Sorry, the Edgewater kinda took over my life last week, hopefully after tonight, we can have an Edgewater-lite rest of the week. So, my apologies to all, but better later than never . . . especially since they passed the Transfer of Development Rights after many, many years! Of course, its voluntary . . . but hopefully will make a difference in some areas.
A. ROLL CALL – Excuse Supervisor Levin
What I heard, or didn’t hear was Hampton, Hesselbein (I can see her chair is empty), Vedder and maybe Martz being gone but I can’t be sure, hard to tell when you watch it from home. The chair announce 33 present, 4 absent, “but some are wandering in late”. I guess we’ll see who’s absent when they do a roll call later.
1. Prayer/Inspirational Message – Supervisor Gau (Supervisor Hampton next)
The chair has to ask them to be quiet and settle down.
Duane Gau says this is personal, death, sickness or health, its all family. And in those hard times, you will see good family come together, friends, colleagues and associates of your own. They come to help you with their thought, prayers and wishes for your family. For those sad times, it brings the best of us out, you become close and appreciative of people in your life. For that he wants to thank everyone who shared their concern for his family.
2. Pledge of Allegiance – Supervisor Gau
B. SPECIAL MATTERS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Announcements
Mike Willett says he sees a present on his desk, he wears a pedometer already and knows that its value is over what they can accept. Curious who it is from and who we make a check out and how they deal with it because this is a present with a company name on it over the ethics value.
Scott McDonell holds up the item and asks if that is what he is referring to. McDonell says there is a $13 value in the ordinance and he doubts this is worth $13.
Willett says that the one he wears costs him $20.
Dennis O’Laughlin says that as the President of the Wisconsin Counties Association would never approved an invoice for that amount, it probably cost 75 cents, because we bought 5000. The one we gave you is just a token of the associations appreciation and for good health this year, put it on your belt. It does a pretty favorable method of measuring the walking you are doing. On behalf of the team at the association put them on your belt or give them to your kids. If you want more, I can get them for you.
McDonell says, “not too many”.
Patrick Downing says people are getting together Sunday and Monday to mourn the loss of the Mount Horeb Fire Chief. Asks if the sheriff could say a few words and he will introduce a resolution at some point.
McDonell says under their rules Hamblin can speak when the resolution is before them.
Brett Hulsey says with weather we’ve been having, nothing makes you want to grill out like a nice winter day. A constituent of his, Todd Barry, is Grilling For Peace this Saturday at Vilas Park. They form a peace symbol with their weber grills you can go to grillingforpeace.org for more info. Starts at 10, raising money for various great causes so come on out and grill for peace and enjoy a brat and its a great event.
Dave deFelice says a couple weeks since we saw the exploits of the Vikings and Brett Farve who went over to the dark side, or the purple side, and fell short as the vikings are want to do. People are wondering what Farve will do next season. He says that he wanted them to know he threw in the towel today, and it was intercepted. (groans)
McDonell says there was an unpleasant joy in that interception he threw.
McDonell announces birthdays: Salov on the 2nd, Veldran on the 5th, Bayrd on the 20th, Stubbs and deFelice on the 22nd, Willett on the 26th.
C. APPROVAL OF BILLS & ACCOUNTS
1. Claims Recommended for Approval
Moved by Gau, seconded by Al Matano.
Bob Salov abstains from Frank Productions.
Gau (abstains?) from number 15.
No discussion, passes on a voice vote.
2. Claims Recommended for Denial
Moved by Kurt Schlicht, seconded by Matano. No discussion, passes on a voice vote.
D. APPROVAL OF PROCEEDINGS – January 21, 2010
Moved by Matano, seconded by John Hendrick. No discussion, passes on a voice vote.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Ord. Amdt. 44, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 10, Creating a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (Adopt)
2. Res. 208, 09-10 – Authorizing a Contract Between Dane County and Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. for Dane County Jail Inmate Alcohol Monitoring Equipment (Adopt)
3. Res. 225, 09-10 – Establishing a COP Risk Reserve – Human Services (Adopt)
4. Res. 227, 09-10 – Change Order #2 to Job Center Interior Remodel Project (Adopt)
No requests for separation. McDonell informs them that the committee recommendation is what is before them. No discussion, motion passes.
