Zoning & Land Regulation Committee - Regular Meeting

The time is 630 and I would like to call the June 9th, 2026 meeting of Zoning and Land Regulation Committee to order. This meeting is being held in person and virtually through the Zoom meeting app. All persons wishing to speak are required to register via the Zoom meeting app at least 30 minutes prior to the meeting. People may also register in person prior to the meeting if you're in person. First off, I would like to introduce the committee members and staff. I'm Supervisor Michelle Doolin, and I represent District 28. And with us is Supervisor David Peterson, who represents District 36, and Supervisor Jeffrey Kroenig, who represents District 21, and Supervisor Don Posler, who represents District 29.

Good evening.

and Supervisor Michelle Ritt, who represents District 18. Staff members with us are Planning and Development Director, Todd Violante, Interim Zoning Administrator, Hans Hilbert, Assistant Zoning Administrator, Dan Iverson, Assistant Zoning Administrator, Rachel Holloway, Please note that this is a work meeting of the Zoning and Land Regulation Committee. Public hearings have already been conducted for rezoning and CUP applications. Additional testimony will only be taken upon committee members' request. Many members will need to make a determination whether or not to take additional testimony on the agenda item. I would also like to make an announcement regarding fraudulent emails being sent to zoning applicants. The public should be aware that individuals submitting applications to our department have been receiving scam emails requesting payment. Official correspondence from Dane County will always come from an email ending in danecounty.gov. Dane County spelled out. Anyone who receives a suspicious email requesting payment is asked not to respond. Instead, please contact the Planning and Development Office at 608-266-4266. All right, so the first item on our agenda is public comment for any items not listed on the agenda. If anyone would like to make comments on any items not listed on the agenda, you can raise your hand and you will be allowed to speak. And to my knowledge, staff, we don't have anybody registered for. All right. So seeing no one volunteering for that one, I will move on. So we'll move on to the agenda item, which is minutes of the May 5th, 2026 ZLR committee meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve by Cronig. Is there any discussion, questions, or comments about the minutes before we take a vote? If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes. Next item, we shall move on to the minutes of the May 26, 2026 ZLR committee meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion by Cronig. Any questions, comments, discussion, or corrections about those minutes before we take a vote to approve? Not all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Let's see. We have no items under the public hearing portion of the meeting. So the next item of business is zoning map amendments and conditional use permits from previous meetings. So our first petition is rezone petition 12,278 applicant JMLLC in the town of Verona.

So you'll recall this was before us at the May 26th public hearing for a rezone out of wetland. At that time, staff was prepared to recommend approval. However, due to some public comment in opposition regarding the potential of groundwater impacts, the committee... deferred, postponed action. And since that time, I've had a chance to discuss that with the applicant, Mike Marquette. He's also provided a written response in your packet outlining the applicant's efforts to work with all of the neighboring property owners and ultimately the concerns that were raised are more specific to a future proposal for mineral extraction on this site. In reviewing Mike's initial application, the applicant's initial application and the response, the staff recommendation remains the same to recommend approval of rezone out of wetland for the 6,000 square feet, understanding that removing those protections from the wetlands is unlikely to have any impact on. Groundwater concerns or resource concerns unless until such a time that mineral extraction operation approval was would would take place in that use would be impacted. So those concerns are best addressed during the conditional use permit process that would be forthcoming. Removing protections for 6000 square feet of wetlands in 160 acre area. you know, aren't going to have those impacts immediately. The area will remain in agriculture and the permitted uses under the FP or the AT 35 district that it's within. So we don't foresee any conflicts with that. So with that, staff is recommending approval with no conditions with the committee making the findings that the standards of Dane County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 11, Parent 10 are satisfied for rezoning out of wetlands.

All right. So, committee, what we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of... of approval with no conditions, finding that the standards of DCCEO 1110 are satisfied. Would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve. Is there conditions for this at all? Conditions?

No conditions.

Okay.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Cronig. Do we have a second?

Apostler seconds.

