A resignation, when “must” means “may” in zoning/ignoring their own laws (sound familiar) and making comprehensive plans kind of toothless. Passing the fair housing laws with discussions on section 8, social security numbers and arrest and conviction records.
A. ROLL CALL
– Excuse Supervisor Bruskewitz.
– Absent DeFelice, Jensen, Matano and Salov absent at time of roll call however, Matano, Bruskewitz, Jensen and Salov subsequently showed up. Leaving on DeFelice actually absent for the meeting
1. Prayer/Inspirational Message – Supervisor Wheeler (Wiggy is next time!)
Thinking of Supervisor Bayrd’s new child, and Supervisor Hampton’s new child in January and Supervisor McDonell’s child who was here and she is thinking of all the children in her neighborhood and the children she knows and asks others to do the same and then she reads a Native American saying – “We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”
2. Pledge of Allegiance – Supervisor Wheeler
B. SPECIAL MATTERS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Res. 112, 09-10 – Recognizing the Eighth Annual Ironman Wisconsin Race in Dane County
Hulsey reads it, seconded by Salov. No discussion or comments, passes. Then Deb Archer from the Greater Madison and Convention Bureau thanks them and the villages and towns it goes through. Thanks staff that work on it. Success of Ironman has allowed new businesses to start in the community and laid the ground work to get Chicago 2016 Olympics bike events here.
Hulsey thanks sheriff as well for the extra staffing.
O’Laughlin – says transplant games coming to Madison because of the effort of the Ironman – its a basic reason why they are interested.
2. Announcements
Richmond – Expresses grief for recent loss of David Austin, wanted to publicly recognize his contribution to Madison and Dane County and say that he will be missed.
Richmond – Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will be having a public hearing on Sept 29, 6:30 at Lussier Center at Lake Farm Park south of the beltline. Invites supervisor and pubic to come and talk about the budget and priorities for the year ahead.
Baryd – Thanks them all for the cards, calls and presents. Says she’ll be perhaps a less coherent for the next few months with a new baby at home. Congratulations and applause.
Vogel – She announced she will be resigning tomorrow. Tuesday she will begin serving as Dane County Deputy Treasurer. More applause. Thanks constituents for electing her three times. Whether agreed or disagreed, always tried to provide for civil and human needs and fight for resources staff needs do their jobs. Loves serving with colleagues and staff. Loved the late nights, many meetings, sharp differences of opinion, varied personalities and give and take of legislative process. Remembers Hulsey for his statement that “Everything has been said, just not everyone has said it.” She has high regard for colleagues. Says her life has been enriched by their unselfish stewardship of their work, the warm collegiality they have offered her and by the intellectual partnership they share. Says the chair has a difficult job and he does it very well. Thanks for all the opportunities she has been given and the respect she has been shown. Best wishes for continued ascendency of this body and thanks for all of the work to come. They give her a standing ovation. [She also resigned as the Clerk in Pleasant Springs]
McDonell jokes that he will be introducing a budget amendment to eliminate the treasurer’s office in the budget, since they have lost two county board supervisors to that office.
Hulsey thanks her for her service, and says that they will be looking for a greater rate of return on their investments starting Tuesday.
McDonell announces birthdays this month – Jensen, Downing, Erickson, Miles Saterfield (county board staff), Richmond
C. APPROVAL OF BILLS AND ACCOUNTS
1. Claims recommended for Approval
Moved by Matano, seconded by Hulsey. No discussion. Passes on a voice vote with no “nos”.
D. APPROVAL OF PROCEEDINGS – August 6, 2009
Moved by Gau, seconded by Matano. No discussion. Passes on a voice vote with no “nos”.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Res 84, 09-10 – Authorizing Rental Lease Between the Alliant Energy Center of Dane County and National Kidney Foundation (Adopt)
2. Res 100, 09-10 – Award of Agreement for Design Services for Waste Transfer Station & Clean Sweep Buildings (Adopt)
3. Res. 101, 09-10 Change Order No. 2 for Stewart Lake Shoreline Dredge (Adopt)
4. Res. 102, 09-10 Change Order #1 for Lighting Upgrade at the Huber Center (Adopt)
5. Res 103, 09-10 – Change Order #1 for Well Construction at Scheidegger County Forest (Adopt)
6. Res 104, 09-10 – Authorizing an Agreement between County of Dane and City of Madison for Household Hazardous Waste Services. (Adopt)
7. Res. 105, 09-10 – Authorizing an Agreement Between the County of Dane and City of Madison for Household Hazardous Waste Services (Adopt)&
8. Res. 107, 09-10 – Authorizing an Increase in the Expenditure Limit for the Corporation Counsel’s Petty Cash Checking Account (Adopt)
9. Res. 108, 09-10 – Authorizing Execution of a Lease of Land for the Construction of a Hangar at the Dane County Regional Airport (Adopt)
No requests for separations, Gau abstains on 2. The pass 1 – 9 with no discussion on a voice vote with no one voting “no”.
