Planning, Zoning & Land Records Committee

DATE: October 24, 2006

Committee Members Present: Gaalswyk, Sprecher, Ashford, Wiese and Lehman.

Others Present: Lance Gurney, Gina Templin and others.

Chairman Wiese called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.
Motion carried 4-0. Lehman absent.

Gurney removed Item 4 of the agenda until Chair Krueger can attend. Motion by Gaalswyk, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the amended agenda for the October 24, 2006 meeting.
Motion carried 4-0.Lehman absent.

Motion by Ashford, seconded by Sprecher to approve the October 10, 2006 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0. Lehman absent.

Communications:

None.

Department Reports:

The Mapping Department had no report.

The Register of Deeds had no report.

Planning and Zoning Monthly Report.

Gurney spoke of the presentations and speaking appearances that he had at the Sauk County Institute of Leadership, West Point and the Town’s Association, reviewing Comprehensive Planning and other Departmental planning successes and processes.

Lehman present at this time.

Gaalswyk spoke of communications he’s had regarding creativity in the schools in the Spring Green area and the Planned Unit Developments and Conservation Easements and his participation in roundtable discussions. He also referenced agricultural clustering and the working lands initiative.

Gurney spoke of the application for a conditional use permit to create a 3.6 acre residential lot in the Town of Prairie du Sac, owned by Ralph Luck, in accordance with the farm consolidation provisions in Chapter 7 and 22, Sauk County Code of Ordinances.

Ralph Luck appeared and explained that they want to split off about 3 acres for residential purposes and sell off the agricultural land.

Gurney provided the staff report and background and history of the request. He noted that the Township approved the request and meets the criteria of the Sauk Prairie Comprehensive plan. Gurney advised Mr. Luck that he has to meet the definition of a farmland consolidation and keep the remaining land in agricultural uses. Mr. Luck stated is he aware of that and has several farmers interested in the property; however they need to wait until all approvals have been given.

Ashford read the farm consolidation definition per Chapter 7 and the committee agrees based on the testimony given; the request does meet the definition as required.

Motion by Ashford, seconded by Lehman, to approve the conditional use permit.
Motion carried 5-0.

Gurney then spoke of the application for a conditional use permit to create two 3 to 5 acres residential lots in the Town of Troy, owned by Gary and Linda Midthun, in accordance with the PUD provisions in Section 7 and 22, Sauk County Code of Ordinances. He also stated that the request does comply with the Town of Troy Comprehensive Plan and noted that the Town did approve the request at their monthly meeting. He then provided the staff report and background and history of the request. The committee then discussed the boundary issue that has been corrected.

Ashford then reviewed the conditional use permit standards and the committee agreed that the proposed request met all the following:

Adequate public facilities to accommodate development either exist or will be provided within a reasonable amount of time.
Provision of public services to accommodate development will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of affected local units of government to provide such facilities.
The land proposed by the PUD is suitable for development and development will not result in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion or have an unreasonably adverse effect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.
Does not negatively impact principal and secondary conservation areas as determined by Section 22.3 1(5). The development as proposed is located to minimize the amount of agricultural and forest land converted.
The development as proposed is consistent with existing or permitted uses on adjacent land.
The development as proposed is consistent with all officially adopted local and county plans and ordinances.
The land affected by the proposed PUD is not productive from an agricultural, forest and conservation perspective.
There is provision of safe and adequate public and emergency vehicle access.
The land is not subject to a Preservation Agreement. The land is currently zoned as Agriculture.

