August 10, 2000

Land Use Meeting

Present:  Dean Culbertson, Paul Tassoul, Dave Schlimm, Jim Ecker, Shirley Solem, Stan Buman, Jason Weiss, Shirlee Schuette, John Julius, Ken Zilisch.  Roger Weihing was excused.  Absent:  Randy Strey, Steve Patterson, Barry Witthuhn.  Bill Leslie resigned from the committee due to other commitments.  Town Administrator Dave Tebo, Facilitator Dave Muench.  Guest speaker, Eric Fowle from East Central Regional Planning.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

Dave Muench spoke first.

Implementing a Land Use Plan 

• Town Board decision
• Input & consensus (from broad group of stakeholders)

-         Education

-         Dialog

-         Agreement on what will work to achieve REVISION

Review Education Programs

• Conservation Subdivisions
• Environmental aspects of land management
• Land values
• Protecting agricultural land
• TDR/PDR
• Implementation

We learned we should protect …

• Prime agricultural land
• Wetlands and large tracts of woodlands
• Stream corridors
• Landowner considerations

What’s Next?

• Need to pin down the vision (rural character)
• How to achieve it in a fair and effective manner
• Where rural growth should occur and how it should look

-         Density

-         Patterns of development

Strategies

• Only conservation subdivisions outside sanitary district
• 80-20 rules based on lot creation in the previous year
• PDR/TDR – suggested not implemented
• 80/20 – not including CSM’s of 1-4 lots

Eric Fowle from East Central Regional Planning spoke next.

Town of Greenville – Land Use Plan Implementation

We need to use the plan and not let it sit on a shelf and collect dust.  Implementation can happen in small stages or large stages such as a total rewrite of the zoning ordinance.

So the Land Use Plan is done………………….

                                                            ………………. Or so you thought!

It is really just the beginning.

• Is there community agreement with the plan vision, goals, and objectives?
• Are these visions, goals, and objectives “realistic”?
• Are the goals and objectives “clear enough” or “specific enough”?

How will it affect land values? , etc.

• Were potential “tools” identified during the planning process? 

Can look at tools and work backwards for specific issues.  There are many tools to use – some that contribute little, some much more.

• Does the  plan set priorities/timelines for implementation tasks?

We lose something everyday we wait on the plan.

• Does the plan outline processes for monitoring implementation?

The plan needs to look at responsibilities for implementation.  Do we need additional committees, advisory groups, etc.

Basic Methods of “Plan Implementation”.  

• Voluntary implementation
• Regulatory implementation
• Cooperative implementation (incentives)
• Fiscal implementation – May have budgetary considerations.

All of the above should be based on the land use plan.

Voluntary Implementation

• Information provisions (citizens)

Examples:  Newsletter, web site

• Education (elected officials)

Example:  Elected officials need to keep on top of new tools and ideas

• Program involvement/promotion by Town
• Land “management” techniques

Examples:  Replanting a regular lawn with prairie grasses.  If only one person does this it does not have much effect, but it many people plant the grasses, it has an effect. Conservation reserve programs, etc.

·        Development of “Guidelines”

Example:  The Town Board can develop guidelines for new developments, etc.

Regulatory Implementation Methods

• Zoning Ordinance

The ordinance should be based on the land use plan.

• Subdivision Ordinance
• Sanitary Ordinance
• Official Map

Need to look at transportation needs.

• Building Code
• Review Procedure

Examples:  Prepare checklists for committees, developers, etc.   Have them do a sketch plan for review before doing a detailed plan.  Have developers tell us how their plan fits our Land Use Plan – make them do some of the work.

Cooperative Implementation

• Tax incentives

Example:  Local incentives for doing the right thing.  By offering an incentive for one or two years, we will reap the benefits in other ways for years to come.

• Public/Private partnerships

Examples:  We will give a little, if you give a little – such as a park fee.  Local clubs can be a tool.  They can help promote ideas and also help with funding.

• Revolving grants/loan programs

This is used in economic growth type programs, housing developments.

• Other “trade-offs”

Examples:  Planned Unit Developments, density developments.

• Multi-jurisdictional cooperation/consideration

Examples:  Look at neighboring communities for public facilities, snow plowing, trails, land use decisions.

By using one or more of these, you can go a long way in implementing the plan.  We need to look at different levels of government in the planning process.

Fiscal Implementation

• Annual budgeting

-         Staff capabilities/needs

-         Information needs (GIS?)

Keep maps updated.  Placing new houses on a map helps in future planning.

-         Capital Improvements Programming & budgeting (CIP)

Plan for future needs.

• Revenue Generation

-         Cost sharing/grant seeking

There are many grants available.  Some are more competitive than others.

-         Special Assessments

-         Special Districts (taxing authorities)

We need to think of impacts of development so we can plan.  We need to think about what could happen.

SUMMARY

• Look at the Land Use Plan and make sure it is clear, but allows for flexibility.
• Look at appropriateness of tools for meeting goals.
• Innovativeness

Don’t be afraid to look at things and to try new things.  What may sound stupid could end up being a great thing.

