Sauk County Planning, Zoning, and Land Records committee meeting

31 Ag 10

Committee members present: Lehman, Ashford, Gaalswyk, Nobs,Halfen

Others present: Mark Steward, Brian Simmert, Tim Mac…., Marty Krueger, and invited RC35 and exclusive agriculture town officials.

Chair Lehman called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Compliance with open meeting law was certified. The committee introduced ourselves. Lehman introduced Brian Simmert.

I The key question for the towns is whether we want a Sauk County density policy, the state density ration 1/20 notwithstanding? Our current typical density policy 1/35 is familiar. A five acre residential lot is allowed with 35 acres. The new PUD program is popular, adopted by all but 1 town. But Simmert believes the state will not certify our current density policy.

Wisc chapter 91 changed density policy, and requires the county to change density policy in order that our farms remain eligible for their farmland preservation tax credits. What does 1/20 mean for Sauk County? Owners of 80 acre farms could convert 4 acres to residential use. Franklin could have 849 homes

Simmert listed five “concerns” about chapter 91 working lands:

1) Base farm tracts are a platbook page in time. It is contiguous. Max 4 homes are allowed. If the county adopts working lands, it would need a method to track density credits. We might remove contiguous from the definition.

2) The state will provide matching funds for PACE/PDR, but 1/20 density credits will burn up money fast.

3) With 1/20 density the cost of community services will break the (county) bank.

4) 1/20 density forces smaller lot size.

5) Conflict with agriculture increases with higher density.

Town officials began to participate in discussion. Many grumbled about shortcomings in working lands law, expressing satisfaction with our current density policy. Spring Green planning committee chair Fred Iausly said his committee wants to allow PUD lots greater than one acre. A 2.5 acre maximum would be a compromise with working lands. Simmert said the committee will try to get DATCP to certify Sauk County density policy, because it implements farmland preservation even better than working lands.

II Steward passed a list of developable lots in Sauk County

DATCP 51 is Wisconsin livestock siting rules. County ordinance may not be more restrictive. Steward asked if Sauk County should have a compatible ordinance about siting livestock facilities? To require a conditional use permit, approved at public hearing before the PZLR committee? Town officials wanted the county ordinance, because they did not want their towns to enforce livestock siting.

Halfen moved to adjourn about 9p. Gaalswyk seconded motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Gaalswk, secretary