Zoning & Land Regulation Committee - Regular Meeting

I would like to call the 05/05/2026 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 either required to register via the Zoom meeting app at least thirty minutes prior to the meeting. Persons may also register in person prior to the meeting. You just go see Todd.

First off, I would like to introduce the committee members and staff. I'm Michelle Dulen, and I represent District 28. And with us is Supervisor David Peterson, who represents District 36, and Supervisor Jeffrey Kroning, who represents District 21, and supervisor Don Posler, who represents District 29, and supervisor Michelle Ritt, who represents District 18. Our staff members are planning and development director, Todd Violante, acting zoning administrator, Hans Hilbert, assistant zoning administrator, Rachel Holloway, Assistant Zoning Administrator, Dan Everson. And let's see.

I have one announcement prior to the action items on this agenda. The public should be aware that some individuals submitting zoning applications have received scam emails requesting payment on the county's behalf. So official correspondence from Dane County will always come from an email ending in dane county dot gov. Anyone who receives a suspicious email requesting payment is asked not to respond. Instead, please contact the planning and development office at area code (608) 266-4266.

The next item on the agenda is public comment for any items not listed on the agenda. If anybody would like to make comments for any items not listed on the agenda, please raise your hand, and you'll be allowed to speak. Right. And there's nobody registered for said item? Okay. I'm just making sure. Alright. The next item I have on the agenda is minutes of the oh, wait. Yeah. Guess we have election of officers. Yeah. We do have the election of officers. Okay. So that's wrong. Okay.

So we'll stop. Next item in the agenda is the election of the ZLR committee officers. The first one is for ZLR committee chair. So I'm going to ask, are there any nominations for chair? Supervisor Posler?

So I would like to nominate supervisor Michelle Doolin for ZLR chair.

Alright. Thank you.

And I'll second that.

Alright. We have a nomination by Hostler and a second by Kroning for supervisor Doolen, me, as chair. Are there any other nominations? I asked this three times. So are there any other nominations?

Am I supposed to step aside if this is like the thing we're voting? Okay, I'm just making sure. I don't want to do anything out of order. Alright. So nominations are closed. And since there's only one nomination, I would like to have this, unless there's any objections, have this recorded as having passed unanimously. Right. Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody's faith in me. All right. The next item is for the, nominations for vice chair. So are there any nominations for vice chair for ZLR? I would like to nominate, supervisor Jeffrey Kronig for

vice chair.

Right. So second time, are there any other nominations? Right. Third time, are there any other nominations?

Need a second? Or do we need a second? I don't

think for nominations. Technically,

no. Alright. Nominations are closed. And then if, unless there are any objections, I would like to have, the vote for Jeffrey Kronig for vice chair of the ZLR committee having recorded as having passed unanimously. Thank you very much.

Thank you,

Welcome, and thank you. Alright. The third item is secretary. So are there any nominations for secretary of ZLR committee?

You got part? Sure. I'll nominate David Peterson for

Okay. Secretary. So the nomination is for supervisor David Peterson. Are there any other nominations? For the third time, are there any other nominations? Nominations are closed. And since there's only one candidate to vote for, unless there's objections, I would like to have that recorded as having passed unanimously. Great. Thank you very much.

Congratulations to you all.

Yes. Thank you. Alright. Now that we are organized, technically, we'll go on to item item d, the minutes of the previous meeting. May I have a motion to approve 03/24/2026 ZLR committee meeting minutes?

I'll move to approve.

Alright. We have a motion to approve by supervisor Kronig. We have a second.

Posler seconds.

We have a second by Posler. Alright. Are there any corrections, comments, or discussion about the minutes?

Sure.

Yes.

And we, noted as, abstaining.

Alright. We will note that, supervisor Peterson has abstained. Right. Right. All in so what we have is the emotion or motion and a second to approve. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Right. With the exception of the abstention, we have that put passing unanimously.

All

right. Our next item is public hearing. Before we begin, there are several items I need to go over with everyone. Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item must have registered at least thirty minutes in advance of this meeting if you're on Zoom. If you are wishing to speak on an agenda item, please go see Director Vialante, and he can get you registered for your item.

All registrants will be recognized when the agenda item is called before the committee. I will be calling each petition as they appear on the agenda. Staff will provide a brief summary of the proposal and then inform the committee of registrants. Any registrants wishing to speak will have five minutes to address the committee. Thank you.

The order of the for speakers for public hearing will be as follows. People speaking in support, then people speaking in opposition. People will have five minutes to speak. If there is opposition, the applicant will have an opportunity to rebut the opposition. If there are no speakers, the staff will provide a summary of the petition followed by committee discussion and action.

If there is public opposition by committee rules, the petition will be postponed to a subsequent meeting so that concerns can be analyzed. If there is no town action by committee rules, the petition will be postponed until the town has taken action. If there is no public opposition, we have town action, and there are no unresolved issues by staff or committee members. The committee may take action on the petition. If the committee acts on a rezone petition, the petition will be forwarded to the 05/14/2026 county board meeting.

If the petition is controversial, you might you might want to attend that board meeting. Committee action on conditional use permits is the final action by Dane County. However, decisions may still be appealed. If the committee postpones action on a rezoning or CUP petition, it will be scheduled for a future meeting of the ZLR committee of this ZLR committee. The next committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 26.

Alright. So our first petition is rezone petition 1200254, applicant Crazy Acres Inc. In the town of Albion.