G. REPORTS ON ZONING PETITIONS
This item was initially skipped because they had to wait until 7:30 to begin as that is when they are noticed for. They moved on and did the rest of the agenda skipping these items and the fair housing issue (H.1.).
J. RESOLUTIONS
1. Res. 94, 09-10 – Resolution Designating Dane County to be a Recovery Zone for Purposes of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Adopt Sub. 1/_____)
McDonell says that Finance passed sub 1 and that is what is before them. No discussion. It passes on a voice vote with no one voting “no”.
2. Res. 95, 09-10 – An Initial Resolution Authorizing General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds and/or Promissory Notes (Adopt Sub 3)
There is no discussion, passes with some voting no, but no roll call requested.
3. *Res 108, 09-10 – Supporting the City of Middleton’s “Tiger” Grant Application to the U.S. Government (Adopt/____)
McDonell says that the Exec Committee voted to adopt. No discussion, but a role call is called. Ferrell is the only one voting no. DeFelice and Erickson absent.
4. Res. 110, 09-10 – County Executive Appointments
McDonell says the Executive Committee voted to adopt unanimously. No discussion, passes on a voice vote with no “nos”.
K. ITEMS THAT REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY PASSAGE
1. Res 106, 09-10 – National Association of County and City Health Officials Planning Grant (Adopt)
No discussion, passes on a voice vote, recorded as unanimous.
2. Res 111, 09-10 – Amending the 2009 Capital Budget to Increase Borrowing Revenue in the Methane Gas Fund.
McDonell said that it was passed by Executive, Public Works and Finance committees.
Hulsey says that they are investing $1M for two methane ingesters because they bring in $900,000 a year and they will have a payback in 12 – 14 months. Says this will help with next years budget.
Passes unanimously.
DECISION POINT
McDonell asks what the pleasure of the body is, to do the fair housing ordinance (H.1.) or start the zoning petitions early.
Miles makes a motion to suspend the rules to take up the zoning petitions before 7:30.
Bruskewitz asks if all the parties are present. It appears they are, but it is unknown if the Town Chair of Vermont is going to show up.
McDonell suggests they just amend the motion to allow him to speak when he shows up.
They decide this is all confusing Opitz moves with Bruskewitz as a second to take an 8 minute recess to wait for 7:30 when it was noticed.
REPORTS ON ZONING PETITIONS
2. Petition 10056 – Town of Pleasant Springs – T Skaar (Grant as Modified)
3. Petition 10060 – Town of Dunkirk – Teresa Vike& (Grant as Modified)
4. Petition 10065 – Town of Pleasant Springs – Nancy Wisersky (Grant as Modified)
5. Petition 10070 – Town of Rutland – Melvin Shotiff (Grant as Modified)
6. Petition 10086 – Town of Dunn – Sperle Rev Tr, Richard D & Barabara J (Grant)
They pass items G2 – G6. There is one registratn in support on item 6. There is no discussion and the five items pass with no “nos”.
a. Map of Dane County
b. Summary of Grant as Modified Petitions
1. Petition 10028 – Town of Vermont – Robyn Sandin (Grant)
Hendrick says he’ll be voting no. He says this is kind of policy wonkish and a little hard to communicate, but they should vote no County has decided that we must follow the Town of Vermont land use plan. If that land use plans are violated then we should vote no. Comprehensive Plan is based on several important principals – food security, farm land to grow it, need for cost effective public services, etc. They have these general policies and there is a good reason why we do a comprehensive plan. We can’t just vote on our opinion if we think that it violates the plan. In fact, the only way they can be turned down if they violate the land use plan. He hands out a page from the Town of Vermont Land Use Plan. The county decided that as of Jan 1 2008 the comprehensive plan was binding, by county ordinance, not state statutes. He hands out a copy of the county ordinance where they passed the Town of Vermont Land Use Plan into ordinance. He says the most striking violation is the language under “Siting” where it states “Each parcel must front on a public road for at least 66 feet.” He says it will be argued that “parcel” refers to the land division ordinance. This does not violate the land division ordinance, and that is correct, but it doesn’t matter, has to comply with the Town of Vermont Land Use Plan. Hendrick explains it is important to comply. He notes some issues could be worked out, they could have a long public road or private road, but what this requires is that rezoned properties comply with the siting of non-farm residential development requirements. There is a definition of “parcel” in land use division ordinances and zoning ordinances and they are different. This is a zoning issue and they should look at that definition. He says there are good reasons to front on a road – sheriff department needs to be able to get to your house. Fire department provides service and needs to get to your house. They said they are always concerned about house far from a public road. Town plan requires them to site it that way. County funds elder abuse agency, county has to send someone if there are reports and it is easier to get to if it fronts on public road. Same with child protective services. County has to investigate if a complaint, if they follow the Town of Vermont Road, they can do that easily. The Health Department checks into communicable disease issues and it will be easier if the houses front on a public road. 911 center sends people to a number on a rural road and that sign is placed where that residence fronts on a public road. He says they might have a different opinion on how this should be done, and the Town of Vermont is not required to follow their own plan and he is not criticizing the petitioner, its ok to ask for what you want. However, if they make an exception is it because this person is before us and that is what they want to do, what about the next house – there is one before zoning now. What if it is 11 houses in the Town of Springfield? What if there are 50 houses in the Town of Windsor? They are both in front of Zoning now. They also violate their plans. He says they have a duty to follow a very specific requirement and this doesn’t comply with comprehensive plan.