Okay, Apostler seconds. Questions, comments, or discussion before the committee takes a vote?

So you said this wetland is actually kind of on the side of a hill a little bit, so it's probably like a wet spring or something?

Right, it's... probably some form of perched aquifer or a spring coming out of a hillside that's, you know, spring isn't a natural feature on its own. That just doesn't make up a wetland, but, you know, land use, maybe agricultural use created maybe a small dam that allowed this area to saturate and, you know, been to some plants and soils that demonstrated wetland characteristics.

That actually makes like no evidence of water running out of this.

There's evidence of water as part of the wetland that was identified. It's just such a small area, not what we would consider a wetland resource per se. Okay.

All right.

Any other questions about this or discussion before we vote?

All right. What we have is a motion by Kroenig and a second by Posler to approve. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right. Motion carries. And...

so that was the big hearing moment or the big non-hearing moment um now we have platts survey and certified survey maps and so go dan thank you yeah this is a two lot certified survey map proposal before you um that is not associated with a rezone petition the underlying zoning district is fp1 farmland preservation And the owner has hired Burse Surveying and Engineering to put together a two lot CSM. One lot's a little over seven acres, the other's 6.78 acres. and staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions in my report. I did reach out to a senior planner, Majeed Allen, just like the previous land division that was before you with the same owner, Spudlock, two weeks ago. Majeed does not have any concerns. There's no net change in density. And currently the property is deed restricted, prohibiting further residential development. Just a couple conditions that I've spelled out that I want the landowner or the surveyor to work with the township as I want the, whether or not Windmill Road should be dedicated to the center line. The previous proposal two weeks ago, that surveyor showed 33 feet to the center line being dedicated to the public. This one does not show any dedication, so I just want somebody to work with a township, make sure this is consistent with the previous certified survey. Other than that, that's all I've got for comments on this one.

Sounds great. All right, so the staff recommendation is for approval with, what, nine conditions?

Yep.

All right. With that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Make a motion to approve with the nine conditions.

All right. We have a motion to approve by Kronek with the nine conditions. Do we have a second?

Postler seconds.

All right. We have a second by Postler. Any discussions, comments, or questions about this before we vote? All right. If not, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right, the next plat.

Yeah, this committee saw the preliminary plat back in February 10th. It was conditionally approved, and now the developer or his agent has submitted the final plat for review. And so just to remind everybody, this is 29 lots with one outlot, a little over 30 acres. This is the last and final phase. of this residential subdivision. And this is associated with the rezone petition 12,048 that changed the zoning from ag transition to single family. The average residential lot size is a little over three quarters of an acre. Public health department did not have any concerns. And the review deadline is July 7th, 2026. There are a handful of conditions associated with the rezone petition. I've asked the developer's agent to clarify the recording of the agricultural conservation easements, as well as the deed notice being recorded prior to the plat being signed by the committee chair. Dan Frick provided comments with regards to the proposed road names. That has been addressed.

Excellent.

And... Just to remind everybody, the required approval certificates are to be satisfied. That is the town of Cottage Grove. The village of Cottage Grove has extraterritorial jurisdiction review, the Dane County Treasurer, and the Zoning and Land Regulation Committee.

All right.

And so if this is conditionally approved, then the next final step would be the plaque gets brought back for signature and then recording.

Gotcha. All right. Oof, lots of changing road names in here in the middle of intersections.

That is one of the obstacles with infill development. in relation to historic or existing development.

Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Okay, what we have in front of us is the recommendation to approve with, is it nine conditions technically, or eight plus the sign?

I've got nine.

Nine conditions. Would a committee member like to take, or would like to make a motion? I can do this, I swear.

I'll make a motion to approve with the nine conditions.

All right, we have a motion by Croning to approve with the nine conditions. Do we have a second?

Peterson seconds.

We have a second by Peterson. Any questions, comments, or discussion before the committee takes a vote? If not, all in favor say aye. All right, motion passes. So we don't have any resolutions, but we do have an ordinance amendment. And we have the author of the amendment with us. So if we have Supervisor Downing able to

Yeah, he's a panelist.