Yes. So the applicants here, Craig Wileman, who would like to create one new residential lot, seven and a half acres in size with RR4 rural residential zoning. This is a part of a larger farm that he owns out there by abutting Highway 106 and Hillside Road in the township. This has no real concerns from a land standpoint, you know, in terms of land suitability, lot configuration. On its face is fine.

The only thing that we noted here at this stage of the process, we have the town recommending approval, which is good. We were anticipating, though, because of the the way the lot is laid out, it it seemed like it was proposed to have access onto Highway 106. But we learned a little bit late in the review that, in fact, the owner would prefer to have driveway access to this new lot off of Hillside Road, the town road just to the west. The proposal at at this moment was an access easement across the agricultural land. However, that would not meet our land division ordinance requirements from the chapter 75 ordinance, which would require that the driveway be located on the lot that the house would be built on.

So there's something to work out there yet. And they've also been in contact with the state DOT. It doesn't appear that there's a suitable access point there on that piece of Highway 106, then Hillside might be the safer option. So the applicants are going to go back and try to amend the petition by redrawing the lot such that it could get access and road frontage on Hillside Road. And we've also advised that they've confirmed with the township that they also approve of that modified proposal when we receive it. So for tonight, we're recommending postponement to allow the applicant more time to address the road access. We do have a registered in support Dan Higgs, the surveyor. He is available for questions on Zoom.

Alright. Alright. So committee, what we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of postponement due to the need to address road access properly. With that, would a committee member like to make a motion?

Make a motion for postponement.

All right. We have a motion to postpone by Kronig. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

Alright. We have a second by Posler. Is there any discussion, questions, or comments about this petition before the committee takes a vote? Alright. All in favor of postponement, say aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. That motion passes unanimously. Right. Our next petition is rezone petition 1200255. Applicant Scott Templeton in the town of Oregon.

Yes. Mister Templeton is proposing to divide his existing residential lot. It has shown on the map here r r four residential zoning or a lot between four and eight acres in size. He would divide off a piece to create one new residential lot. And as a result of the acreage change and the the size of each of the result the resulting lots, they would need to be rezoned to r r two, two to four acre rural residential zoning district.

This petition does have approval from the town. Town board is recommending approval with no conditions. We have no concerns from environmental or other standpoint. The existing buildings would continue to meet ordinance requirements based on the new lot lines, And we've received no public comments or concerns in opposition. We do have something to note here.

Oh, I wanted to mention for the benefit of our newer committee member that when we say no conditions on this according to ZLR committees adopted rules and procedures, that typically means that it would include the recording of the certified survey map, just to clarify that. But that's the only condition we're recommending on this. And we have Scott Templeton registered in support and available to answer questions.

Great. So what the committee has in front of them, again, is a recommendation of approval with no conditions other than the CSM being recorded. That would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Make a make I'll make a motion to recommend with recording the survey by survey map.

Yes. Recommend approval. Alright. So we have a motion to approve by Kronig. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Peterson. Is there any questions, comments, or discussion about this before the committee takes a vote? If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Our next petition is rezone petition twelve thousand two fifty six, AmbleLand LLC in the town of Oregon.

This is petition for AmbleLand was is requesting rezoning from for an existing lot, which is currently zoned LC Limited Commercial. And they're requesting GC General Commercial zoning. The reason here is not much of a change to the existing operation. It's a landscaping company. But they want to replace one of their existing shed buildings for the landscape company's use.

They've got a few different structures here on the property, and some of them were are just kind of older ag buildings. So to convert it for their use for the business, they would need the zoning to do that because their building footprint would exceed the 10,000 square feet maximum that the LC zoning district has. It is quite limited as the name implies. And so they basically already have stormwater management facilities on-site. They've got a driveway.

They have landscaping and screening. They provided a thorough application. The site was the property was deed restricted previously when it was when the commercial zoning was established here. So the other thing to mention in conjunction with this, they have submitted a conditional use permit application that was required under the current zoning for the amount of outdoor storage they would need for the business, which was approved, as well as a caretaker residence because the property contains a house over here on the East Side. But then that that needs to be updated based on the new zoning district that's being applied.

Also, the the documents from before are a little bit there's a a lot of overlap between the deed restriction that applies to the operation as well as the conditional use of the outdoor storage. So this is an also an opportunity to kind of simplify that and to handle the outdoor storage as part of the conditional use permit. All of the other things are likely to be handled under the, rezoning. But tonight before the committee is just the rezoning. The conditional use permit came in a little bit later, so that ended up being scheduled for your May 26 public hearing.

So the timing's a little bit funky, but, basically, the application is strong. The town board has recommended approval of their rezoning subject to a deed restriction. The only thing else to mention here, we have received comments in opposition from one of the neighbors, actually multiple neighbors. And so according to the committee's rules and procedures, you would typically postpone action on this, to allow time to, vet the concerns raised.

I'm gonna

try to pull those up here. Yes. We received an email from, Kathy Rizak, and that was and also Jean Hook asked to be kind of added to that that email. The concern there was primarily it's included in your packets here, but it was a concern with neighborhood character and that commercial zoning is and having a business here is incompatible with the surrounding area. And that's the the neighbors' concern, so that's for the committee's consideration.

So we're recommending postponement tonight on this due to the public opposition. This would also enable time we'll be continuing to work with town staff and the applicants on the specific language that they'd wanna see in any deed restriction or conditional use permit. When this comes back before you, we hope to have everything kind of buttoned up and see if there's anything a response to the concerns raised as well. Okay. And we have registered on this one. Don't know if he's registered, but he is present here. Kevin Grunvalsky, agent for the landowners. Okay.

