Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Afternoon. I now call to order the Wednesday, 02/25/2026, meeting of the Appleton City Plan Commission. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call and membership has been taken and all are represented with the exceptions of Commissioners Palm and Robbins who are excused. I need a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Is there any discussion of the minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?

None opposed. The minutes have been approved. On to public hearings and appearances. Today we have item 26 dash zero two zero two, rezoning number 126 for the 5730 North Ballard Road annexation, formerly in the of Grand Chute, consisting of approximately 101.93 acres located at 5030 North Ballard Road, including the center line and the adjacent right of way, as shown on the attached maps, Agricultural District to R1B single Family, Shoreland Wetland District, and Shoreland District. This is a public hearing.

And actually, before we open the public hearing, I'm going to ask for brief overview. And Lindsey Smith's going to give us that overview. All right. Go ahead.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. So previously the Plan Commission had the annexation petition in front of you. And the annexation was about in January. So just giving a brief overview of seeing this annexation petition before.

When a property then is annexed into the city, the assigned zoning district at that time is General Agricultural District. And in our Agricultural Zoning District, we do not permit single family homes. And so typically when properties are annexed into the city, we then assign what that appropriate zoning classification should be based on the existing use and our future land use plan in the comprehensive plan. So with that, today in front of you is just this final action that you'll see on the whole process of the annexation is assigning the zoning classification of R1B single family district. Something that's a bit new to you all is seeing the Shoreline Wetland and the Shoreline District.

So another, just going back in time a little bit, Don Harp prepared an amendment to our Shoreland Wetland and Shoreland Zoning Districts in last October. That Plan Commission approved as well. And so with that, we now have an official Shoreline Wetland Shoreline zoning map. And any time and typically the only time we'll be amending this map is when properties are annexed into the city, because we need to assign that zoning classification. So sometimes boundaries do change, and there may be some alterations to this map.

But most often we'll see it when properties are only annexed into the city that are actually within the Shoreline or Shoreline Wetland boundary. So the map in front of us and the map that was in the packet identify where that boundary is. So the green shading, let me get there a second, was the shoreland, and then the bluish purple to the north is the Shoreland Wetland. One thing to note, there's about five square feet of Shoreland Wetland on this property. You cannot see it because of the line work that is on the north side, but there's about five square feet of Shoreland Wetland on the property.

So just to note that for clarification. So in front of you today is the rezoning from AG to R1B Shoreland Wetland And Shoreland District.

Thank you. All right, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right, Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Sharon Fox. I live to the south of this property, 5720 North Ballard Road. We are still part of Grand Chute, but we are now surrounded by Appleton. So I'm also representing the property owner right behind the property that's going to be annexed. They are also Appleton, but it's an elderly gentleman.

He's having heart problems, so he couldn't come. And he's just concerned about the woodlands behind the property, anything that's going to be affected that way because those condos that were built back there look at that hill and those woods and the stream and everything. I understand some of the annexation process because I have asked the city before about annexing our property. So we are thinking along those lines, too, as far as what's going to be involved with annexing. So that's why I'm here, just to gather information.

Okay. Thank you. We'll take this up in discussion, we can talk a little bit more about the action that's before us now and a little bit more about the annexation process in general. So we'll come to that when we take up the action item. All right. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right. Hearing no further, I declare this public hearing closed. We'll move now to the associated action item. This is 20Six-two04, request to approve rezoning number 126.

We have a motion and a second to approve, so we'll open the floor for discussion. Maybe we can just pick up where we left off in the public hearing with just the annexation process and then what the action that's before us here today is focused on, you know, understanding that there are concerns about future development in that area. Lindsey.

Yeah, so just an overview on the annexation process. So the typical process that occurs is the property owner will petition that they want to annex into the city of Appleton. And so there are various reasons why individuals petition to annex into the city. This particular petition was they were looking to hook into public utilities. And so the property was up for sale and it was a continual question of wanting public utilities rather than having a private on-site system.