He's a panelist. All right. So it's 2026-08-06, amending Chapter 10 of the Dane County Code of Ordinances, revising the definition of cemetery. So thank you, Supervisor Downing.

Chair Doolin, if you'll look in the chat, I'm asking to be able to introduce this resolution, if I may.

Yes, please.

Well, thank you. Well, my intention for this ordinance amendment is to allow my constituents to be buried on their farm. Hans Hilbert indicated in conversations between him himself and Merrill Black, indicated that this would not be allowed on their FP 35 zone property and opined that he was not sure this was the intention of the ordinance or just an unforeseen result of changing a definition. He also concluded that under its current zoning, there isn't a path forward for allowing burials on their property. They could potentially rezone a portion of the property to a district that would allow a cemetery as either a permitted or conditional use, but he didn't think that would be in the best interest of anyone. He went further to say, I realize that this is a lot of hoops to jump through, but that's the current landscape. I hope that County Board will consider an ordinance amendment to change this. I would like to look into this matter a little closer and see if I can find a way to allow burials as an agricultural accessory use. which would then be permitted by right in FP 35. Since then, the recommendations to address this issue have grown in scope beyond what I had intended and could impact the property rights of others including those on my own parcel. As such, I will abstain from any further deliberations on this ordinance amendment.

Great. Thank you for your testimony and your transparency. All right.

So let's give us a summary of... That's a very good introduction. Over the course of the last few years, our office has seen an increased amount of requests for landowners contacting us asking if they need permission or need to obtain a permit to be buried or bury a relative on their property. In researching this, I discovered that in 2018, during the comprehensive rewrite of the ordinance, our definition of cemetery was changed to include any land use that involved the burial of human remains. And I wasn't able to find any language in the ordinance that exempted private burials or defined other sorts of burials other than the cemetery, which included. Any burial of human remains, which means to answer that question from a property owner of whether it would be allowed, I have to look at the district that their property is in and define to figure out if it's either a permitted or conditional use in those districts and across all of our districts. There are a number of them that permit cemeteries by right. The majority of them that have the use, it's a conditional use permit. However, there's districts that do not allow cemetery as either permitted or conditional. And included in those districts are the farmland preservation districts. And in doing some research into state statute as far as what the state allows for land uses that are compatible with farmland preservation and the tax credit program, cemeteries are not identified. So it wouldn't be possible to establish that use in farmland preservation districts. So as Supervisor Downing pointed out, we were looking into this and there seems to be some urgency with his constituent to find a resolution to this. In no way is zoning staff opposed to the land use and the more questions we get about it, the more important we know it is to the landowners in Dane County. So we're trying to find a solution that addresses the problem, but also keeping in mind the purpose and intent of zoning to not create future conflicts based on land use and to make sure that lands remain viable for development and to create a tax base, but to allow property owners to also have use of their property. So this conversation most recently started within the last month and I was expecting to have a little bit more time to work on this and bring it in a more fleshed out manner. But with this being introduced at last week's county board meeting, I worked with Corporation Council to at least come up with the language that's in your packet that would accomplish this. And it seems like the most reasonable path forward would be a modification to the definition of a cemetery. to include some language that private burial sites do not reach that threshold. I think that would be in line with the state's statute definition of a cemetery, which lends itself to cemeteries, mausoleums, burial chapels, larger organized burial sites than what we're talking about tonight. The way that Corporation Council made that modification to the definition would have a sweeping power to allow anybody who has a permitted principal use on their property to have a private burial site as a incidental or accessory use on their property. that's a policy decision that the zlr and county board should should make um i don't have strong feelings one way or another but i do provide some some recommendations on on considerations particularly in the general health safety and welfare of the community as well as again protecting the property values and tax base from um something that is probably the most permanent land use that's protected by statutes in Wisconsin. So in particular, I think that we could craft a better ordinance than what Corporation Council has drafted by having some general regulations on human burial sites in all of our zoning districts. that wouldn't take away any rights that current property owners have under their ability to either have a cemetery by right or by conditional use permit process. But we could restrict incidental human burial sites to certain situations such as properties that are on non-conforming parcels where they don't meet the proper size and width of a property in a certain district or in certain zoning districts such as the single family residential districts that lend themselves to small lot and high density areas or in areas such as the urban service areas where our intended growth is to occur to not cripple future property owners' rights to develop their property to have use of those areas. So the purpose of bringing this to a work meeting is to gather feedback from the committee members on the policy direction of if we want to continue moving this and if it's a land use that we want to broadly permit or try to have some forms of regulation on.