Right. So what we have in front of us, committee, is the staff recommendation of postponement at this time due to public opposition in accordance with the ZLR committee's adopted rules and procedures, as well as clarifying language with the town's representatives and to address any concerns with this. So with that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

A motion for pope postponement.

Alright. A motion postponed by Kronig. Do we have a second?

Second.

A second by Peterson. Any questions, comments, or discussion about this petition before we take a vote? Right. If not, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Right. Motion carries. Right. Our next petition is rezone petition 12,257, which is actually is it it's withdrawn Yes. Of applicant, null and void, in the town of Verona.

Yes. There's no action needed on that petition. It has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Okay.

It's right before the meeting, so it's still on the agenda so the public would be aware of it.

So we can publicly state it has been withdrawn. Makes sense.

Alright. I did have a couple of registrants, sorry, for that item, but I did call them this afternoon to inform them that it was withdrawn. So I believe Right. They're not not looking to speak on it.

Okay. Right. So our next petition is rezone petition 1200258. Dale G. And Diane M. Health revocable trust in the town of Dane.

Yes. The health of this rezone petition before you to create a residential and agricultural lot. This would be separating an existing farmstead and several outbuildings from the rest of the farm, but the idea is to continue to use this as for a dairy operation. This would be going to the the owner's son. Mhmm.

So you could have that as his property. The proposed zoning here, because of the amount of buildings, the fact that they're intended for livestock use, residential zoning wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for that. So we've looked at the farmland preservation business zoning for this that would enable the the intended use. It would also enable the landowner to qualify for tax credits as as continuing to be operating as a farm. We had no concerns with the lot configuration meeting ordinance requirements.

They do have as well a nutrient management plan on file with land and water resources. That's for manure handling and making sure that there aren't environmental problems associated with manure storage and spreading. So they're already all set as far as that goes. This also has Village Of Danes extraterritorial jurisdiction over the land division, which would occur as part of the certified survey map review. We had no environmental concerns.

The town board is recommending approval with no conditions, and we are recommending approval tonight with, in this case, subject to the recording of the certified survey map and having a nutrient management plan on file with land and water resources. So that if that's approved, that condition would continue to be on the record. So should ownership of the lot change or something that's K. Flagged as a a need.

Alright.

Oh, excuse me. We have registered in support Dale or Diane Heldt. I think both of them might be available on Zoom if you have questions. Okay.

Looks like they are on Zoom. Alright. With that, we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of approval subject to the recording of the CSM and keeping the nutrient management plan on file with land and water. That would a committee member like to bring forth the motion?

Yeah. I'll I'll make a motion to approve with the recording of the CSM and providing a nutrient management plan with land and water.

Alright. We have a motion to approve with the two mentioned conditions by supervisor Kronig. Do we have a second?

Second. We

have a second by Peterson. Any comments, discussion? Yes. Supervisor Posler.

Yes, madam chair. I'd like to be recorded as abstaining, due to my other role with

the village of Dane.

Right. So let's record that as disclosures and abstention. Noted. Thank you. Alright. Any other questions, comments, or discussion before we take a vote? Alright. If not, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Alright. Our next petition is rezone petition 1200259. Wendy Turner and Yatin Shivanapa. I hope I said that correctly.

It's fine.

Okay. Yes.

The applicants here have a petition to rezone an existing residential lot in the town of Middleton. The current lot has SFR eight, single family residential zoning, and the proposal would be to rezone it to RR2, rural residential. The only difference there is that the RR2 would allow for livestock use, very limited because of the lot size, of course. But the idea here is that they actually have a farm operation out in the countryside and occasionally have an orphaned lamb or calf. They would like the ability to bring that animal in those situations to their property so that they could provide continuous care.

It's kind of a high need period of time if that situation occurs, and so this would enable them to do that. But it doesn't seem like it would substantially change the character of the property. This has been through the town of Middleton's review as well. The town board has recommended approval of the rezoning. No conditions on that. We saw no no conflicts with the land use plan or anything environmental. It's a unique unique zoning in this part of the town, so there's no no concerns to raise at the staff level. And we have Mr. Krishnapo here in person available and in support of the petition. Alright.

What we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of approval with no conditions. So with that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Make a motion to approve, but no conditions.

Alright. We have a motion by Cronin to approve. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

A second by Posler. Is there any questions, comments, or discussion before we take a vote? Right. If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Right. Motion carries. I'm sorry. I left off the last part of your name, mister Krishnata.

Perfectly fine. No worries, though.

Alright. The next petition is rezone petition 1200260. Premier core cooperative care of Matt Severson in the town of Mesomeni.

Since petition was submitted by a premier cooperative, this would be to expand an existing agricultural co op facility on Highway 14 near Meso Mene. They're looking to acquire about five and a half acres of the surrounding farmland to allow for construction of additional buildings and basically just expand the current operation. They're working through permitting with public health as far as the sanitary waste and water well, which would be updated or replaced, is my understanding. Everything would fit on-site. We had no concerns with the site plan in terms of its configuration, meeting ordinance requirements.

A couple of things that we do want to note on this one. You can see here in the map that the proposed lot, it doesn't extend all the way to the highway here. So it does leave a little bit of a gap between what would be the front of the property and the highway. Not necessarily a big deal, but in our land division ordinance, we know that there is a requirement that lots that get created or anything being modified under that ordinance has to have at least 66 feet of width. The intent is often to enable future road access, but in practice, it means that we make sure that every property has at least 66 feet of width when a new land division is coming in.