G. REPORTS ON ZONING PETITIONS
It’s not 7:30 so they can’t take up the Zoning Petitions by ordinance so they skips them and move on to . . .
H. ORDINANCES
1. Ord. Amdt. 45, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 10, Creating Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Zoning Districts (Adopt with Amdts.)
PUBLIC TESIMONY
They have one registrant in support, Renee Lauber, representing the Towns Association who is in support. She does a recap of how they got there and thanks to everyone who worked on it including to McDonell and Miles. She points out it is voluntary, no maximum on lot sizes and clear can’t transfer development rights outside the town without their approval. She says they have an ordinance before them that has a few amendments that they like even better.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Gau says hasn’t had a chance to follow most recent changes. When talking about Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), there is a sending and receiving area, is it voluntary on how they determine those numbers.
Lauber says voluntary, each town will determine how to run their program, it is up to what they put in their comprehensive plans which will come before this body for approval.
DISCUSSION
Eileen Bruskewitz speaks for the Towns that did not support this transfer of development rights. The towns that did not support this have some significant concerns about how this might be used. As a political means to gain compliance as a bargaining tool to make towns do what they would like to have done. She’s followed this over the years and other have too and this increases land prices, so I guess if you’re the land holder that is a good thing, but for those trying to buy land it makes it more difficult. Wanted to express those concerns and we’ll have to see how it goes, she thinks it is unfortunate we are going down this road and she speaks for a number of towns who have concerns about trusting the county to do the right thing.
Patrick Miles points out that of the 4 amendments made, item b. addresses the first concern she raised. Wants to thank Renee Lauber and Jerry Derr in the education they did and that was helpful in turning this around.
Downing says hard to get a resolution everyone can agree to. Only three towns against at this point, and type of concern we heard and earlier supervisor voice is the same concern he got when he got on the County Board, we have gotten the Towns back to the table, gotten rid of some of the mistrust and they have had successes along the way. Concerns about land prices is kind of curious, he thought this was brought by Realtors among others, he thought gee this is just more city houses in the country. But, he came to understand what this really does is helps people in towns that have splits that are locked up and unable to realize it and people in town of Primrose got him to push for this. This allows them to use the splits in a saner way than they did in the past. Would encourage them to support this voluntary overlay district, that doesn’t negate existing rights, it simply gives people and towns a tool to use their land appropriately. Encourages support, has Towns Exec Board approval and hopeful town will recognize that and allow it to go through this time.
Hendrick says also in support as amended. Some of colleagues on board for a long time and anyone active in Towns Association knows that he often disagrees with the Towns Association and takes pleasure in agreeing with them and the position that they are taking on this issue. Says participating in this is voluntary, not participating is also voluntary. Says language added says that development proposal consistent with existing plans is not objectionable because not participating in TDR. This ordinance will not prohibit development of those lands. If there is a proposal to amend the plan or to adopt a development not consistent with the plans, he will oppose it. This will not be all sweetness and light, but as he has said, this is historic, because when he joined the county board in 1994, they had already been working on this for several years, its been 20 years.
David Ripp says he has 2 of three towns in his district that voted against it, but he’s supporting it. 21 towns are trusting us to keep our word, do it voluntary and do it right. Long time coming, thinks it will work.
Hulsey thanks them for getting this done. Says Salkin and he on task force 8 or 10 years ago. When talk to farmers around the county and hear about low milk or corn prices, this gives them an opportunity to buy the split form the farmer, without braking up the land. Hopes towns adopt that. American Farmland Trust has done studies that shows residential properties cost 3 times more in services than farm lands and open spaces. The simple reason is cows don’t need classrooms, robins don’t need roads. This could keep the property taxes down. Great job, thanks for getting it done, hopefully can move forward to implement around the county.