Okay. So just to reiterate, just to clarify, so we're trying to balance the way this is laid out and the idea is to set this up for success by being a little bit more intentional about how we apply zoning.

Right. I think that there's a lot of properties, in particular, the constituents of Supervisor Downing, where we're looking at a hundred plus acre farm and it's a very typical land use to maybe have a farm there. area for family members of the farm probably isn't going to impact the farming of the land. The farmhouse is going to stay. It's not something people in some of their most dire times need to come to the zoning counter and be told you have to go through a four month conditional use permit process before we can tell you that this is allowed. There may be a high-density area where there's expected to be future growth or the neighborhood doesn't, like that land use being adjacent to their properties, affecting property values, things like that, those are appropriate conversations to take that four months of governance to go through the conditional use permit process, but still have that avenue in those situations. I think that would create a balance.

I guess I would like to ask Supervisor Downing. Oh, actually, I want to hear from Supervisor Ritt.

I have all kinds of questions. I do support the idea of loved ones being dealing with their deceased loved ones in the way that's most loving and their choice sort of thing. Supervisor Downing, could I ask you a question, please?

I don't believe I'm allowed to take part. I came up with this statement being coached by Carlos Pabillon, and I believe I've now dropped out of the discussion.

It's a point of clarification. And so I'm going to ask the question. And if you don't feel comfortable answering it, then say no. Deal? Do you support this ordinance? Yes or no?

I introduced it.

Okay, thank you for that. Okay, so I love the idea of studying this more, although it seems like timeliness is an issue for folks who are interested in doing this. But like three of the questions off the top of my head are... You know, if doing this, how does this impact future use of the land? You know, we love to think about family farms being handed, you know, down generation to generation to generation. But what happens when the land is divided and, you know, then Supervisor Postler, you know, buys a chunk of the farm and now he has, you know, Aunt Janice and Uncle Earl in the corner. Like, how does that affect, you know, Second one is regulations, like who takes care of the regulations, making sure that the body would be buried in an appropriate way. I'm thinking horrible thoughts like coyotes and things like that that I don't even want to put more into my question than that. And then the third one is... like regulation on lot sizes. You know, if somebody can do that on a farm, could I do that, you know, inside the city of Madison in my backyard? You mean how we would delineate a potential size of a property for allowing this or not? So anyway, those are questions out of the top of my head, but I'm really, really interested in exploring this more.

Thank you, Supervisor Witt.