Gurney then spoke of the conditions that the property owner must meet if the request is approved which include:

The Property Owner shall submit a fully executed Preservation Area Easement for recording within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. For the purpose of clarification, a fully executed Preservation Area Easement means that the easement has been agreed to by any lending institution which has a financial interest in the affected property and has been signed by the property owner, appropriate town official and appropriate officials representing Sauk County.
The Property Owner shall submit a final Certified Survey Map for approval and recording within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
The Agency and/or Zoning Administrator must approve the final Certified Survey Map or Subdivision Plat within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
No building or site preparation may be initiated until the necessary final Certified Survey Map is approved and recorded and all necessary permits are obtained.
Failure to comply with the standards and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit as well as the restrictions provided within the Preservation Area Easement may result in the revocation of said permit and order for removal of any structures thereby permitted by said Conditional Use Permit by the Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee of the Sauk County Board of Supervisors.
File an affidavit of correction verifying correct ownership and property lines as noted under item 8 Findings of Fact above.

Motion by Lehman, seconded by Gaalswyk, to approve the conditional use permit.
Motion carried 5-0.

Gurney then reviewed the application for a conditional use permit to create a 3 acre residential lot in the Town of Prairie du Sac, owned by John and Sharon Wyttenbach in accordance with the PUD (clustering) provisions of Section 7 and 22, Sauk County Code of Ordinances. He then provided the background and history of the property and the request and continued with the staff report and stated this request meets the provisions of the Sauk Prairie Comprehensive Plan and the Town Board approved the conditional use permit and easement at their October meeting.

Gaalswyk asked about the actual placement of Otter Creek. Gurney explained.

Ashford then reviewed the conditional use permit standards and the committee agreed that the proposed request met all the following:

Adequate public facilities to accommodate development either exist or will be provided within a reasonable amount of time.
Provision of public services to accommodate development will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of affected local units of government to provide such facilities.
The land proposed by the PUD is suitable for development and development will not result in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion or have an unreasonably adverse effect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.
Does not negatively impact principal and secondary conservation areas as determined by Section 22.3 1(5). The development as proposed is located to minimize the amount of agricultural and forest land converted.
The development as proposed is consistent with existing or permitted uses on adjacent land.
The development as proposed is consistent with all officially adopted local and county plans and ordinances.
The land affected by the proposed PUD is not productive from an agricultural, forest and conservation perspective.
There is provision of safe and adequate public and emergency vehicle access.
Land is not subject to a Preservation Agreement.

Additional Standards for Exclusive Agricultural District. In addition to the standards above, the Agency must consider the following standards for PUD applications within the Exclusive Agricultural District to comply with the applicable portions of Wis. Stat. § 91.75

The PUD complies with the definition of a “use consistent with agricultural use” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 91.01(10) and any applicable portions of Wis. Stat. § 91.75. The Agency shall make written findings thereof as part of the record of its proceedings.
A PUD and related regulations shall be utilized in conjunction with the provision set forth in the Sauk County Agricultural Preservation Plan or the applicable comprehensive plan(s) and ordinances. For areas zoned Exclusive Agricultural where the local comprehensive plan is less restrictive, the provisions of the Sauk County Agricultural Preservation Plan shall prevail.

Gurney then spoke of the conditions that the property owner must meet if the request is approved which include:

The Property Owner shall submit a fully executed Preservation Area Easement for recording within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. For the purpose of clarification, a fully executed Preservation Area Easement means that the easement has been agreed to by any lending institution which has a financial interest in the affected property and has been signed by the property owner, appropriate town official and appropriate officials representing Sauk County.
The Property Owner shall submit a final Certified Survey Map for approval and recording within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
The Agency and/or Zoning Administrator must approve the final Certified Survey Map or Subdivision Plat within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
No building or site preparation may be initiated until the necessary final Certified Survey Map is approved and recorded and all necessary permits are obtained.
Failure to comply with the standards and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit as well as the restrictions provided within the Preservation Area Easement may result in the revocation of said permit and order for removal of any structures thereby permitted by said Conditional Use Permit by the Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee of the Sauk County Board of Supervisors.

Lehman asked about the easement for the driveway at 40 feet. Wyttenbach stated that they did get approval for the easement at 40 feet.

Sprecher spoke on behalf of the town and stated that this property owner has been very patient and worked well with the town, even through all of the disappointment of just getting to this point and commends the property owner on their efforts.