In this case, the gap is a little bit narrow. It would be about 50 feet, so we recommend that they make an adjustment on that. In discussion so far, they they seem agreeable to that. The other item here is that it's an existing facility. It's been here for several decades, but there are some residentially zoned properties across the highway, a couple of homes fairly close in proximity. The Chapter 10 ordinance requires some visual screening when commercial zoning is applied adjacent to residentially zoned properties. In this case, it's across the highway. However, it is a fairly big facility. It's lit up. It's got tall structures, not exactly low lying buildings.

By staff's reading of the ordinance, we feel that screening is required here based on how that reads in Chapter 10. So there would be a need for some landscaping. That also kind of reinforces the idea that this if they expand the lot to bump it out closer to the highway, they would have some room there to add that screening because the site plan as is is fairly tight in terms of where they draw the proposed lot line. So again, if they adjust that area and are willing to add some screening, that would meet the ordinance requirement for that. We did not feel a need to recommend a screening on the existing portion of the site because there's so much there in terms of building improvements, driveways that didn't seem practical to apply that in our view.

Plus, it's an existing condition that this would simply be nonconforming to that that ordinance requirement today. There is no conflicts with the town land use plan. The town board has recommended approval of the rezone with the condition that future site plans must follow the all town and county zoning ordinances when it comes to screening along Highway 14. And so that's significant because in Chapter 10, there is language that would allow ZLR to waive the screening requirements, but it also ties it in with town board. So I'd say the town board and ZLR could waive this if you make certain findings.

In this case, the town board did not waive that requirement. They specified that it must be met. So I've discussed that with the applicant's agent and just mentioned that I would present that tonight for your information. That's also included in the materials in your packet. So we're recommending, excuse me, approval tonight with some conditions that are laid out in the staff report.

One would be that the lot boundary be adjusted to either go right up to the highway right of way line or or widen it so that they provide at least 66 feet. They could make some adjustments there on the final certified survey map and still be within the intent of what's presented here. Second, that the site shall be developed in according to the site plan they submitted for this rezone petition. Three, that landscape screening shall be required according to section of Chapter 10 for the portion of the lot being expanded, specifically the western lot line along Highway 14, so just that one area. In our view, we feel it would be appropriate if they just provided that on-site plans that they submit for zoning permits, as long as that's it would track with what's presented here.

Number four, that site lighting be installed according to the lighting plan they submitted. They did rework the lighting plan at the time of application to really tone it down, even the existing lighting, because that that's something we have heard from the a neighboring landowner across the highway about that it's brightly lit. And so we worked with them to see if there was something they could do there to make it more code compliant with modern standards, like downcast not shining out on the highway to the extent possible. Number five, that the refuse dumpsters shall be placed east of the new building on a concrete pad away from public view. That's if they propose it, so no concern there.

Sixth, the applicants record a termination of restrictions, basically nullifying the current restrictions on there from previous years when they got commercial zoning. We recommend a new deed restriction that basically has the same type of language as the current one, but matches our current day zoning ordinance in terms of the land uses allowed. So we just we would recommend it specify that land use would be limited to basically the current style of operation, the ag and accessory uses, not livestock, but specifically grain, agriculture, agronomy, product storage, etcetera. You could see the list there. That covers what they're currently doing.

And, also prohibiting the installation of billboard off-site signage by other businesses. And, we have registered for this item, Arlen Ostring, the agent for the applicants, and I believe Matt Seberson as well from Premier Co op.

Alright. Thank you very much. Welcome. Sounds like you did your diligence there on this I'm sorry. I talked a lot. No. That's important. Alright. So what we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of approval subject to seven conditions as listed in the packet. With that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Make a motion to approve along with the conditions listed in the packet.

K. So we have a motion by Peterson to approve with seven conditions. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

We have a second by Posler. Any questions, comments, or discussion about this petition before the committee yes.

Sure. I was just curious from staff. On point one, I would just out of sheer curiosity, were they leaning one way or the other?

I thought Arlen mentioned today they they might want to provide the 66 feet and leave a gap there. Oh, I see Matt has raised his hand.

Excellent. Thank you. Okay. I want to talk. Alright.

Okay. I'm sorry. Can can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. Sorry about that. Yeah. We have we have no issues on the staff report on the 66 feet. We can that should not be an issue getting that expanded.

What I would like to just ask for the committee's consideration is the just for a comment on the screening. Seeing as that it's it's only gonna be a fraction of the property when it's all put together now, what it what it really is gonna do is gonna cover up our bulk propane storage and not the rest of the property. The screening is gonna and our bulk propane storage does, you know, well, one thing, it's our it's our company billboard for one thing. You can see the two tanks up there in the Northwest corner. You know, another thing that the screening does, you know, it prevents a visible line of sight into the property.

You know? And I guess just kind of my view on being able to see from the highway into the property is, you know, a more visible site is, you know, less likely to have unwanted guests in the site. You know, different times of the season, we have we may be going almost twenty four hours a day, but, you know, it's unknown with behind bins, whatever it might be. But there's a lot of traffic goes by that site. It's less likely to get people up in there if you can see up through the site when you're driving by.

And seeing as how the screening is gonna cover, you know, less than maybe twenty five percent of the front, Just asking for consideration if it's necessary on that portion now.

Alright. Thank you. Is there any other questions?

I do have a question. This also concerns the screening. So when you say screening, is that like a fence that you can't see through? Or what's entailed with screening?