I can answer two of those questions through some research that I've had the chance to do. The Wisconsin Historical Society plays a role in enforcing the state statutes with the legacy of the land use, and human burial sites are one of the most protected land uses under those statutes, and it's a... Future property owners, they inherit a responsibility to protect those areas and not disturb them. That doesn't mean you have to go as far as allow next of kin or family members to visit the property. You get to choose who has access. But as far as the use of that property, you're... prohibited from disturbing that unless you go through an appeal process through the Wisconsin Historical Society that has pretty stringent guidelines on the ability to do that, what can be done with the remains if they're moved or relocated or otherwise disposed of. Regarding Part of the reason that I think we're getting more questions about this is some of the historical society's guidance that has been put out recently directing people that are interested in this land use to contact their local municipalities to find out if it is permitted. Certain municipalities around the state, I don't have a list for those in Dane County right now, but it's not uncommon for municipalities such as cities and villages to prohibit this use outright. in their jurisdictions. But it's ultimately up to the local municipality to determine if they're going to permit it as a land use. The state statutes don't play into that. Once a body or human remains are placed in the ground, it's the responsibility of the person who did the burial to contact the Wisconsin Historical Society so that it can be cataloged and they create a notice that's then recorded in the register of deeds so that future landowners understand that if they're purchasing a property that would have a human burial site on it, it would be flagged in a title search and they could look into what those responsibilities are. The your middle question which I didn't answer about kind of the the health and sanitary aspects of the use it's not something that's currently regulated under zoning and I haven't had a chance to look into whether or not there's. state statutes that outline that particular to private burial sites or if that's something that the county health department would be involved in either. But certainly something that is on our list for further considerations.

Thank you for those explanations. And, you know, regardless of the outcome of this tonight, I'd be very curious to hear about what you find out. But thank you for that.

Thank you for your questions. Yeah, I think it's only unincorporated areas that we would be talking about. Correct. So going forward, yeah, I guess, yeah, the health and sanitary part would be important, I think, just because of ground, I mean, soil quality, groundwater, things like that. I mean, Um, those things and what kind of enforcement measures are taken for that um like who's who has oversight for enforcement of those things if if we have an ordinance amendment um is that is that just impacting like dane county code or would we end up being i guess with the register of deeds

So this ordinance amendment is only intended to change the land use. Obviously, anything that's required under state statute, including the cataloging and registering an instrument in the Register of Deeds to identify that wouldn't change. All of the policies about disturbing a burial site would be covered through the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Okay. So if you drive around the countryside, you know, eventually you'll, you'll come across the farm and you'll see a plot off in a corner or something like that. So those existing cemeteries, how are they zoned right now?

So it depends on if it was indeed a cemetery. And going back to 2018, prior to that, our definition of cemetery certainly didn't include private burial sites. And under state statute, cemeteries are very limited as to who can operate them. Churches, municipalities, universities, things of that nature, not private property owners. So in some situations, it could be part of a historic cemetery plat. In other areas, it could have been a use that was just incidental, similar to what this ordinance would do, where it wasn't something that was necessarily regulated. And at this point, if there was one, it would be a legal non-conforming use if it existed prior. It brings up a good question, though. State statutes protect these sites from being disturbed. So if I was to approach a property owner that had created a cemetery without a conditional use permit that was required, I don't have the enforcement ability to tell them that they need to remove it. That wouldn't be a power that the zoning administrator would yield. And that's certainly why I thought that this discussion was warranted before the ZLR, the county board, because I think of issues just like that. It's not a typical land use that we would regulate, but I still feel it's one that, you know, we can find a balance.

I think that, yeah, I think that obviously Corporation Council doesn't want this adapted as worded either for expediency.

I should also mention in your packets are correspondence from Tom Matthews, speaking as an individual and asking us, though, to consider input from the Towns Association and the towns in general before moving this forward. Again, I want to reiterate that this is simply here to provide staff direction on policy, and we would come back before even introducing this to a public hearing, which would start the town process for notification and review.

Right. So, yes, I think some of the Like, you know, some of the questions that were raised here need to be, we need to have more answers, I think, before we draft something. So proposing that we find more facts before we move forward. And then, you know, maybe consider limiting, you know, you know what sorts of land size limitations would be appropriate i mean because there's a there's quite a few like hobby farms you know four to five acres as opposed to never um and maybe limiting some of that outside of buildable areas or you know um how long they've owned the property you know people are not having as many kids anymore either so yeah but i mean

If I'm out driving in your district, which is beautiful, and I see a piece of property, and I say, that's where I want to be buried. Is it appropriate for me to go buy that piece of property?

I don't necessarily. Well, it's worth considering.