And so at the time the owner said, you know what, I'm going to petition to annex the property as it's a reoccurring question that I'm receiving from potential buyers, so that way then the owner can connect to our public utilities. So that was really the basis behind this petition. So once the property owner signs the formal petition, it has to be submitted to Department Administration. And at the Department Administration of the state reviews it, they have a twenty day statutorial review period. At that time, they do send it to the town of Grand Chute.

It comes to the city as well, just to confirm that there's no conflicts with their boundary agreements and making both communities aware of the petition. Once that twenty day review is done, there is then a review letter sent from the DOA to the city telling us if they feel that it is in compliance with our boundary agreement or not with Grand Chute. And so we once we receive that letter, then we bring the actual action before our plan commission with that review letter. And so that occurred, it looks like that was in January 2026 was the date that the annexation was in front of Plan Commission. And then it proceeded to counsel on January 21, and there was the final action.

Once counsel has that final action, then it does need to be posted in the paper, and there's some administrative work that happens, but then the annexation was effective officially on January 27, and it came into the city of Appleton. And then once the property is annexed into the city, it has to go to our lowest intensity zoning district that we have, which is always our agricultural district. But as I mentioned, the agricultural zoning district doesn't allow single family homes, and so quite often most of our annexations will go to just a single family R1B zoning district if it has a single family house on it. So this individual is, when I had conversations with her, was not intending to develop anything else new. Really the whole purpose was just connecting to our public utilities.

So today before us is the zoning from the Agricultural Zoning District to the R1B Zoning District. So really it's just having the single family residential use as an allowable use per the zoning district. So it's not, right now, the request that I received was not intended for any future development, it was really just to bring it into the city so they can connect to public utilities and continue the single family use that occurs there today. And then a little bit of a, some further clarification on the Shoreland Wetland Zoning and Wetland Zoning Classification, that is an overlay that occurs and that's really determined by proximity to a navigable stream or a wetland that's over five acres. So looking at the aerial on the map, you can kind of see there's that navigable waterway there.

So if it's in the Shoreland Wetland District, there are additional requirements that need to be considered for development district, and additional ones in the Shoreland Wetland District. And a lot of that is guided by DNR guidance that we have to just adopt locally. So that is a brief overview, a little bit more detail on what's in front of us today, and the process of the annexation.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion from the commission? All right. Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. With none opposed, that item has been approved.

And if you have any further questions for us or need a little more information, please reach out to our staff and we'd be happy to talk with you and give you any more information that you need that we didn't cover today. All right. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Our next action item is twenty six-two zero five, request to approve the Foxport extraterritorial preliminary plat located in the town of Grand Chute. And Colin is going to tell us about this one. Go ahead, Colin.

Thank you. So as mentioned, this is a preliminary plat that's in the town of Grand Chute. It's actually owned by the town, the property is. They are looking to subdivide it into 22 lots and one outlot with the intent for future single family homes. It's in the town of Grand Chute, but it's within three miles of the city's corporate limits.

And so it falls under our extraterritorial plat review process. This process allows us to compare the proposal with our current municipal code, particularly our zoning as well as our subdivision ordinances. And this would allow for if this parcel or property were ever to come into the city, or all these properties, I should say, this allows us to evaluate it against current codes so that in the future, it would be more likely to conform with our code. It also gives Citi the ability to provide feedback on transportation, as well as engineering, and storm water sometimes being a big one, how it may impact either adjacent properties or, in some cases, other plats. The city may be downstream, so to speak.

And so understanding drainage from a property that's within three miles of our corporate limits is valuable to us. Staff did prepare or did review this, how we typically review our preplats, and found that it does comply with our municipal code and our recommending approval.

Very good. Need a motion. Move to approve. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. I'll say I appreciate your overview. You touched on the key points about why we have extraterritorial plat reviews. So is it fair then to say essentially it's an opportunity for a city to or a village to review the planning that's happening in an adjacent town within a reasonable distance just to make sure that there's good alignment and planning for the future.