Downing – Thanks the board for sending this issue back to committee to reconsider. He says that there is no violation happening. Hendrick is using a land use plan and a land use plan is just that, a plan developed by the people of the town that are very active. They have continually re-elected the same town board to interpret that plan. Town Board felt it met the plan – reads from the transcript from the last meeting – Vogel asked about fronting on the public road and they asked questions of Roger Leming – would an easement be suitable? The Zoning staff said that no parcel created only a zoning boundary of 2 acres, rest of parcel remains whole. Downing says parcel under siting and also defined under density. Town Chair says that later this month they are going to look at language which he starts to read . . .
Hendrick rises to a point of order – He says Downing had permission to read from a transcript from a previous meeting but objects to him reading from a document than what is different and which they don’t have before them.
Downing says reading from proposed comprehensive plan – will be presented to Zoning later this month – says he asked permission. Downing goes back to the transcript of the previous meeting and he said that his question was about the larger parcel and asked if it was in the same ownership and fronts on a road and Roger Lang responded, yes, that is the essence, it is postage stamp zoning. No violation was established the last time around. People in the town spoke clearly, government of the people and we should respect their will. [Wow! They are just talking right past each other.]
Matano – didn’t speak last time but part of 3-2 majority that voted to reject. This time they voted 1 to 0. 3 abstentions and 1 absent. He says that he will not be wonkish, but will talk about why it is important. He says that people’s eyes might glaze over when Hendrick and Downing are talking specifics, and that people might want to just give this lady a break. But, the comprehensive plan has general language to preserve agricultural land, and sprawl is a death of a thousand cuts – many just want that dream house in the country, if they say yes to one, where do they stop. He says that last county board voted it down but the the applicant really, really want it the way they wanted it – they tried to work with the applicant but they wouldn’t make any changes. He believes their job is to look at overall impact on the community not parochial interests of the land owner. If we had no authority, they would just be a rubber stamp and they would have no role. Voted it down twice. He talked about length of driveways. Don’t have legal authority to say 1000 feet, but this one is 2400 foot driveway. In urban planning you have 20 houses on one short block – take up a small amount of land to house a great number of people – not the same vision in the towns, but sometimes the plans are so egregious and they just have to turn them down. He voted no – protect landscape and natural environment – each person might want a dream house – but community has to protect quality of life.
Miles – Opposition – Miles says Hendrick is right in the Hendrick/Downing debate. The question is about the town plan. Seems clear in the plan “Each parcel must front on a public road for at least 66 feet.” He says there are a few other areas that are problematic. The plan says they are supposed to minimize the grading of the property. The 2400 foot driveway over steep terrain and that is a conflict with the plan because of the grading. Another problematic section is that no more than 3 acres are supposed to be used for driveway, septic, house and outbuildings. That is easily over 3 acres with the 2400 ft driveway. Agrees towns should interpret the plans when it calls for interpretation – but this is getting into 2 + 2 = 5 type situation. Interpretation doesn’t change reality. Can appreciate the towns desire to resolve the problems in their plan and represent interest of the community. They have to look at broader interests. Town is making revisions and that is what they need to do to take care of the issues – that is a big process with alot of public input. Exception here makes our comprehensive plan not worth much.
Bruskewitz – Supports Downings arguments. Zoning is supposed to be a partnership between county and towns and too often it doesn’t work out well with county holding down the towns. This petition won’t be able to come back. She is concerned with Hendricks concern about the long driveway – she lives on a long road and that is a risk she is willing to take – she know there will be long response times. [Ok, Eileen, now show us how you can make this into some tangential politically motivated argument . . . ] She suggests they should vote to give the sheriff new radios so there are no dead spots. She’s not concerned about the safety issue, and if this is a wonkish problem let’s fix it, if safety issues lets address that – vote for the radios.