Yeah. Good question. Specifically, vegetative screening, so landscape plantings, presumably rows of trees. The ordinance gets pretty specific, although I've I have not seen it used yet. That's just because of the nature of the petitions that we see. Yeah. I'll pull it up right here. So it'd have to be about 15 feet of depth parallel to areas used for vehicles or buildings. There's some, like, rows planted 10 feet apart, trees every 12 feet. So within that area, that's about kinda has specifics for spacing like that.

But and then the the township, they they put it in their conditions that they wanted the screening.

Yes. And I have not had further discussion with the town. I simply got the town action report and forwarded it on and included that in the staff comments.

Thank you. I

do have some questions about that, since it does not seem to be that there's a defined plan, and there seems to be some conflicting interest. I'm wondering if it would be better to postpone until further discussion. Or if we codify this, they would have to put the screening in. There would be no discussion. Correct?

I think that is true. I did discuss with the applicant this afternoon. It's this language here that had me hung up. I I didn't see really wiggle room. The reason it's written that way, at least as staff's recommendation, for you to consider it. Says, if the town board and zoning committee find that there will be no significant visual impact or no negative impact on neighborhood or rural character from the proposed use, the town board and zoning committee may approve alternate plans or waive the screening requirements entirely. So there's some wiggle room built in, but the way it's written, it reads to me like you'd have to have town board and ZLR agreeing that you could waive it or modify that requirement, Right. Given the way the town board action came in, the fact that they weren't silent about it. If were silent about it, I would have reached out to the town and said, did you care about screening, or did you consider it

just to find out? But that's what we have. My concern is the fact that I mean, I I drive by that every day on my way home. That little bit of area is not gonna screen I mean, you've got these green elevators and I mean, it's lit up like Christmas, you know, three sixty five. Buildings. Can't so I don't understand how a row of trees in that little tiny spot is going to make much of an effective difference. So it's that whole letter of the law as opposed to the intention of the law. And I'm hesitant to codify this without further discussion with that. I don't know how the other committee members feel.

I guess I have a question for the applicant.

Yes. Go ahead.

Yep. If we did postpone this, would you, go back and approach the town the town board about this? It it kinda seems like we can't really waive it unless the town waives it as well.

Is it is it possible that you can waive it on condition that the town waives it so so the so we don't delay any further. Is that a possibility?

Is that possible?

Okay. It's clue g, but you can

Can we make that, like, another condition? Yeah.

I was gonna say

I mean we can

You know, instead of

Yeah.

Instead of delaying another you know, because we could be dependent on how meetings fall. You know, we could miss another meeting or another month

Yes.

Case.

Okay. What what I would suggest if you feel that the committee wants to waive this, that you take that action tonight and we have a record of that. And then if at a later time the town board also waives that requirement, we could issue the zoning permits subject to that waiver. Otherwise, it would stay with what the ordinance says is required, and it would be an an administrative review of whatever landscaping screening plan came forward at that time.

Yeah. That's I guess that's what I would ask. You know, if this committee would would approve the waiver, And if they don't, then that's fine. You know, then it would stay how what you approve. But if they would approve it, then it would be conditional upon what the what the town would look at after the fact.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Severson.

Yeah. I appreciate that.

So we would have to probably make a motion to amend. So if a committee member would like to propose an amendment to this if they're comfortable.

Yes. So I will make a motion to amend this to how are we gonna do this? Add a condition? Or what's the best way to amend

this? We could approve it. Well, you could amend the mo well, we could either re withdraw the motion and then amend it to, like, exclude the condition number three.

I I don't think you have to amend the motion. It simply states that the landscape screening shall be required per the ordinance citation that also includes the waiver language if as long as your motion included that the ZLR supports the waiver. Okay.

Okay. So And

you can either support the waiver entirely or require a landscape plan. So I would clarify that if your intent is to waive it completely, that you do that.

Or do you want an amendment, or should I just amend my original motion?

I mean, it would just be effectively, I think both would be an amendment. So just

so I'm not parliamentarian, so I just

So the the I I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the amendment would be, you know, the motion to approve the waiver. And then the overarching, then once we do that, we could approve the, petition as amended by the waiver.

I hope. I'll make a motion to approve the waiver language in which one? It's condition number three? Yes. Yes. I think

so. Where is it?

Based on findings, like as chapter 10, do we need that? I think based on the purpose of visual screening for the overall

based on the purpose of the visual screening, Personally, yeah.

You should find that there's no significant visual impact.

Correct. Yeah. Alright, so let's get that language down.

Approve

a motion I guess I'm unclear on the so we have original motion by Peterson, second by Posler to approve this, then there's discussion. Right. We had a motion by Kronig to amend. Do we need a second on that?

I'm trying to remember. To amend by approving the waiver.

Based on a finding that there would be no significant visual impact or negative impact on neighborhood or rural character Correct. By waiving that?

Yeah. For screening of that K. Amount. And then I'll second that.

Okay. Clarification question then. It didn't quite follow before what the idea was how this would

We have to vote on the amendment. Okay. And then we go

back to

Go back and vote on the

Amended.

Amended motion. The amended petition.

And then would this need to go back to the town board? No.

If That's why I'm a

little fuzzy.

The applicant would have to go back to the town board. If they've got approval, then they can go forward without the screening.

Yeah. Thank you. Correct. Yeah. It basically puts the ball back in his court.

And that will be administered at the time of permitting.

Yep.

Good. Sweet.

Alright. Alright. So our motion in front of us is to approve their their waiver with the findings of fact that the visual screening creates no significant benefit for this petition. So with that, I will take a vote committee, and I need feel like we don't see supervisor writ anymore, and I don't like that. So

You can't see me?