Tom Stoebig also in support. In 2006 when got back on county board, chair had a committee of the whole about TDR and now 4 years later and finally adopting it with the majority of the towns support. TDR is a complicated tool for farmland preservation tool. We have two towns, Dunn and Windsor who have adopted purchase of development rights system. Would hope maybe we could encourage more towns to go that route also as another tool. Nevertheless, this is a great start. Supervisor on my right (Bruskewitz) is quoted in the paper saying this is a tool to stop development where people would like to live. Tends to show differences of philosophy of some of us on the board. This also ties in with ag enterprise areas, a voluntary effort on the part of towns who participate in working lands initiative and dollars available for conservation easements. What is going on at state and here makes sense, the two efforts are similar and hopefully they will intermesh down the road.
Gau says served on Sustainable Ag Subcommittee and this is one of the things that that committee supports. Caution he has is {didn’t understand) comprehensive plans that come in. He is aware of all the negotiating and pushing when the comprehensive plan comes in. He is concerned this will be used as a tool to push when the comprehensive plan comes in. Because the TDR will be in the comprehensive plan. He hopes the county leaders understand this is voluntary.
Jensen said in two committees to come up with a TDR program. With the recent changes with the Towns Association he can support it, but he says this is not a program, just a framework that sets in place zoning for sending and receiving areas and it is up to the Towns to come up with a program to try to make it work. He doesn’t think it will work, but is willing to support it. As Dick Barrows?? said to him on time, perhaps someone will figure out how to tighten up enough nuts and bolts to make it fly. We’ll see. Zoning is in place, we’ll see if a Town can make it work.
ROLL CALL
Martz absent, Bruskewitz votes no.
Passes 35 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent.
G. REPORTS ON ZONING PETITIONS
a. Map of Dane County
b. Summary of Grant as Modified Petitions
1. Petition 10027 – Town of Deerfield – Ronald Dorshorst (Grant as Modified)
2. Petition 10130 – Town of Primrose – Verdean & Mary Sherven (Grant)
3. Petition 10131 – Town of Oregon – Philip Manion (Grant)
4. Petition 10134 – Town of Primrose – Elizabeth Hereid (Grant as Modified)
10027 is separated, the rest (2 – 4) pass on a voice vote.
1. Petition 10027 – Town of Deerfield – Ronald Dorshorst (Grant as Modified)
This hour of the meeting is not as detailed as usual, it a bit briefer than usual.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Bob Griege (sp?), chairman for Town of Deerfield. Plan Commission voted 6-0. Town Board voted 5-0 to support. Roadblocks at ZLR. Seems like when address something they come up with something else. Been working on this since Jan. 2009, thinks County Board should be a facilitator to help us to what we want, instead of being an obstructor. We try to do what the people want, this zoning petition keeps the land in the best use. Keeps good land in farming and sells off the area that will never be farmed. This allows them to recoup some money so they can keep farming. This is the best spot to put this lot on this piece of land.
Paul Hegg (sp?) is a framer, graduated from UW, crop consultant for 25 years and owns own consulting firm for 21 years. Was on Deerfield Village Board and has experience with Town plans because of extraterritorial powers. Each plan has language that can be used for or against a project. Highlights why makes sense from agrinomic and land use plan. He goes into detail about why the driveway is located in the best place. Says that this is the least productive land, the fenceline would be protected to prevent soil loss. Also says other lands the slope is better to prevent run off. Also says that location there is better due to chemicals used on the farm.
Nicholas Brotley (sp?) says he gave out materials. Says he and his family are young farmers. You hare possibly hindering two young people trying to farm. He says that both the brothers and their wives have to have a job to make this work. He gets rally angry. Says that town says it is ok, but its derailed here. Neighbors support this as well. No one has been here opposing this. This is the best spot for this. They worked hard to make this work. he said when you buy land you buy the split too. If they didn’t have to split it, they wouldn’t, but they can’t compete to buy the land. This won’t cash flow by simply farming it. Land can be used for hunting or gathering wood. Either way, still need a field road to use the land. This land has no use as crop or beef producer. 4th generation farmers, 5th generation coming up – they are passionate about this, they want to be full time farmers.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Downing asks Brotley if seeing the lot to someone else, how will you get to your fields? He says they will have an easement.