Yes. Yeah. That would be the correct overall why we look at these from a city perspective and why it's in state statute as well as in our municipal code. So should this ever come into the city, it's going to be very likely that it would conform with our codes and be compatible with the land use, the future land use in the city.

And from a sort of working relationship perspective with the town of Grand Chute, how does, what are the mechanics of this review and is it sort of how does that work?

Yeah. So we were notified by the town that they had this pre plat. There's usually sort of a back and forth to check if it is within the city's review jurisdiction since there are some additional incorporated municipalities, we have an analysis that we do to make sure that this is within our agreed upon jurisdiction for extraterritorial review. And then after that point, we really just work with the engineer that's involved with the plat and provide them the standard process that we do for our own preliminary and final plats. Dave, don't if there was something you wanted to add.

What do you have there? Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Colin did a nice job touching on, I would just add, really solid working relationship with all surrounding municipalities, including the town of Grand Chute. So all these don't come up very often. When they do, there's a lot of dialogue and discussion between our city staff and town staff. And county staff is actually involved in them, the process in this case as well. So a lot of collaboration and dialogue.

How often are there substantial or substantive changes to the preliminary plats that towns are in this example, the town of Grand Chute is bringing forward?

I'd say it's pretty infrequent, right? I mean, even in the staff report that Colin has attached to today's agenda, there are handful of technical comments that are included. But in terms of actual substantive changes, nothing that's earth shattering.

So in other words, the town is putting together its own plan for this development. And our our review is is really just to make sure that at a high level, it it'll be in conformance with with municipal code as we understand it today. It's not a heavy handed exercise on the part of the city to control the development pattern of the town.

That's correct. And I think Colin alluded to some of the typical examples, things that are critical that we are looking for. So environmental issues that may be of shared concern, including drainage and grading. I think another one is transportation related to access and traffic. In theory, you could have a subdivision plat that's in the town but across the street from city jurisdiction and making sure that there's proper alignment and not creating congestion or safety issues would be another likely example. But by and large, those are just sort of the high level overarching things that are being reviewed. And it's, like I said before, very infrequent that substantive changes are needed as a result of this extraterritorial review.

Great. Great. And it's not something that we do a great deal of. So it's part of the reason I wanted to spend a little bit more time talking about the details of it with the commission today. And I know there are ongoing discussions at the state level and some advocacy to potentially make changes to extraterritorial plat jurisdiction.

And I think it's just important to point out that when it's well executed and when there are good working relationships and there's effort made on both sides to have a good working relationship. This type of review, it provides a great deal of public benefit not only for the future residents of these neighborhoods but also the municipality in the future and the town itself, making sure that we have good planning alignment across our boundaries. So as I see it, there's a great deal of benefit to these types of reviews, again, if they're thoughtfully executed and in the spirit of partnership, which is the way we try to approach it. So appreciate the extra context on this one. Is there any discussion from the Commission?

Right. Go ahead. Can

I direct to staff?

Please, go ahead.

Do these extraterritorial jurisdictions, do they only work one way? In other words, the city, a town, or a village wouldn't have extraterritorial jurisdiction over a city? What are the mechanics of it?

That is correct. So state statute allows for cities and villages to review plats within a certain distance. In our case, as a city, the three mile boundary is what we utilize. There are some unique locations where you have overlapping jurisdictions. As Colin alluded to, there are some other incorporated areas nearby. And we have a process to evaluate essentially whose jurisdiction it becomes, whether that's the village Greenville or village of Fox Crossing. But there, the Wisconsin State Platting Manual has a prescriptive process to follow to determine whose extraterritorial jurisdiction it becomes.

Thank you.

That's a little like curling. So you got to measure it. A good Olympics analogy. Right. I'm trying. Yeah.

Put your finger off the stone.

Exactly. And don't touch the stone after. Sorry. All right. Anything else? Anything else from the Commission? All right. Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. With none opposed, the item's been approved. We have no information items, so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

And we

have a motion. Second. And a second to adjourn. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. ANDREW ANDREW And we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.