Well, I can see you now. It's just that you didn't pop up. You were

She

The the view was Exactly. Okay. I'm like, I can see here. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So we're voting on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. So now we can discuss the overall petition again if we want. And if not, we can vote on the motion as amended by the Kronig amendment. So all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right. Motion carries. Rarely get that in DLR, so, you know. Thank you everybody for your discussion.

Invade this. Here we go. Alright. Our next petition is rezone petition 1200261. Joshua and Rebecca Eastmead in the town of Burke.

And just to clarify, there is a land division waiver associated with this result petition that needs to be taken up prior to the result petition.

Okay.

And I will insert myself and provide the committee my report with regards to the land division waiver.

Okay. Let's see. Where's the land division waiver? I don't know which item that is.

Your g, item twenty twenty six l d two.

Okay. So do we have a motion to suspend the rules and take this out of order item g

So moved.

For the this particular thing? Isn't it the Eastneed one? So land division o two twenty twenty six.

So moved.

Okay. Moved by Peterson. Second. Seconded by Kroning. Unless there's any objections, I'd like to have this recorded as passing unanimously. Right. That passes. Alright. So this one is coming forth now. Go for it.

Yeah. The landowners, the East Meads, submitted a two lot certified survey map for review. This is located in the town of Burke. Section three, they're looking to divide their existing, residential property into two lots, and this is also associated with the rezone petition 12/1961. The existing lot is zoned r r four, rural residential.

Just to provide a little background, the current lot was recorded, on 01/25/1985, separating the existing home and associated, buildings at 6140 Portage Road. And currently, the lot has a little over 66 feet of frontage along Portage Road. The new proposal shows Lot 1 having all the frontage and Lot 2 having no frontage. Therefore, the landowners have re, have submitted a land division waiver in order to create a lot without road frontage. Access to the new Lot 2 is through a new 66 foot shared access easement mapped on an adjacent lot under the ownership of Francis Hoffman.

I'm gonna touch on a little bit with resource protection or the comprehensive plan. There are no sensitive environmental features, with the subject property. The comprehensive plan, this is also in city of Madison's extraterritorial jurisdictional review. They do allow for a onetime land division as long as the lot has, over five acres. City of Madison did provide, comments.

I'll just state what Tim Parks stated. Any division of this five acre or larger parcel into two lots for single family purposes was going to be challenging because of the existing unique parcel configuration, which predates the cooperative plan. If the proposed certified survey map passes muster with the town and county, the city will sign it for recording like we have dozen or more in the town of Burke. And then I'm gonna get into the decision making, what chapter 75 states, Land division regulations. In approving or disapproving any plat or certified survey map, the committee shall apply the standards set forth in this section.

75.196 b basically states that when you create a lot, you have to have a minimum of 66 feet of road frontage. And then variances under 75.21, where the committee finds that unnecessary hardships may result from strict compliance with these, regulations. It may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done. Town action, they approved the town of Burke approved the rezone petition on April 21. And then staff recommendation, in summary, the shared access easement provisions found within chapter 75 does allow for lots to be created with no public road frontage as long as one of the proposed lots has 66 feet of frontage.

This proposal does not meet those standards. Some planning staff, is recommending that if the 66 foot shared access easement is to be located an adjacent lot, then that lot should be included within the new certified survey map and the provisions of 75.19 parent eight met. And that is specifically for creating lots without road frontage, but at least one of the lots has to have the sixty six sixty six feet of road frontage. The lots all have to be residentially zoned. In this case, the landowner is basically submitting a two lot CSM, and then the shared access easement is gonna be on the adjacent neighboring property.

My suggestion is that the waiver is to be denied. And if the landowner chooses to include or should include the neighbor's lot where the shared driveway is going to be to access their new lot, that's how it should be done.

So just to clarify Yes. The applicant is proposing to have a shared easement on non on property that is not their own.

Yeah. So Lot 1 And 2 is the is the proposed certified survey map. This is the the reconfiguration of their current lot where Lot 2 does not have any road frontage, and then the access to Lot 2 will be on the neighbor's property. Their, the surveyor is showing a 66 foot access easement on the neighbor's property. And so my suggestion is is to do a three lot CSM and do the shared access easement that chapter 75 allows for. So

Just trying to think of when you suggest a neighbor does this, why isn't the neighbor part of this?

Interestingly enough, there is I think the landowner is online tonight.

Zoom. Yes.

Yeah.

We have not heard from her or have received any written confirmations that she is on board with this so far. Okay. She has a hand raised as

well. Yeah. I would I guess I do have

I have no idea if if the adjacent landowner is approving or not happy. I I I have not

I would not be comfortable with

I've not had any communication with, with a with a neighbor. Okay.

So do we wanna ask questions of the landowner committee?

No. The applicants for this, land division waiver chose not to attend the public hearing tonight. So Ms. Hoffman is the only

Okay. So that's the that is the property owner the neighbor? The neighbor. Correct. She's the neighbor. Okay.

That's that's a clarification.

Like what? Sorry. Yes. I I think I would like to hear from the neighbor if there's no objections.

I would too.

Okay. Mhmm. Yes. Let's give her approval. Allowed to talk.

Hello, miss Hoffman. She you're muted, so you need to unmute. Okay. Excellent. Hello.

Hi. I think there's some confusion on two counts. I recently deeded my interest in the property to my nephew, Perry Halgan Perry l Halgan. And both he and my brother-in-law who have an interest in this property, Yes. My my understanding is they do not want a shared driveway.

Okay. And

I had hoped that my nephew would be online too, Harry L. Hogan. But that is my understanding that we are not in agreement on having a shared driveway.

