June 8, 2000 

Land Use Meeting 

Planning Commission Members Present:  Dean Culbertson, Paul Tassoul, Jim Ecker, Steve Patterson, Shirley Solem, Ken Zilisch

Stakeholder members present:  Shirlee Schuette, Barry Witthuhn, Stan Buman, Jason Weis, Roger Weihing

Presenters:  Town Administrator, Dave Tebo and Dave Muench, Outagamie County Community Resource Development Coordinator

Dave Muench stated we need to develop strategies to implement the comprehensive land use plan.  In order to do this - 

·        We have to talk

·        We have to listen to what everyone is saying

·        There has to be cooperation among our group and the public

Dave Tebo stated we need to become familiar with our plan.  We need to know what has been done already.

The plan contains:

• An inventory of:
• Incomes
• Houses
• Trends related to people

• An inventory of land and environment
• Soil – where are the good & poor soils – the maps show us
• Show us site suitability for septic systems – where we should focus
• How does water drain
• Where are the sensitive areas

• An inventory of overall community & recreational facilities
• Water & sewer capabilities – how far will it extend in how many years
• Where are the areas of arsenic
• Looks at transportation system

• The plan shows existing land use and how it is being used now

• Vision
• What is the vision for our community
• The plan develops broad vision

• Strategies
• Growth strategy
• Development strategy
• More specialized strategies
• Rural atmosphere strategies

• Outlines specific actions the Town can undertake in accomplishing our strategies
• Conservation subdivisions
• 50% greenspace

• Tool box of development strategies
• Re-writing of Town ordinances, etc.

Our task is to: 

·        Understand what we have here

·        Different view points – flesh out issues and obstacles that exist when trying to implement strategies

·        Clarify vision

We need to prioritize the development strategies.

A representative from East Central spoke on the agencies comments about our plan.  They have reviewed our current plan.  Guidelines need to be met for future sewer service area extensions.  They are concerned with internal consistency.  Environmental issues are a concern.  Our plan talks about preserving rural character.  Rural character in an urban area can be different and needs to be looked at.  We need to think about development in the aquifer re-charge area.  Development could affect wells. 

St. Peter’s sandstone runs through an area and can create a form of arsenic.  With more wells, there is a higher chance for arsenic and we may want to consider water for this area. 

We need to think about the trade-offs such as non-sewered large lots close to the sewered area.  What if those people have problems with their septic systems and want to connect to the sewer.  It could be costly.

What kind of community do we want to be?  We need to target areas for conservation subdivisions, woodlands, farm areas, etc.

East Central feels that a two acre lot is a large urban lot and will not maintain the rural area but will bring it to a suburban area. 

The Sanitary Boundary and sewer service area maps should show a 20 year growth boundary.  The western part of the Town is a 40 year boundary.  We need to think that someday that area may be served with sewer and water. 

Dave Muench stated the plan should be flexible.  Our plan is not consistent throughout.

We need to define our issues.  The committee expressed some areas of concern. 

• Not enough of an educational process
• East Central ideas to inflexible
• Need more information to administer the 80/20 ratio
• Lack of housing & land options for various income levels
• Shared wells and septic systems for rural residents
• Adopt and implement a trail system
• Coordinating development with highway, airport, rail

Things we have heard from the public. 

• How should development occur outside the sanitary district –conservation subdivisions, etc.
• Take another look at the minimum lot size
• Rethink density issues
• Plans can change
• Compensation to property owners for restriction on development
• Too much flexibility
• What is rural character (define)
• What are the property tax implications of these decisions
• Reconsider a downtown shopping area as well as east of Town
• Schools – location, etc,.  Plan for the long range
• Plan with the neighbors (towns)
• Consideration for residents to make a living (money) from their property – i.e. heritage farming
• More consideration for farmers and restricting their personal property rights
• Attractive looking subdivisions in rural areas
• Farm retirement
• Farmers are not all the same and have different views
• Have to make the process work – need to get residents involved
• Implications of airport overlay
• Wildlife considerations, wetlands, woods, prairie

The next meeting will be on June 22.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.

Deborah Wagner, Town Clerk