Salov asks Hegg about a map. He explains the soil types on the map. he points out where it was wet and not farmable when the photo was taken. He explains how to read the map. No class 1 soils, some 2, 3 and 4 class soils.
Salov asks what kind of soils are in the driveway. He says soils 2 and 3.
Jensen asks the owner about selling the land to a third party. Is that they only way you can make money to put back into the property. The land owner says yes.
Downing asks how you will deal with the driveway being in a swale. He says driveway won’t be in the swale, it will go along the top of the swale.
Downing asks how many acres of ag land will be used by the drive. 2.75 acres sold to property owner, but not a true indication of what will be in use. Some is the fenceline and existing field road. And some of it won’t be used by the homeowner, it will be rented back. Really 1.1 acres.
Salov has question for the chair. What’s your goal here? Save the farmland, lease impact on neighbors.
Salov asks it they looked at the soil types? He says, yes they minimized impact while letting them use the split.
Salov asks about how they considered the water features like the swale. He says that there are natural division in a field and they see that as a farmer. A swale is a division of the fields, they farm it in two different ways and it makes sense. We do deny some petitions that come before us. These people have to leave teh farm land as much in tact as possible. In this case, the swale is a natural division.
Salov asks how long farming? Moved when 5 in 1959, 3rd generation farmer.
McDonell asks the chair. When did the houses go in? One went in 12 to 14 years ago, and one is the farm house which is a newer house but it is 35 years old.
DISCUSSION
Hendrick explains no vote. Dane County Comprehensive Plan has policies and this zoning petition touches on farmland preservation. Specifics left to Town to put in their plan, we adopted they language they presented to us. Three ways to conduct farmland preservation. Prime farm soils (class 1 and 2). LESA (Land Evaluation Site Asseseesment) method is used by some, Town of Deerfield didn’t do that. The third way is to have a panel of local farmers to decide. That is how Dane County did it years ago. Site visit on every visit, Lyman Anderson would go there and point and say what should happen. That is not what the plan says. Minimize use of prime soils. That is the system the Town amended. Points to petitioners materials, the red line, part of the driveway is partially in and out of prime soils, crosses more prime soils. Woods where how will be are also prime soils. Town plan says field defined as federally designated. The petitioners hand out shows the boundaries and the driveway goes through field one. He says they could do this if there were no other alternatives, points to class 4 soils where they could put the soil, shorter driveway and it would be next to houses to north. Those houses would be in the less productive soils. He also points to second alternative on class 3 soils to put it on the property lines. Says 2 acres is typical lot, in this case the driveway alone is more than 2 acres. Farmers usually use one acre for a lot. This is 2 acres to get to a 10 acre lot. Understands that they could make money, understands local farmers like it, but he thinks they should be consistent with their plans.
Salov says that he referred to the plan priorities when questioning the town chair. He thinks that they could look to that part of the town plan. The swale is class three soils and on the edge and won’t want to put the driveway in the swale. Says they could get more experts. The deal breaker on this is selling the land for a house. The drive on the north minimizes the impact. To call the wooded lot prime soils is an exaggeration.
Gau points to maps and says that the applicant did a good job putting it in the best place, there are a few areas it crosses better soils. Says the hill is not great soil, but where the proposal goes through are worse soils. He says that better off asking staff, but that’s not proper. When look at comprehensive plan, he is a rural representative and his family came from farming but what these people are doing is using the land most available to them. He sits on Sustainable Agriculture committee and what they look at is it profitable. This applicant made the effort to become farmers, to create jobs and to create a proposal with the least amount of detriment to the agriculture industry. This application is a perfect example of what the sustainable agriculture committee is trying to do.
Downing says that he looked at maps Hendrick asked him to look at. He notes there is another map and thinks that the other one was an approximate drawing. He reviewed their plan this afternoon and thinks towns should live within their plan. He didn’t find anything in the plan to prohibit what is happening here. The Town unanimously voted in favor, people living there know what is going on, true intention to support farm land, lets support them.