Richmond – on ZNR first term and saw these things come to us all the time and saw the psychology of death of 1,000 cuts. If someone shows up face to face we tend to give them what they want. Other people in the town or city or village usually don’t know anything about the e proposals and it is the staff and board’s duty to represent public interest. Used to work at State elections board and people would come in and say “well I meant to fill out the campaign finance report” or “I didn’t mean to donate to the governor over the limit 5 times”. The law is the law and should be enforced, but if show up in person tend to get what you want. Psychology the same in this zoning issue. But they have a responsibility to look at is dispassionately. The people have spoken. They haven’t voted on this specific proposal and they might not even know about it. The driveway is 8 football fields long. You might be tempted this one time to just give her what she wants, but that’s not the rule. Still fastest growing county, have to follow plans and rules and save green space and farmland and let them build but there has to be some sort of rules. If we didn’t have rules what would be happening with land use in Dane County. When get proposal for driveway that is 8 football fields long, we have to ask why we can’t do this differently, follow plan and let them build a house. We should enforce the rules, not just look at this one at a time.
Downing – would like to respond to supervisors about rules – talking about rules and 8 football field long driveways, there is no rule about length of driveways. Most of you that remember last month that people argued that you can’t make up the rules because that is what it appears is happening. Once again, reiterate – frontage on a public road, it’s not a violation and not making any exceptions or setting precedent. Would like to set precedent of following will of the people – they know about this, it was in the newspapers and talked bout at the town picnic.
Hendrick reminds them the provision says “Each parcel must front on a public road for at least 66 feet”. Yes, the zoning administrator can live with it, but that is not the question before them, the county board job is to follow the plan. Residents of the Town of Vermont are on many of the county committees, active in developing the plan. This also violates the 3 acre rule in addition to the 66 foot rule. Town residents have adopted this plan and our job to enforce.
Solberg – voted to deny the denial. Now wants it through. Town residents have not been able to give an opinion on this. Before zoning committee before many times, lots of time for people to come forward. Look at the joint fire district memo on teh driveway issue and support it. Unwilling to compromise to move 100 feet – would have to resubmit the whole application again. Didn’t want to make them to that for a minor adjustment.
ROLL CALL – Motion is to grant
Aye: Wiggy, Willet, Bruskewitz, DeSmidt, Downing, Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Jensen, Martz, O’Laughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Stubbs, Veldran & Vogel
No: Wheeler, Bayrd, Erickson, Hendrick, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano,
Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Vedder, McDonell
Absent: DeFelice
Passes 19 – 17,
H. ORDINANCES
1. Ord Amdt. 22, 08-09 – Amending Chapter 31, Regarding Enforcement of Fair Housing Complaints (Adopt Sub 4 with Amdts/Adopt Sub 4)
Well, I’m not going to be able to do the whole thing for today check for it on Tuesday, however, here’s the basics.
Bayrd made a motion to limit criminal background checks to 2 years after they are “off paper” – meaning done with probation or parole, electronic monitoring, or paying fines. There was a roll call vote to add protections:
Aye: Wheeler, Bayrd, DeSmidt, Downing, Erickson, Ferrell, Hendrick, Hulsey, Levin, Manning, Matano, Richmond, Rusk, Salov, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, McDonell
No: Wiggy, Bruskewitz, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Jensen, Kostelic, Martz, Miles, O’Laughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Schlict, Solberg, Vogel, Willet
Absent: DeFelice
Passed 20 – 16.
The next motion made by Bruskewitz was to eliminate the protection saying that the landlord can’t deny you if you don’t give them a social security number. [Can you hear the AM radio and see the lit pieces now talking about how people voted to support “illegals”?] Also a roll call vote to remove the language with the protections.
Aye: Wiggy, Willet, Bruskewitz, DeSmidt (rumor has it she didn’t mean to vote this way), Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, Kostelic, Martz, O’Laughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Vogel
No: Wheeler, Bayrd, Downing, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, McDonell
Absent: DeFelice
Fails 15 – 21
The final vote on the ordinance was as follows:
Aye: Wheeler, Bayrd, DeSmidt, Downing, Erickson, Hendrick, Hulsey, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Richmond, Rusk, Scmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, MdDonell
No: Wiggy, Willet, Bruskewitz, Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Jensen, Kostelic, Martz, O’Laughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Vogel
Absent: DeFelice
Passed 19 – 17
There were several slightly insane moments during this debate, and I will make sure to get you all the gory details, but for now, I gotta get to a meeting.
With that, they moved to adjourn. Levin moved, Gau seconded.