But you know what I mean? Versus a family that's run a farm for 100 years.

true but that would the unintended consequences that would be limiting the building of generational wealth going forward to the people who already own the land who might not always have owned the land so we wouldn't want to have it be an unintended discriminatory practice either so Yeah, I guess unintended consequences. And I personally, again, would like to be good stewards with the Talents Association. Because if we get a better sense of what they would be okay with, I think that would be good. And, you know, maybe not... I mean, is it possible somebody would go bury somebody somewhere to make sure that there's never a quarry there? Like, I mean, that's weird, but, you know, certain things, you know, I mean, that, but I think of those things sometimes because we've had people pose those questions before. So I guess kind of making sure that we have all of that crossed.

You know, certain burial sites within quarries.

Now we do that for the native burial mounds.

Yeah, it's true.

Verona Section 1, Payne and Dolan's site had to identify the burial mounds adjacent to the property.

So we are already doing that for known burial sites for non-white peoples. Correct. Good. That was another question. I don't know. Did we give you enough answers to have a direction or do you need to have more defined answers?

I don't think we need more defined answers. It's good. I think you've expressed that there's an interest in, you know, understanding some of the risks and benefits and how we might mitigate those in, in regulating land use. That makes sense. Um, coming back with some information regarding the health and sanitary aspects of it and, um, Our approach would be to research that and work with corporation Council to put together that language so that you have something to consider so that we don't just come back and say these are these things and through developing some more language you can you know give us either the thumbs up or thumbs down that we're going in the right direction. I think that's easier than trying to draft language by committee.

I would agree with that. The other counties in Wisconsin that are working on this sort of an...

I haven't had a chance to reach out to our network to see about that.

Yeah, that might be a consideration as well, especially... Who's got language and what works and what doesn't.

And I think if we have a little bit and some of the pitfalls they ran into with town approval, just so if expediency is part of this, then if we can anticipate some of some pushback and find ways of, you know, maybe some if then scenarios to, you know, so it's, we have an avenue through in case we hit some sort of barrier, that might make it an easier, more timely approach.

I think... In 2018, when we modified our definition of cemetery and strayed from the state statute definition of cemetery, I think that kind of set a lot of this up. And I would imagine a lot of other municipalities probably use the statutory definition. So this might not be an issue for them, but we'll be able to research that as well as municipalities in the county that maybe have prohibited or have this use in their ordinances.

I think that's good. Does anybody else on the committee have any questions or comments or more things to discuss on this matter? I'd like to thank Supervisor Downing for bringing this forward and bringing this to our attention because I think this is a really awesome kind of discussion to have. I think we can consider this matter discussed thoroughly for now. Okay, so items requiring committee action. Scheduling a site inspection for rezone petition 12,275.

So at the request of Chair Dolan, we place this on the agenda. The committee, through their rules and procedures, has the ability to schedule a site inspection of any petition that they feel that that's warranted, but it does take scheduling by the committee to do that.

Can you remind the committee?

This is the Madison Spring proposal in the town of Vienna that was at our May 23rd public hearing where we had a number of interested parties speaking both in favor and opposition on the potential impacts to the wetlands and the desire to grow the tax base in the town of Vienna. So I think there's a lot of policies at play and it would be to the benefit of the committee to visit the site.

I think so. So when would we propose to do this? Should we do a poll? If it's going to be during the day, I would need as much lead time as I can get so I can schedule. I have a day job.

So an important... point for the committee is that we intend to bring the matter back to the july 14th work meeting so we'd be looking at a site inspection sometime between now and july 14th and staff can coordinate a meeting whatever works best for the committee members uh supervisor postler thank you madam chair um

I just want to make a comment. I do think site visits are incredibly valuable to see the lay of the land, but the hesitation that I have when we've discussed this in the past is still a hesitation that I have now, which is this is a significant public interest based on the feedback that we've received. And I would just want us to proceed with caution that we don't end up having a you know, a meeting where we are getting a pitch from one side or the other while we're at the site. I guess I would just like to know that, you know, if we are going there, it's to assess the site and to have an informed scientific staff presentation and that it would not essentially turn into a meeting that folks not present would not have a knowledge of what the committee is discussing or being, you know, pitched one way or the other from one side or the other. I think in the interest of transparency, There's value in the site visit for us to make an informed decision, but there's the public interest of making sure that any addressing of issues that may come before the committee happen in a meeting setting. So I guess that would be my question for staff is for the site visit, would this be essentially a staff member making a presentation and certainly open to the public, but we would not be taking any testimony from either side?