Well, I appreciate your input and for attending on behalf of them then. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. You're welcome.

This has been quite a involved, you know, discussion with the neighbors and so on. But I we just are not in favor of the shared driveway.

Alright. Thank you for your input.

You're welcome.

Alright. So what we have in front of us is a proposal that does not meet the standards of chapter 75. So

Yeah. So my recommendation is to deny the land division waiver.

Mhmm.

And then, Rachel can, provide a little background of the rezone petition, but that

Mhmm. Okay. So what we do have is, staff recommendation of denial of the land division waiver.

Hosser moves denial.

Alright. We have a motion to deny by Posler. Do we have a second? Second. Alright. We have a second by Kronig. Any other discussion, questions, or comments about the land division? If not, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. So motion passes unanimously. I need to change this view because I need it's driving me bananas. Sorry.

Thought it was the one we usually use, but it's

We usually have a band across the top, and I cannot make

it. Gallery?

Yeah. Well, I can't. What's going on here? It's not giving me the option.

So one of the Zoom controls?

Yeah. But video conference, There's no, like I thought it was oh, right there. Okay. Yeah. But

There's no view.

There's no view. I thought it was here. Oh, wait.

There you are.

View. View. Alright. It's thumbnail. There you go. There we go. Mail and share. Right. Thumbnail and share. One? There. Now we can see supervisor red all the time and not just when nobody's talked for a while. And there we go. Okay. Thank you. All right. So now we can circle back to the the rezone petition 12/1961 applicant Joshua and Rebecca Eastmeat in the

town of Berth. Alright. So this rezone petition, Dan described it very well. So yeah, repeat what they're trying to do here. But the proposal was to rezone part of the property to r r one rural residential because that would be possibly exactly one acre, although that also was a little bit cutting it close.

Not quite sure if that was going to meet that requirement. We were coming into the meeting here recommending postponement simply because this access issue was the main main concern we had. The town of Burke recommended approval with no conditions, but we've we've advised the applicants on many, you know, all the options we could think of, everything they floated, and this is what they submitted. So we were going to recommend postponement, but in light of the waiver being denied and the information provided by Ms. Hoffman tonight on the adjacent property, staff would recommend denial of this rezone petition.

I think based on two two reasons, one being that the ZLR just denied the waiver request for the land division ordinance requirements for lot frontage, and two, that the neighbor has expressed objection to the shared driveway proposal.

Alright. Alright. What we have in front of us oh, do we have anybody the applicants aren't here. Are they? No.

They did not attend tonight. Okay.

Okey dokey. So what we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of pro postponement for all the obvious reasons.

Comment or denial? Denial.

Denial? Oh, okay. Yeah. Change of recommendation. Okay. Staff recommendation of denial.

Motion for denial.

Alright. We have a motion by Kroning for denial. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

We have a pass or a a Posler sec a second by Posler. Whoo. Alright. We have a second by Posler. Any further discussion, questions, or comments about this before we take a vote? If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Alright. Our next petition is rezone petition 1200263, R and J Acres LLC, Bill Schmid in the town of Verona.

Alright. Mercifully, you want an easy one next? Won't have as much to say. Okay. Mister Schmid submitted this rezone petition. This would be effectively a land swap between adjacent owners. They're all family in this area. They would be adding some land that's ag land currently zoned AT35 agricultural transition, adding it onto an existing lot that's zoned RR16. So just make that lot a little bit larger. No development or changes of land use are proposed as a result of this petition.

And we have no concerns from an environmental standpoint or town plan standpoint, lot configuration, etcetera. But on this one, do not yet have town action. I feel I can check for one moment. I'm just gonna check my inbox. The town meeting is actually today, so I did wanna allow for that. No. I don't see any town action having come in. So this time, we need to recommend postponement due to no town board action, but staff has no concerns. And we do not oh, we have Paul Spetz registered in support of this petition as the surveyor for the landowners. Okay.

Thank you. Welcome. Alright. What we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of postponement due to no town action. That, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Motion to postpone.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig to postpone. We have a second.

Poster seconds.

Second by Postler. Any discussion, questions, or comments about the petition before we take a vote? Right. Not all in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Motion carries. Alright. Our next position, rezone petition 1200264 by Dawn M. Schroeder in the town of Vienna has been withdrawn. So I just wanna make note of that because it was on the agenda. Is there any speakers that had to be informed?

No. Not for that one.

Alright. Thank you very much. Alright. Our next petition is rezone petition twelve thousand two sixty five. Applicant, town of Primrose on behalf of multiple owners. And location, the town of Primrose.

Yes. This this petition is coming before the committee. As returning members are aware, we're doing a sort of a housekeeping on our zoning maps. Since in 2019, the county zoning ordinance was completely overhauled after many decades. It was modernized.

New zoning district names were assigned. The maps were all updated for every township under county zoning jurisdiction. That mostly tracked very well, and most properties got a comparable zoning to what they had previously. However, there are some, sometimes due to things that were in process during the time that change happened or for other reasons, we occasionally find properties that are mismatched or have zoning that doesn't appear to match either the perhaps it's a lot size or the the use of the property, And to avoid creating more conflicts for landowners and unwanted surprises, we're trying to do some proactive town by town review of the zoning maps, identifying things that are mismatched so we can update that and just get more more suitable zoning on the properties where where that is noticed. In this case, the town of Primrose.

