indicated that numerous committees have been established to work on parts of the plan and due to the diversity of these committees, the Town felt it was appropriate to adopt a moratorium.
Turnquist then spoke about specific aspects of the moratorium and indicated that it was passed unanimously by the Towns Plan Commission and Town Board. The duration of the moratorium will be for 120 days after the plan is submitted to the county for final approval.
Franklin Cook, Town resident, expressed concern over the smart growth process. Cook indicated that one of the questions on the survey asked if the Town should do a moratorium and that the survey had not been tallied yet.
Mr. Gurney informed the Committee that the moratorium is currently in effect and that county approval is an endorsement of the Town's decision. Gurney then spoke of official posting requirements and referenced an affidavit from Jeanne Burton, Town of Greenfield Clerk verifying that the moratorium was legally posted in the town. The moratorium officially took effect on April 23, 2004.
Motion by Ashford to approve a resolution recognizing the Town of Greenfield's Moratorium, seconded by Cassity.
Motion carried.
Mr. Gurney introduced a request by Steven Coens/Greg Fauerbach for a variance from the standards of Chapter 22 of the Sauk County Code of Ordinances in accordance with Section 22.61 to allow for a four lot land division by way of a certified survey map within the City of Reedsburg Extraterritorial Area and in compliance with applicable City regulations. The area of the proposed land division is located in Section 1 T.12N R.5E and includes lands in the SW ¼, NE ¼ west of Copper Creek and East of Golf Course Road.
Greg Fauerbach distributed a map of the proposed land division and explained that the land division could take place under a 1-lot subdivision plat or through this process by way of a Certified Survey Map.
Ashford asked if there was any chance on flooding on the proposed lots.
Gurney indicated that the front portion of the lots along Golf Course Road are high enough for a building site.
Lehman asked what size the lots will be and if there was adequate room for a replacement septic area.
Fauerbach indicated that there is room for a primary and replacement septic system.
Gurney explained to the Committee that they must address specific aspects of Section 22.61 of the Sauk County Subdivison Ordinance to determine whether a variance to the number of lots within a 5-year period is appropriate. These aspects include whether there is an unnecessary hardship resulting from strict compliance to the 3 lot maximum before a subdivision plat is required, whether substantial justice will be done provided that the public interest is served and whether the variance will have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations.
The Committee discussed whether there was an unnecessary hardship. It was noted that these lands are in the ET jurisdiction of the City of Reedsburg and according to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, a landowner can create up to 4 lots in a 5 year period by way of a CSM (as compared to Sauk County's requirement of up to 3 lots in a 5 year period). It was also noted that Sauk County is more restrictive than the State of Wisconsin which also requires that a subdivision platting process be utilized if a land owner create 5 or more lots in a five-year period. Thus, when considering that these lands are in the City's ET, the Committee concluded that requiring the creation of a 1-lot plat under Sauk County's requirements versus using a CSM posed an unnecessary hardship.
The Committee then discussed whether substantial justice would be done provided that the public interest is served. The Committee agreed that the same criteria used to justify the unnecessary hardship could also be utilized to determine if substantial justice is served. In the event that the landowner is not permitted to complete a CSM, the landowner would be required to complete a one-lot subdivision plat. It was noted that the area is zoned for future single family development and if not granted a variance the landowner would pursue the platting process. It was also noted that the City of Reedsburg must approve the land division regardless of what mechanism is utilized, thus the Committee agreed that a CSM is appropriate to negate the additional cost and time a plat requires. The Committee also agreed that regardless of what mechanism is used (CSM or plat), the result will be the same and that the overall public interest will not be harmed.
The Committee then discussed whether or not an action of approval would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the Sauk County Subdivision Ordinance. Based on the discussion on the first two criteria, the Committee felt that this was a special circumstance that applies to an area within the City of Reedsburg's ET, and therefore would not apply to other parts of Sauk County.
Motion by Lehman, second by Ashford to approve a variance to the 3-Lot CSM requirement.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Committee reviewed the vouchers for the Planning & Zoning Department. Motion by Cassity, seconded by Ashford to approve payment of vouchers in the amount of $8,814.04.
Motion carried.
Motion by Cassity, seconded by Ashford to adjourn (10:10 A.M.).
Motion carried
Respectfully submitted: Judy Ashford, Secretary