Right. Per the rules and procedures of the committee, the site, the purpose of a site visit is strictly to view the site. There's no testimony taken or action taken. So as far as. staff presentation. We could answer questions based on our staff report or take questions to put into our staff report when it does return to the committee, but I wouldn't anticipate any sort of formal presentation.

Very good. Thank you.

And so, yeah, how does that work with open meetings? So it's not a meeting, but how is it?

It is a meeting. Our Board of Adjustment has monthly site inspections. They go to every site that they hear petitions for. And Yeah, it really just comes down to the committee members' conduct to not, you know, get sidebarred by somebody who else is welcome to attend. Members of the public would be welcome to be there because of open meetings laws, but staff can help to make sure that committee members aren't interacting and taking what might be deemed as testimony. And then... just recording that there wasn't discussion, there wasn't action taken.

Okay.

And our agenda for a site inspection would include all of that language, so the public is very aware that those are the constraints that it's within. That's a huge no-no. And in this particular instance where we've already had the public hearing, it's even more important because the public input session has been closed.

Gotcha. No, I think that's important. Does that help satisfy your concerns, Supervisor Apostler?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Good. It was a good question, though. Any other discussion on this?

Well, from your office, how long does it take you to get there?

Oh, I actually don't know. And it depends on the day of week because I work some Thursdays and Fridays for me.

Supervisor Peterson, what is your kind of schedule look like?

The more time I have, the easier I can move things around.

So it's... And Supervisor Postler, what is your schedule kind of like? I know it's your neighborhood.

Yeah, generally most weekdays I'm available as early as 3.30 in the evening, but depending on my other committee assignments or other meetings that we certainly have would be the only thing that could potentially hang me up.

Right now it would be a 22-minute drive from the Prairie Oak State Office building.

And you get off work at 5?

I get off work at 4.30. 4.30?

Mm-hmm. So 5 o'clock's one of these evenings? Would that work for you?

I think so, as long as there's no other conflict, meeting conflict. Yeah. And then I'm going to be out of town the Monday, Tuesday after July 4th, because I'm meeting my granddaughter. But...

Cool.

Yeah, I know, right? All right. So, yeah, like, to be safe, yeah, I could probably pretty easily get off work a couple minutes early, but, yeah, 5 o'clock or 5.15, just about any day of the week that is another committee. Tuesdays are usually actually pretty good.

Michelle has her hand up.

Oh, yes, Michelle, supervisor. Right. Sorry.

All right. I also have a schedule to contend with. can we choose a date now while we're all here i'm fine with that i'm good with that okay supervisor why don't you choose a date and then i can work around it yeah well dang i know right go crazy how about the june 29th which is a monday which didn't i hear that monday was good for a bunch of people

I'm out the 29th through the 12th.

How about the 22nd of June?

That'll work. That works for me.

I've got the UW Extension Committee and I'm vice chair. So does he. I mean, Supervisor Croning.

Would oh so would we be able to so we wouldn't be able to do it before that meeting.

Before the 23rd.

No before extension.

No, because it's at five o'clock and it's right next door to the prairie oaks office building okay. I mean, I guess I could, well, we might ruin quorum for it if we both out.

Okay, crazy thought. June 19th, it's a Friday. We could spend our Friday night together.

That one works for me. June 19th is a holiday. We can't meet. Yes, you're right. Let's not do that. June 17th. Doesn't work for me.

Are we only looking at evening now?

I mean, you know, with some lead time, I might be able to, well, it really depends. Everybody's asking off work.