Jensen says that Hendrick said driveway would take up over 2 acres and most farmsteads are an acre or less. He says realistically all that land won’t be the driveway. He says its only .8 acre, applicant said 1.1 so he’ll take his work for it. Northern portion along the fenceline is covered with trees and corn and soybeans don’t grow well under trees. And driveway along the swale is perfect for what you want to do and the wood lot is no good to the farming operation, but it could raise capital to buy down the debt and keep them in farming alot longer. He talks about how he did that in the 80s. Urges people to help sustain agriculture in this county, we give alot of lip service to helping farmers, put your money where your mouth is and vote for this to keep a couple young guys farming into the future.
Miles speaks in defense of committee work, he says they didn’t present a moving target. Concerns were raised about the Town plan, they revised it to address those concerns and we adopted it. That being said, he was looking at alternatives. Is there a way to use the split and minimize impact on farmland. Hasn’t heard or seen a better alternative. He thought one of the alternatives might have worked, but misunderstood the classification and those are some of the higher class soils. Hendricks proposal would be a shorter driveway, but then would they realize the economic value of the other site and would that put the farm operation at risk, that sounds like the reason they are looking at this other spot. Is there a better location? He talks about alternatives, concerned about conflict with farmer and new homeowners. Concerned about some conflict to the north even with the easement. He thinks what is suggested is the least impact they can achieve so he will support.
Salov says when he went on site visit, neighbors welcome the change. That’s somewhere on the record and didn’t find that.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Gau, Hesselbein, Jensen, Kostelic, Levin, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schlicht, Schmitz, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Wiggie, Willett, Bayrd, Bruskewitz, deFelice, DeSmidt, Downing, Duranczyk, Ferrell, McDonell (who quips “I vote, it doesn’t matter now.”)
NO: Hampton, Hendrick, Hulsey, Manning, Matano, Vedder, Erickson
ABSENT: Martz
29 ayes, 7 nos, 1 (quite frequently) absent. Motion passes.
K. ITEMS THAT REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY FOR PASSAGE
1. Res. 116, 09-10 – Authorizing Acceptance of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG-R Funds and Awarding of Professional Services Contracts Department of Human Services – CDBG (Adopt)
2. Res. 205, 09-10 – Acceptance of the FY2010-2012 Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Recovery Grant Administered by the State Office of Justice Assistance for Drug Enforcement in Dane County (Adopt/Adopt Sub. 1)
3. Res. 207, 09-10 – Acceptance of the FY 2009 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Drug Task Force (Formerly the Byrne Drug Task Force Grant) Administered by the State Office of Justice Assistance for Drug Enforcement in Dane County (Adopt/Adopt Sub. 1)
5. Res. 229, 09-10 – Authorizing Acceptance of a WI DNR Animal Waste Management Program Grant – Garfoot Creek (Adopt)
McDonell asks for requests for separation, there is a sub 1 for both K2 and K3. Bruskwitz wants to be recognized after this.
Hulsey separates 4 for a brief comment.
With no objection, they record a unanimous vote.
4. Res. 228, 09-10 – Authorizing Acceptance of a WI DNR Grant for AIS Prevention & Control Plan Implementation (Adopt)
Hulsey says they may have heard about the Asian Carp problem, we also have them coming up the Yahara River and Rock and Mississippi river. These are very dangerous fish that can wipe out an eco system, they will jump out of the boat and knock your eye out. Part of the purpose of the grant is to try to figure out how to keep them from coming past the damn in Stoughton. Will also address spiny fleas, zebra mussels, guagas? and Eurasean milfoil? Please vote for this.
McDonell asks if there is any objection to recording unanimous consent. No objections.
M. SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS THE COUNTY BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT BY LAW
Bruskewitz announces she would like to pull resolution 69 out of all committees. (Her RTA referendum)
N. ADJOURNMENT – Until Thursday, February 18, 2010, 7:00PM, Or Call of Chair
Persons
Moved by Opitz, seconded by Gau. Passes on voice vote.
