Town of New Denmark, Brown County, Wisconsin : Plan Commission : Plan Commission Minutes

A meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 7:05 pm. by Chairman Krueger. Present: Chairman William Krueger, Kathy Janssen, Steve Olsen, Norbert Hansen, Keith Brunner, Francis Rabas, Michael Gaworek, Michael Calewarts, Michelle Wallerius, Clerk, Sup. Matt Goetsch, Atty. James Sickel and Aaron Schuette of Brown County Planning.

REVISION TO ZONING CODE: Informal Plan Commission meeting with Aaron Schuette of Brown County to discuss zoning revisions and changes. Atty. Sickel and Aaron Schuette reviewed Minutes from 2009 as to proposed changes that were discussed and recommended by the Plan Commission. Rewording of ordinance to define 1) continuous street frontage, 2) revision to sign ordinance, and 3) home businesses discussed.

In addition to these changes, Aaron suggests the Town should look at long term goals to modernize ordinance and combine everything into one document. One document provides clarity and consistency. Steve Brunner questions cost and process. Aaron is uncertain as to cost, it is a long process as he worked with the Town of Rockland to accomplish. Atty. Sickel feels it would be beneficial to review Town of Rockland’s revised Code to see how it could benefit the Town.

New Denmark did update their entire Code and adopted Chapter 32 – Land Division ordinance in 2009. Brown County has recently updated their Land Division and Subdivision Ordinance and would recommend the Town review many of the definitions and incorporate in their ordinance to provide clarity or consistency in wording/definitions. Atty. Sickel states an example of the County’s lot definition – is very clear and concise vs. the Town’s definition. Atty. Sickel feels it would be very beneficial to utilize the same if not identical definitions. Atty. Sickel questions how Brown County interpreters railroad right-of-ways. Is it an easement, as the Town is affected by this and it obviously pre-dates the land ordinance. Questions how it affects total acreage.

Brown County adopted separate Land Division ordinance which requires a CSM for all parcels 10 acres and under. Atty. Sickel questions if a CSM should or could be required for larger parcels. Aaron states Town of Rockland requires CSMs for 40 acre parcels. Town first needs to approve – and this may be a way to prevent shifting of property lines and creating new parcels. Aaron states this would not prevent land owners from lot line adjustments, unless it creates a non-conforming parcel, but zoning must be maintained. Lot line adjustments does not technically create a new parcels, but only shifts lot lines and unsure how you can eliminate that completely. CSM would not be required and this occurs without Town approval.

Aaron Schuette would request the Town not make any revision to the AG-1 zoning. It is currently certified by the State and if changes are made it will affect the Farmland Preservation credit program. If changes are made to Ag-1 zoning, the Town would need to re-certify to qualify for the program and the credit. Once Brown County finalizes the program on their end, each municipality will need to amend the AG-1 zoning so it is consistent with those guidelines and standards, resubmit their zoning maps and ensure the Town Code, Comprehensive Plan and map is consistent with those guidelines. If the Town changes anything at this point, they will be required to go through those steps to re-certify and then make these changes again so they are consistent with the County’s plan. Thus, he would request the Town wait until next summer so Brown County can complete the process first.

The Town has approximately 90-95% of their land in Ag-1. Any changes to the AG-1 zoning would require re-certification so participants in the Farmland Preservation Program can collect their $7.50 an acre. If decertified, those funds would be eliminated.

Atty. Sickel highlights changes to Ag-1 zoning. Lot requirement is 35 acres and the Town wants to eliminate the possibility of people adding and subtracting acreage to create 35 acres lot. Aaron warns the Town should not base their policy on one single instant. The Town governs zoning and the County governs land divisions which contain sewer and environmental sensitive areas and streams.

Rockland did not revise their Ag-1 zoning, but is waiting for County to finalize their portion.

Matt Goetsch states it will be important zoning matches future growth and pressure from neighboring municipalities.

Aaron Schuette highlights legislative changes that affect ordinance. Sec. 62.23(c) which was adopted August 31, 2011 provides non-conforming structures if destroyed, can be rebuilt within the same footprint and within the same use prior to the damage. This would include mobile homes – even though the Town’s ordinance prohibits mobile homes.

Aaron questions Plan Commission make up – which includes Chairman and one board member. Most Commissions only contain one voting member from the Board to avoid the appearance of having a quorum. Atty. Sickel states the Zoning code allows for this make-up, and the Plan Commission feels it is okay as the Commission is only an advisory board, with the Board making a decision. Norb Hansen likes to have both members of the Town Board on the Commission so they are knowledgeable in the request and more informed.

Working Lands: Aaron is 75% complete with the County’s portion and has requested a 1 year extension to finalize. Farmland Preservation credits will be good for 2011 and 2012. Once DAPC reviews, County Board must approve and DAPC will issue final certification. All Towns will then be required to update their Ag-1 zoning ordinances to meet these standards, ensure their Comprehensive Plan and map is consistent with these guidelines. Town only has Ag-1 zoning, but will likely create an Ag-2 zone for all other ag land that is not eligible for Farmland Preservation credits.

P. 20 of the Zoning Districts – Adding Ag-1 Exclusive Ag District.

P. 21 – Exempt uses discussed. New tower code adopted in Code of Ordinances. Discussion as to minimum square footage for new home, two different sizes noted. Plan Commission feels it should be 850. Discussion about 150 foot setback from center of road for new homes on Ag-1 and Ag-R zoning. Sup. Goetsch does not feel this should be a hard and fast rule. If the property has an area that is not prime land, such as a wooded portion further back, it makes sense to place the home in that area to preserve farmland. In addition, if a property owner can purchase 35 acres to build, they should be allowed to put their home where they want. Discussion about Town requiring driveway standards to meet code to allow for emergency vehicles and that would fall on the property owner to ensure they comply with those Town standards. Kathy Janssen did not agree with setback requirement as it is a little restrictive. Option for appeal process. Variances are for real hardships – Atty. Sickel feels this should be discussed and decision made whether it should be removed or included in Ag-1/Ag-R. Fees for inspection increased. Sign regulation revisions discussed. Change in definition of use.

Aaron discusses substitution clause and sign ordinance language to not limit freedom of speech for non-commercial signs.

Building inspector duties and zoning administrator duties discussed. Zoning Code should incorporate Informational Building Permit language setting forth the requirement – and the Board has 45 days to review.

Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Archive

View all from: 2011 2010 2009