Supervisor Peterson, when do you come back in July?

July 12th.

And when do we have to have this done by?

14th.

July 14th, isn't it?

Correct.

Okay, so what's... Is a, okay. 13. Well, the 13th is open for me.

I am out of town June. Oh, are you talking July 13th?

July 13th. Sorry. Yeah.

Yeah. I have a clinic from 1230 to 530, but it's in Mayville.

Oh, okay.

What about the 23rd? June 23rd? I have a clinic. What time?

It's in Cambria from 1.30 until 8.30. Oh, okay. Yeah, so... Give me a second.

Can we do earlier in the day, maybe?

When?

Towards the morning in the 23rd?

I would be able to do that. I don't know. Okay. How long does it take to drive from Madison to Cambria? Isn't it like an hour and a little bit?

Let me take a look.

I don't know.

Call it an hour.

I would be able to on the 23rd at like 9 a.m. Okay. So I have to be to clinic an hour and a half early to set it up.

Okay. And about how long would a perspective site does it take?

It could be anywhere from five minutes to a half an hour, just depending on...

But you wouldn't think like hour? No. So I could go to that and then I could go to work later. Yeah, I think I probably can manage that. So June 23rd at 9am.

And where are we going again?

I forgot to. The town of Vienna?

Sure.

Yes, we'll provide the apps and addresses. I assume everybody wants to transport themselves.

Yeah.

Okay. That typically is easier.

Yeah, generally. That sounds good.

Who's bringing the breakfast burritos?

I could bring something for breakfast.

I'm kidding. July 23rd at 9 a.m. No, June.

June 23rd.

Yep, June 23rd, 9 a.m. All right. Thank you for going through that. I figured this would be a nightmare to do through that computer thing.

Yeah, probably.

There's not an address, but it's the corner of Patton Road and County Highway V. Although there might be a parking area on the other road to the west.

Couple miles west of the pink elephant.

When we set the agenda, we'll include a meeting spot with a map on it so everybody can gather at the same location and you can decide how you. Awesome. That sounds great.

Could you also include a pin for the directionally challenged?

Of course.

Thank you.

Oh, you had to say it was Pink Elephant, and I knew exactly where it was.

And then I'll call David Peterson and ask him to help me figure out how to use the PIN. But the PIN will be helpful.

Yay! 7199 Patton Road gets you right to that intersection of V and Patton.

Who's right there? Repeat, please.

Sorry, 7199 Patton Road.

Patton Road. Yep.

And that'll get you to the corner of Highway V and Patton.

And that says DeForest for me. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Yes. And in communication that it's a public meeting and they can attend, of course, but they might have clarity on the site or.

Right now? Okay.

It might be worth.

Do we want to hear from Mr. Wendt? He had raised his hand. I'll leave it up to the committee if they want to if we want to ask Mister went a question.

Remind the committee that the petition is not properly noticed on the agenda for the only the scheduling is OK so I think that.

Mister went has any. Okay, sweet. Maybe he accidentally did it. So I've done that. All right, do we have anything else on our agenda? No. Hand went back up. Okay, so we can't take any testimony right now.

I think if he has a question, perhaps.

We can answer a question, but yeah, we can't take any testimony. So Mr. Wendt, we're going to allow you to talk, but we can't take any testimony. If you have a question to ask, that's fine. If we can answer it, we will. If we can't answer it, we'll let you know. If you want to unmute. Mr. Wendt?

Is he by phone?

I don't know. If he's by phone, then what is it, star six? I can't even remember. Star six. I've never tried to. James Wendt, you are allowed to talk. If you have a question, we'll try to answer it if we are allowed. Is unmuted. Okay. All right, I'm going to ask for a third time. You have the opportunity to ask a question if you would like. Otherwise, you do know how to contact staff. All right. Thank you. All right. So other business authorized by law. The next item is adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

All right. We have a motion by Koenig to adjourn. And if there's no objections, I'd like to record that as having passed unanimously.