Motion by Lehman, seconded by Ashford, to approve the conditional use permit.
Motion carried 5-0.

The Committee reviewed and discussed department vouchers. Motion by Ashford, seconded by Lehman to approve vouchers.
Motion carried 5-0.

The Committee recessed to prepare for public hearing.

Chairman Wiese called the public hearing to order at approximately 9:48 a.m. The Committee introduced themselves and Wiese explained the order of business for the hearing.

Templin read the public notice.

Petition 15-2006 Development Plan and Petition 16-2006 Subdivision Plat, to consider a development plan and preliminary plat for a development called Redstone Ridge. The proposed subdivision will incorporate 12 lots to be occupied by single family residences and is owned by Secluded Land Company, Coloma, WI.

Simmert appeared and presented the staff report and explained the proposed plat. He also gave a brief history of the use of the property and the proposed request. He also spoke of agricultural preservation, recognized transition areas and density policies. He concluded with the recommendation of staff and conditions to consider placing on the request if it is approved.

Ashford asked about a request for a rezone from Agricultural Zoning. Simmert stated that the Department felt the appropriate zoning would be agricultural and not single family zoning.

Mr. Jack Akers, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated he is representing Secluded Land Company and spoke of driveway access, designated sites for septics, homes and wells, as well as having approval from the Township for the development and road and driveway issues. He also spoke of the soil suitability and agrees to work with the county to protect the high grade soils.

Gaalswyk asked what the quality of the forest is and what species are dominant. Akers stated that the majority is Maple and Oak and the size ranges quite a bit and feels that they want to leave the timber where it is at because of the erosion problems that they could find if they remove any timber.

Ashford asked about the map. Akers explained.

Wiese asked if there as a home already located on the property. Akers stated there is one home located on the property and it will be sold as an existing home.

Ashford asked how this particular piece of property became a proposed subdivision. Akers stated they purchased the entire parcel from one property owner. Ashford also asked about the small lot near the cul de sac. Akers verified it was a lot and is in fact the smallest lot in the proposed subdivision.

Wiese asked if there is a creek going through the property. Akers reviewed Attachment A which showed the creek and its location through the property.

Lehman asked about an existing farmstead lying east of the cul de sac road. Akers stated it is an existing farm owned by another land owner.

Ashford asked if they are allowing each property owner to decide where they would build on their lot(s) that they buy. Akers stated that they would preplan each individual home site and septic site. Ashford asked if each lot will have a separate well. Akers stated that is correct. Ashford asked how big lot 7 is. Akers stated it is almost 1 acre.

Lehman asked what the depth of the wells in that area. Akers stated he asked the Town Chair and stated it would be well over 150 feet to good groundwater, however, without one drilled in the area, he can not state for sure.

Mr. David Lenz, appearing in opposition, stated that he owns 40 acres to the west of the proposed subdivision and is very much against it. He feels it is out of character for the area and referencing page 3 of the staff report which shows that it is surrounded by open woods and agricultural. He feels that the development should be near the city and feels this development is as far away from the transition area designated by the Town’s comprehensive plan as you can possibly get. He then provided an overview of adjacent properties and their owners and stated it is a poor place to put homes because of the grades of the slopes on the hills, as well as transportation issues. He then refers to page 5 of the staff report and feels that after the Winfield Township adopts their comprehensive plan, this proposal would not go through, as it does not comply with their plan.

Gaalswyk asked if he is involved in the planning for the Town of Winfield or if he is a resident. Lenz stated he is not involved in the planning process and is not a resident of the Township, however, he has owned the land for 14 years and uses it for recreation and preservation, and lives in Milwaukee.

Lehman asked if he was the one responsible for the articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. He also asked how far the property is from the City of Reedsburg. Lenz stated he is the author of the articles and it is approximately 8 miles from the City of Reedsburg and the roads are very tough to negotiate, especially in the winter months. He also spoke of the services that are going to increase with the development.

