News & Observations
County Staff & Consultant Address Board
Which Road?
In Alice in Wonderland, Alice meets the Cheshire Cat in the woods and asks which road to take.
"It depends on where you're going," answered the cat.
"But I don't know," responded Alice.
"If you don't know where you want to go, then any road will get you there," said the cat.
If you don't care where your community is going, you don't need a plan.
as told by speaker Dave Carlson.
At the August 4, 2008 Town of Sampson board meeting, a relatively large group was present to question Doug Clary, Ryan Brown, and Dave Carlson about comprehensive planning.
Clary is county planning & zoning administrator; Brown is the county planner, and Carlson represented SEH, the private consultant who is assisting the county with its comprehensive plan as well as having worked as the consultant for numerous area communities in developing plans. Here are some of their responses:
Clary (and Brown)
• Townships don't need to plan unless they have a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance, participate in county zoning, or have an "official map" (which is rare).
• Chippewa County and the regional planning agency will assist the township with data and mapping needed in preparation of its plan.
• In 2010 you would have to have a comprehensive plan in order to have a zoning ordinance or a subdivision ordinance.
• Regarding the sand mine, if Sampson had a local ordinance controlling mining, it would need a comprehensive plan; state statutes provide some mining regulations, however.
• If we had no comprehensive plan (after next year), and had a land use ordinance, a developer would question the validity of the local ordinance.
• 60-65% of Sampson is covered by the Shoreland Ordinance.
• The time needed to do a comprehensive plan is 6-8 months if you work hard and commit time. A lot of communities take 2-3 years.
• Land use tools that are available to carry out the final plan include zoning, subdivision control ordinances, and others (not specific).
Carlson
• The ballpark cost for a town our size, according to the formula the state uses to figure grant amounts, is $20,000, but it can cost less with the county doing the map (subtract $3000). A barebones plan cuts another "couple thousand dollars".
• The answer to the question, "Why Plan?", is "Do you care where your community is going?". What's necessary is to find out where we've been, where we want to go, and what it will take to get there.
• The state has a grant program formula, which pays $12,000 and the municipality pays $8,000 (for a community of our size).
• The towns need to apply for grants as part of a group of towns. Individual towns rarely are approved alone.
• Asked about the cost per acre, it figured out to be a dollar an acre using the acreage alleged as available for planning after public land is subtracted. But the point is that the reimbursement is based on population, not area.
• The method used to identify the goals and achieve consensus is a SWOT meeting, where the participants identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and tasks needed, then prioritize them. Then a vision or goal statement is developed that is developed by consensus. Thereafter, this vision guides further steps in developing the plan and is constantly referred back to.
• Anyone can file a lawsuit against the town, but if you've done your plan the right way, the courts give deference to municipalities.
• There is very little likelihood of the 2010 deadline being extended or the law being repealed because a high percentage of the municipalities in the state have spent the money, done the work, and have developed their plans. Those who have spent the money are not likely to sit back and watch the law be repealed.
• As to using state tax money which we pay, he said that the money has been appropriated and will be spent somewhere. He'd prefer it be spent here rather than somewhere else.
Town Board reactions were mixed, and they asked a few questions. Butterfield said he had received calls from people who didn't want the town to tell them what to do with their land. One resident said that the present system allows an outside developer to determine what was going to happen to the town, not the residents.
Butterfield charged the board to be ready to have a discussion at the next town board meeting and to come to a consensus.
The date of the next meeting was changed to Monday, Sept. 8 due to the Labor Day holiday on the regular first Monday meeting date.
Mining Company Targeting Un-Planned Townships
CUSHING - A Polk County township has found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Laketown Township's lack of a comprehensive plan regulating land use may have left the door wide open for an Onalaska road-building company to mine a beloved natural landmark. Residents living within 300 feet of the area known as Iver's Mountain received letters dated June 24 from the county Land and Water Resources Department, informing them that Milestone Materials, a division of Mathy Construction, has submitted a mine reclamation plan to the county. The company was not obligated to inform residents of its plans because the township lacks a comprehensive plan. They aim to begin mining Aug. 1. Residents were allowed 30 days within the date of public notice to request a public informational hearing. They have requested a hearing, which will be at 7:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 1, at the Cushing Community Center. Mathy's proposal has upset many people in this close-knit farming community. About 80 residents brought their questions and concerns to a town board meeting July 15. They're bothered by the possible loss of Iver's Mountain and by the effects the blasting and additional traffic could have on local agriculture, wildlife, roads, property values and quality of rural life. Iver's Mountain has many natural springs that feed into nearby lakes and ultimately drain into the Trade River, a popular trout stream. The road-builder's proposal, which includes leveling the hill, caught many people off guard. "It's upsetting in a lot of ways," said Jessica King, who with with her husband, Dan, farms a stone's throw away from the proposed quarry. She said the mining operation would begin with removing trap rock, resulting in an 80-acre hole about 100 feet deep. According to the company's reclamation plan, trap rock, sand and gravel would be removed from the site through 2100. She said the project will disrupt the neighborhood and won't bring any economic benefit in terms of jobs. In an effort to cut fuel costs and source materials closer to road projects, Mathy has been seeking dozens of sites in unzoned townships statewide, she said. "People don't realize this is happening," Mrs. King said. "Town boards all over Wisconsin need to get zoning right now." Iver's Mountain got its name in 1877, when Inver Jorgenson homesteaded there. The scenic valley reminded him of Sweden, his great-grandson, Russell, said. Russell Jorgenson, who farms 240 acres of family land, is devastated by the mining proposal. "They can come within 100 feet of our property. We'll never see that reclaiming," he said. "I love the place," said Jean