Example of a Land Use Plan

Jefferson County Land Use Plan

Jefferson County is located in South Eastern Wisconsin.  This land use plan is being used as a model plan.  Jefferson County has countywide zoning.

Vision – Protect rural character and preserve farmland. 

• Preserve rural character and aesthetic quality of Jefferson County.
• Provide equity and fairness to owners of land with comparable resource and location characteristics.
• Minimize non-agricultural development on prime agricultural soils.
• Maintain the integrity of agricultural districts.

Jefferson County 2020 Plan

Jefferson County went through a series of land use policies.  The Jefferson County 2020 Plan Steering Committee considered these policies.  Based on public input, the policy scenarios will be further refined to a narrower range of alternatives.  Ultimately, the Steering Committee will recommend a single set of rural land use policies.

The seven policies are:

• Scenario 1 – Most restrictive policies

Prohibit all future nonagricultural development, except for sewered development within delineated Urban Service Area.   Prohibit future rural land divisions, except for transfers for agricultural or open space purposes.  Develop a compensation program to address for the difference in value between current zoning regulations and the regulations implemented under the Jefferson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

• Scenario 2 – Restrictive policies

Limit new residential development density to one dwelling unit per 80 acres for land zone A-1, etc.  Land from which the development rights have been sold or transferred shall be deed restricted for permanent agricultural or open space use.

• Scenario 3 – Moderately restrictive policies – A

Limit new residential development density to one dwelling unit per 50 acres for land zoned A-1, etc.  Land from which the development rights have been sold or transferred shall be deed restricted for permanent agricultural or open space use.

• Scenario 4 – Moderately restrictive policies – B

Limit new residential development density to one dwelling unit per 35 acres for land zoned A-1, etc.  Land from which the development rights have been sold or transferred shall be deed restricted for permanent agricultural or open space use.

• Scenario 5 – Baseline policies (Similar to Current Regulations)

Limit nonagricultural development density to one dwelling unit per 35 acres for land zoned A-1, etc.  Maintain current limit of three (3) lot splits, plus an additional split for existing farm buildings, for areas under 35 acres that are zoned A-3.

• Scenario 6 – Less restrictive policies

Limit nonagricultural development density to one dwelling unit per 35 acres for land zoned A-1, etc.  Remove the current limit of three (3) lots splits for land that has been rezoned from A-1 to A-3, providing all proposed lots in the A-3 District are on land that has not historically been cultivated and is not in Capability Class I or II.

• Scenario 7 – Least restrictive policies

Limit nonagricultural development to one dwelling unit per 35 acres for land zoned A-1, etc.  No limit on the number of lots that can be created in the A-3 zone, providing the minimum lot area and dimension requirements are met.

Basic Premises of Jefferson County Plan

• Three splits per farm (less on prime ag land)
• Two acre minimum lot size with lot combination
• Grouping homes in rural areas encouraged
• 70% new development in urban service area
• Environmental corridor restrictions
• No rural subdivisions – no unsewered subdivision

To maintain rural character – Preserve ag land, smaller lots in ag land, no subdivisions.

STAKEHOLDER PROCESS/ANALYSIS

TO DETERMINE THE BEST STRATEGIES FOR GREENVILLE

Criterion for selection

• Does it accomplish our vision?
• Can it be administered easily (understood)?
• Is it fair and equitable to landowners/general public?
• Is it sustainable (long term)?
• Is it cost effective?
• Combination of strategies
• Totally new strategies
• Incorporate East Central recommendation

This week’s questions for the Stakeholder group were:

If rural subdivisions are to be included, what is the maximum number of homes allowed and lot size?

How can a ratio system work in Greenville?

Public Input and Discussion

Mike Woods doesn’t know how we are going to treat people fairly.  He feels we will be in court over this.  Mike feels agriculture is dying in this area.  Can anyone envision what this area will look like in ten years?

Dean Culbertson stated that we have not yet addressed the need to take a look at how do you maintain farms so they are viable.  How does a farmer sell it?  Is the market there?  Farming today is very difficult.  What happens when there is not a farmer there to purchase it?

Stan Buman stated that the mega-farms cannot afford Greenville.  The mega-farms need land available without all the roads.  Stan also questioned how the 80/20 ratio would be equitably implemented. 

·        Can Greenville afford to farm in the future?

John feels there is a potential to keep farms going.  Some farms in the area are doing very well.

Clarence Krause stated there is too much development. There are not enough farmers to buy the land.  Crops and dairy farming will be gone.  Clarence feels we need to preserve the land.

·        No crops & dairy

But what is farming? Dairy, beef & crops, vegetable, fish, orchard, landscape plants

It was suggested that we could possibly look into having local grown crops being sold to the local people.  It should be encouraged.

·        Can’t afford to lose more farmland

May need to discuss agricultural opportunities at the next meeting and bring agricultural people in to speak.

·        What can Greenville farmers hope for the future?

·        Need to understand the farmer’s position

The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.