DATE: May 12, 2005
PLACE:
County Board Room Gallery
West Square Building
Meeting called to order by Chair Wiese at 9:00 a.m. It was certified that the requirements of the open meeting law have been met. Present were Zowin, Lehman, Wiese, and Borleske from the Land Conservation Committee; Gaalswyck, Wiese, Lehman, Ashford, Sprecher from the Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee; staff, media personnel and members of the public. Cassity was absent.
Adopt Agenda: Motion by Borkleske/Ashford to adopt the agenda.
Motion
carried, all in favor.
Gurney presented the background information regarding the cluster development proposal. This would be implemented through a planned unit development overlay district under exclusive agricultural zoning. Planning and Zoning staff will also be doing a presentation to the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board (WLWCB) in June, and then presenting a formal application for approval at the October WLWCB meeting. Approval by the state board as an allowable option is necessary to maintain certification through exclusive agricultural zoning. After WLWCB approves the policy, it will be presented to County Board for approval. The 35-acre minimum lot size was fairly successful in preserving agriculture land from 1986-1996. However, since then there has been quite an increase in the purchase of 35-acre parcels. The policy is no longer effective and could possibly be increasing the conversion from agricultural use.
Brian Simmert of the Planning and Zoning staff presented the history of the Sauk County Agriculture Preservation Plan and the proposal to implement cluster developments. This overlay district would be an option available to the town, not a requirement. It is a growth management tool that would allow landowners to have some development options and puts more emphasis on placing homes to minimally impact agricultural operations. There was discussion regarding the density policy.
Simmert distributed “Planned Unit Developments in Sauk County, Wisconsin-An Agriculture and Open Space Preservation Initiative” information packets and summary sheets which will be presented to the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board.
Discussion of State Livestock Siting Rules and Impact on County: A handout titled “Overview of Wisconsin’s Livestock Facility Siting Law and Proposed Rules” was distributed to the committees. The Wisconsin Legislature recently adopted legislation that required the creation of a Livestock Siting Committee to develop uniform statewide regulations regarding the siting of large livestock confinement operations. The committee completed their work and the proposed rules were recently presented at public hearings. The committees now need to consider whether they want to adopt and implement the rules locally or not. If there is not adoption at the local level, there would be no rules regarding expansion because the only allowable rules under the legislation are the state uniform regulations. Counties or other municipalities are not allowed to be any more restrictive without extenuating conditions or concerns and approval of the DATCP and DNR. Public hearing comments pointed out several major areas of concern. The most frequent concern voiced was about the odor control regulations. Other issues were the cost to counties to administer when compared to the maximum permit fee allowable and the fact that the municipality was not allowed any local modifications to the rules. The requirement that municipalities adopt the rules within 30 days after state adoption was also a concern because the rules would not be final until state adoption, and a requirement to then approve this final version in only 30 days by another unit of government was unrealistic. The state is considering these comments and has postponed their estimated adoption date of the rules until next January. This allows the county more time to consider adoption. The staff recommendation to the committees is to delay any action until the revisions are established.
Lehman said he feels that rules need to be uniform statewide. Gurney and Van Berkel stated they feel it is one thing to have base levels at the state level, but there should also be an allowance for reasonable modifications to fit county conditions. Another concern to staff is that the state rules may not adequately provide some protections the local citizens may want and for the county to administer the state requirements without any ability to modify them to fit local conditions would provide a great potential for conflict. As presently written the counties or towns are not required to take action on this rule. No action is required by the committees until the next draft of the rules are available.
Van Berkel thanked the two committees for meeting together and noted they may want to continue to meet annually or semi-annually due to the overlap of issues.
John Vosberg from Land Conservation Department staff presented a summary of the new stormwater runoff regulations that are mandated by state law. The stormwater runoff requirements will now apply to all projects over one acre and will require the limiting of post-construction stormwater runoff to the pre-construction amounts. Implementation of this requirement will be a critical component of our subdivision review. These rules and the implementation of construction site erosion control requirements are now required at every level (towns, cities, etc.). The municipality is responsible for implementation, and enforcement is either by DNR through referral or local enforcement. The concern of staff is that the requirements are not being enforced well at the town levels. One option they would like the committees to consider is the possibility of the county providing a contracted service for a fee. LCD has a lot of expertise in this area but feasibility depends on what is necessary to recover the costs. Gurney proposed they poll Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) inspectors for the towns and see what they are doing to address these regulations and whether they feel the county should play a role. He also will have Planning and Zoning staff do a survey of sites while they are out in the county to inspect the closing of septic systems to see how well the requirements have been addressed. Results can then be presented at the next joint meeting. Monitoring for maintenance and upkeep during construction is also a concern and is one of the issues to be discussed in the future.
This is an item both committees have discussed in the past. These buildings have to comply with the setback requirements through zoning, but there is no review by the county to assure that compliance. There have been numerous instances where the building has been constructed too close to the right of way, and the owner then had to appeal to the Board of Adjustment to get after-the-fact permission. A permit may eliminate some of these problems. Additional problems are caused because Planning and Zoning is still required by either DNR or FEMA to issue permits within airport areas, wetlands, and shorelands, and these permits are not always being issued. We have received significant disaster relief form FEMA, and it is important for the county to be in compliance to receive funds. Gurney presented the idea of requiring permits for agricultural buildings to town officials and met little resistance. Gurney proposes to implement this requirement as of the first of the year and just wanted to make both committees aware of this.
Motion to adjourn by Zowin/Borleske at 10:50 a.m.
Motion carried, all
in favor.
Respectfully Submitted: Kathy Zowin, LCC Secretary