Schermer, who moved to the area four years ago. "I think there are a lot of people who don't even know this is happening yet." Ms. Schermer said she recognizes the company's motives to save costs and the public demand for road improvements, but the township needs more time to review the proposal. "We have an opportunity to take advantage that we're in the middle of that (town) planning process," she said. Mark Johnson also is opposed to the project. Along with his environmental concerns, he's worried that the increased traffic could interfere with his dairy farming operation, including the movement of farm machinery and cattle. Dozens of truckloads of material would be taken out of the quarry daily, he said. "To see a trap-rock crusher set up would totally destroy the view," Mr. Johnson said. Mathy Construction purchased the land and, in the absence of a township land-use plan, did not have to notify people earlier of its plans, said Town Board Chairman Terry Mattson of Luck. No permit has been issued to the company yet. "We weren't concerned with it because we thought the county had put in all these standards that it wouldn't happen anyway. I figured it was dead in the water, then I got a letter in the mail," he said. "We were caught not knowing how it happened," he added. "We can't keep them from going there." Township residents are attempting to throw a roadblock in front of the project and buy themselves more time to stop it. At last week's meeting, Mr. Mattson signed a resolution proposed by Ms. Schermer to prohibit proposals to excavate natural resources until the township finishes planning. However, the resolution cannot be enforced unless they consult an attorney. "We don't have a leg to stand on unless we get some teeth behind us," Mr. Mattson said. He said the township is in the early stages of completing a comprehensive plan, required by state law to be done by January 2010. Laketown Township residents likely are too late to stop the project, said Rick Stadelman, Wisconsin Towns Association executive director. "It's the 11th hour or too late," he said. "If they don't have zoning, they basically have no land-use control. They can regulate load or weight limits, but regulation of the use of land is done through zoning." Mr. Stadelman said similar dilemmas over land use are taking place statewide and becoming more common. He said some counties have mining ordinances, but "if you think you can say no to it, it's not going to work; that would be arbitrary. "You don't stop them with it, and you can't say where they're going to be," he said. About 300 towns out of 1,259 in the state have no zoning, he said. More than 200 towns have their own zoning in place, and more than 700 have opted to fall under county zoning. Some counties, including Brown and Sheboygan, have all township zoning, while others, including Vernon, have almost no township zoning. Heidi Clausen can be reached at clausen@amerytel.net. ------- Published in The Country Today, July 23, 2008
Rocky issue
Lack of comprehensive plan leaves landmark vulnerable to mining
By Heidi Clausen
Regional Editor
Town Board To Hear From County Officials
At the July 7 Town of Sampson Board meeting, Board Member Norm Gutsch reported on his contacts with the 14 townships in the western half of Chippewa County. Every town in the group is somewhere in the process of developing a comprehensive plan. Sampson is the only one which has not at least started the process. Lafayette is done, Town of Bloomer is 90% done, two more towns will be done in October. The timeframe for these towns to prepare a plan has been 6 months to 2 1/2 years.
Chairman Butterfield reported that his contacts had been with the county zoning administrator and planner. They confirmed for him that there is no need to do a plan by the deadline if we have no land-use ordinances. The plan could be done later when we desire to create such ordinances. He said the plan could be prepared rather quickly and briefly.
Based on the information Butterfield obtained, he stated there was no reason to do a plan at this time.
Gutsch asked why, with everyone around us working on a plan, we would want to be a target for undesirable development? He refered to the sand mining issue in another town. Several citizens asked more questions and offered comments. He was asked to clarify his statement that a plan could be done quickly in light of the need to consider the nine elements, the typical need to hire a contractor for technical assistance, and the earlier report that surrounding towns had been working on them for 6 months to 2 1/2 years.
At the end, Butterfield agreed to invite Doug Clary, county zoning administrator, and Ryan Brown, the county planner, to our next meeting to address the questions head-on.
The next town board meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 4, at 7 PM.
Comprehensive Planning Disscussed at Town Board Meeting
At the Sampson Town Board meeting on Monday, June 2, 2008, Al Servoss asked the town to consider getting involved in Comprehensive Planning under the Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning law.
Servoss explained that this law is sometimes misnamed "smart growth"; in fact "smart growth" is what results after the plan is in place. He emphasized the democratic nature of the planning requirements: public participation is a major requirement of the process.
Servoss tried to correct some misunderstandings that had been expressed at the prior town meeting, and which appeared in the town minutes. For example, the attempt to stall the implementation date of the state law from 2010 to 2015 failed to pass in the legislature, so the date is still 2010.
The most compelling reason to participate in Comprehensive Planning is that without a Town Comprehensive Plan in place on 1/1/2010, any ordinances the town may have concerning land use would not be enforceable. No new ordinances concerning land use could be written.
Town Attorney Norm Singleton stated that in his opinion, the town did not have any ordinances at present that would be considered land use ordinances. He thought there was still the possibility that the 2010 date might slip or be changed, however.
Citizens in attendance mentioned that all or most of the surrounding municipalities were investigating planning or were into it, and that should tell us something. At least our status as a non-planned, non-regulated town would make it a sitting duck for every developer. Others suggested that residential development was less an issue than other possible land uses in inappropriate locations, such as a dirt bike track in a residential area. One looked forward to a time in the future when a bad idea would be proposed, and the town hall would be filled with irate citizens demanding action, only to be told that the town's hands were tied because of a decision made by the 2008 board not to plan.
In the end, Chairman Butterfield instructed the other board members to contact each of the surrounding muncipalities to determine exactly what their status was with regard to planning, and he would contact the WTA and the county to get more of his questions answered. The matter was placed on the July agenda for reporting and discussion.