Mr. William Schmitz, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he owns the property that is to the south of the proposed subdivision and is opposed to the subdivision and feels that anyone that has given a recommendation to approve this request has never walked the property. He also feels there are wetlands on the property because of the creek, that have not been disclosed and septic systems in this area will not last because of the stone and soils in the area. They will need bridges to provide access to the lots that are located near the creek because of the wetlands. He also stated that the existing house located within the proposed subdivision has a bad septic.

Lehman asked if as school bus runs that road right now. Mr. Schmitz stated he used to drive bus and there were many days he couldn’t travel with a bus on that road. He concluded by asking the committee not to approve this request.

Mr. Elgie Laeseke, appearing in as interest may appear, stated he is in opposition to the request and he is a neighboring property owner and is concerned about his line fences. He is also concerned about the wells and stated that his is roughly 435 feet and feels most of the wells in the proposed subdivision will be well over 300 feet.

Gaalswyk asked what his assessment is of the value of the forest in this area. Laeseke stated that most of the timber is to the south of the older home and doesn’t have too much really.

Wiese asked what type of rock is there. Laeseke stated it is flint rock on his property.

Mr. Lance Gurney, Sauk County Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear and explained to the committee why the Department did not place a recommendation in this request. This proposal is taking a subdivision and putting it in the middle of no-where and from a Department standpoint choose not to provide a recommendation because of the comprehensive planning process going on with the Town. As the Director, he has serious concerns with the proposal from the steep slopes, the septic suitability and issues, and agrees with the statements made by many of the people that shared concerns. He reiterated that this is his own opinion as Director and not speaking on behalf of the department.

Sprecher asked where Winfield is in the process of their comprehensive plan. Gurney stated they are getting into the public hearing process of their plan.

Wiese asked if any of the staff have met with the Township board. Gurney stated they have not. Wiese feels that the Town should have representation here to explain why they feel this should be approved.

Gurney continued to explain his concerns.

Mr. Jack Akers, reappearing in favor, spoke of rezoning the property and stated that he did submit a rezoning request and was told by Brian Simmert that he doesn’t need a rezone, as the lot sizes meet the current zoning. He stated that had they gone through the rezone and been denied, they would have not purchased the property and spent the extra money to work with the County’s issues and feels he has been misled by the Department. He also stated that the property is overlooking the scenic beauty of the area, not being placed in the middle of it. He also addressed the winter months and the road conditions as well as the need for additional services and the wetlands located in the area which will not be disturbed.

Mr. Dave Lenz, reappearing in opposition, stated that development means risks and continued to address the committee with his concerns.

No one else wished to speak in opposition or as interest may appear.

Chairman Wiese closed the pubic hearing portion at 11:05 a.m.

Gaalswyk stated that he wants to respect the wishes of the Town government however, he wants to preserve the open and rural character of the county and chooses to vote against this request.

Ashford stated that when you look at the map and the transition area that has been identified, there are only 4 subdivisions located in that area and feels that this type of development should be located in that transition area and agrees that if a rezone on this property had come in, they would have denied the request. She concluded by stating she can not support approving this subdivision.

Sprecher stated that he typically does not like to go against the wishes of a town board, but because of the location of the proposed project and the fact that the Town is in the process of completing their comprehensive plan, he doesn’t feel he can support the request at this time.

Motion by Ashford, seconded by Gaalswyk to deny the request of Petition 15 and 16 -2006.
Motion carried 5-0.

Next meeting date is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, 2006, which is the same meeting date as the County Board monthly meeting. Motion by Ashford, seconded by Gaalswyk, for the Committee to meet on Monday, November 13, 2006 @ 9:00 a.m. instead of on the 14 th.

Motion by Gaalswyk, seconded by Ashford to adjourn at 11:13 a.m.

Respectfully submitted: Judy Ashford, Secretary, Minutes by Templin