GOVERNMENTAL BODY: WAUPACA COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting To Order
Chair Dennis Kussman called the meeting to order at approximately 7:04 PM.
2. Roll Call
Implementation Steering Committee Members Present: Mike Koles (University of Wisconsin-Extension), Michael Orr (Town of Waupaca), Patricia Craig (County Board), DuWayne Federwitz (County Board/Town of Matteson), Jackie Beyer (Town of Little Wolf), Penny Leder (Town of Bear Creek), Dennis Kussman (County Board), Stefan Shoup (Town of Wyoming), Jim Simpson (City of Clintonville) and Douglas Behnke (Town of Bear Creek).
Others Present: John Penny (County Board), Kay Ellis (Town of Dayton Plan Commission), Bob Ellis (County Board), Jane Shoup (Town of Wyoming Resident), Helen Emslander (Town of Wyoming Resident), Jane Haasch (Town of Dayton Plan Commission)
Staff Present: Melinda Osterberg, Jean Gliniecki, Jason Snyder, and Jeff Henneman
3. Chair Kussman read the Open Meeting Statement, “This meeting and all other meetings of this committee are open to the public. Proper notice has been posted and given to the press in accordance with Wisconsin Statutes, so the citizenry may be aware of the time, place and agenda of this meeting.”
4. Approve Agenda As Presented
Douglas Behnke motioned to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Michael Orr. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Timeline to Revise the Waupaca County Zoning Ordinance
Melinda Osterberg presented the tentative timeline to update the Waupaca County Zoning Ordinance. Mike Koles inquired if the cluster meetings were going to be comprised of four or five groups. Ms. Osterberg replied that if the Committee found it acceptable to use the four group format. It was the consensus of the Committee to follow the project timeline as presented.
6. Begin Review of Proposed Changes to the Waupaca County Zoning Ordinance
Ms. Osterberg presented the draft changes to the Waupaca County Zoning Ordinance.
Patricia Craig questioned the definition of Common Ownership on page 13 of the draft ordinance. Ms. Craig indicated that the last sentence stating that, “Solely for the purposes of this definition, a parcel owned by one member of a married couple is deemed to be owned by the married couple” should be removed.
Ms. Osterberg stated that the language was required by the Wisconsin State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for certified farmland preservation zoning districts.
It was the consensus of the committee to alter the last sentence of Common Ownership to state, “Within the Farmland Preservation (AE-FP) zoning district, a parcel owned by one member of a married couple is deemed to be owned by the married couple.”
The Committee discussed the definition of Farm on Page 13, it was the consensus of the committee to define Farm as, “Farm: For the purposes of the Agriculture Enterprise – Farmland Preservation (AE-FP) Zoning District, farm shall mean: Land under common ownership (all owned by exactly the same person or entity) that is primarily devoted to agricultural use (produced at least $6,000 in gross farm revenues in the previous year, or at least $18,000 in the preceding three years)and/or more than half of the entire land area is assigned for property tax purposes to one or more of the following use classifications as defined by the Wisconsin Department of revenue pursuant to Section 70.32(2), Wisconsin Statutes:
Agricultural land (class 4).
Agricultural forest (class 5m).
Productive forest (class 6).
The Committee reviewed the definition of Site Area, Gross and Figure A-6 within the Appendix of the Waupaca County Zoning Ordinance; Ms. Osterberg explained that the definition and figure were necessary to allow for the transfer of development rights from adjacent parcels under common ownership.
Mike Koles stated that it was the intent of the Comprehensive Plans to allow for the clustering of development rights on one parcel. Mr. Koles inquired if the Committee had previously addressed transferring development rights from non-contiguous parcels under common ownership within the same town.
The Committee discussed how residential development rights could be transferred within the County. Ms. Osterberg offered to provide an example of Code that allowed for the transfer of development rights from non-contiguous properties under different ownership. It was the consensus of the Committee to address this issue at the next meeting.
The Committee discussed the maximum height for fences within the visual cleared triangle. It was the consensus of the Committee to reduce the height of fences within the triangle from four to three feet.
Ms. Osterberg explained that the Ordinance had been altered to calculate density based on a standard section subdivision rather than on a per acre basis. Ms. Osterberg explained that what many people consider “forties” are not actually 40 acres in area and that under the current ordinance could not be divided as such. Ms. Osterberg stated that this was remedied by adding 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of a section under the use table on page 32 of the Ordinance and within Section 7.02 on page 73.
Ms. Craig stated that it would be helpful to have the changes to the permitted use table be more easily deciphered.
Ms. Osterberg agreed and stated that she would have a revised table, demonstrating the changes to permitted use table, available at the next Committee meeting.
The Committee discussed the addition of Accessory Dwelling Unit to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bob Ellis expressed concern that Accessory Dwelling Units were not appropriate within areas subject to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Committee that due to the unique environmental features of shoreland areas they are an inappropriate location for accessory dwelling units.
The Committee indicated that development site needed to be defined within the Ordinance.
7. Public Comment
The Committee was provided correspondence dated December 12, 2011 from Ms. Jane Haasch concerning the surveying standards for conservation subdivisions. The Committee was provided a brief overview of the situation and that under the current ordinance Ms. Haasch’s development would qualify as a subdivision plat rather than a certified survey map. Ms. Osterberg stated that she would provide copies of Ms. Haasch’s CSM for the next meeting where they could further address this issue.
8. Adjourn
It was the consensus of the Committee to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday January 25, 2012 at 6:30. At 9:10, Mr. Federwitz motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Michael Orr. Motion carried unanimously.