So our senior planners are leading these efforts, doing a lot of work with the townships as well as landowners to communicate about this, identify potential properties to be rezoned. We have a list of let's see. It started. Oops. Sorry. I have to pull up a separate one here. We started with, I think, list of about 15 parcels that gets modified in the course of the town's review that has happened here. I just wanna mention tonight. So we have 17 parcels currently on the list scheduled for rezoning. But then close to this meeting, we identified a few different parcels that don't actually, in fact, seem like good candidates for rezoning.

Some of these, and we've struck through them in the list here. So parcel you know, third one on the list was scheduled to go from UTR, like a utility type of zoning district, to FP 35. Another one, number six on the list, was scheduled to go from FP 35 to FP one just based on the size of the property. And two others here are tied with the third on the list that were they're actually part of the platted is it Mount Vernon out there? It's a very super old plat from prior to Wisconsin statehood, I think.

There's some fragments out there. It's a little bit odd, but because they're platted lands, that puts them into a different category. We feel like it's not appropriate to rezone those at this time for that district. So we're proposed striking those from the list. That would leave us with 13 parcels being rezoned. When I've if you want paper copies, I can distribute this list too if anybody would like that. Thank you. But we do have town board. This our plan has been coordinating with the town clerk on this. The town action, I think, is holding.

They're recommending approval. So this is ready for ZLR action tonight, based on the amended parcel list if you choose to approve this. I apologize. The supervisor read I did not email out this list, but if you have any questions or would like to see this differently,

I can do them. Excellent. I would like to thank staff for taking care of this. You know, there's a lot of work to be had and not a lot of extra work resources, but this will make things go smoother in the future. So that's incredible work you're doing for people. Alright. So let's see. Where are we? So, yeah, we have a recommendation of approval with no conditions.

Can make a note

with the

With the revised list.

The revised list. Okay. And we have nobody registered either in support or opposition to this. Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to approve based on the list presented tonight.

Alright. We have a motion by Peterson to approve with the revised list. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Kronig. Any questions, comments, or discussion before we take a vote?

So the parcels that are struck, are they just gonna stay where they're at? Or

Yes. They would just not be rezoned. Okay.

And they're all in districts that are appropriate for their lot size and use, so shouldn't affect anything. It just didn't work to go to the sending districts in that case. Sounds good.

Alright. Alright. If there isn't any further discussion, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Alright. Our next, petition is CUP2699, SN Windy Acres LLC, Scott Neeber in the town of Springdale.

Yes. Mister Neeber submitted this petition. This would be renewing an existing conditional use permit that he has for tourist or transient or tourist lodging, aka short term rental. There's a duplex home here with two units, one of which the applicant lives in. The other half of the duplex, the other unit, he would like to rent out for short term rentals or continue renting out. This was originally approved in 2020. It was renewed again in March 2024. The town, of Springdale had put a two year expiration on that conditional use permit, so requiring him to come back if he wants to continue renting it. So that's why it's before you again. In this case, the town has seen fit to approve it.

They recommend this with conditions reflected in the staff report and removing the two year expiration that they had placed on it previously. So if it's approved tonight, this would continue in perpetuity as long as he continues to use the property in that manner and doesn't discontinue the rental operation for more than one year. So we have town action. For conditional use permits, this is outlined in the staff report as well. But as you most of you know here, the committee would typically make a motion to make findings of fact as to whether the proposal meets the eight conditional use permit standards in our ordinance.

Actually, seven of those only apply. It's not farmland. Right. If you believe it meets those standards, we would recommend approval. And that is with several conditions. 31 here, 13 of those are kind of the stock or standard conditions from chapter 10. The others are specific to this use and coming from the town of Springdale, limiting hours, vehicles, number of guests, things of that nature. Basically, the same conditions as before.

Excellent. Right. And And I

see Scott is on Zoom in support here of the petition.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. So what we have in front of us is the recommendation. Does committee make findings effect as to whether the proposal meets the eight the seven applicable standards for approval with the 31 conditions listed in the report. And the fact that the, removing the two year expiration speaks well of the applicants, you know, being a good neighbor in their venture. I I personally believe. So with that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

I'll move to approve the petition based on findings of fact that the petition meets the standards of the conditional use permits with the 31 conditions.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig to approve with 31 conditions. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

The second by Posler. So any questions, comments, or discussion about the petition before we take a vote? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries.

Alright. Our next petition is CUP 2,700. Alan G. And Laura S. Brinegg, revocable living trust in the town of Roxbury.

Yes. The Brineggs per request a conditional use permit for a farm residence. We see these occasionally, special category in our zoning ordinance for residences owned or lived in by someone who owns or operates a farm. In this case, they they have a larger farm operation, but they're looking to basically create a a smaller 40 acre farm for for their son, Dexter and Tessa for an egg, so that they could have build a home here and have their own farm really as kind of part of the larger family farm. So no land would be rezoned as part of that effort, but they've designated an area for the residents here.

They've I would note they've also been working with county staff on permits related to the earthwork that would be needed. There's a pond here you can see, so there's some Shoreland zoning involved. They've been working with Hans quite a bit on that to really do everything right and ensure that there would not be adverse impacts associated with the construction of the residence. We've reviewed it according to the standards in our ordinance. The town board is recommending approval.

The town board noted they feel the COP would go along with the town plan, and approving it will prove prevent the parcel from becoming rural residential for an extended period of time. They feel that they also wanted to document that one development right or split would go with this property. So that's reflected in the conditions here. We recommend approval if the committee finds that this meets the conditional use permit standards. We're recommending approval here with 16 total conditions.

These reflect that in chapter 10 zoning ordinance, a farm residence has to involve excuse me, expires upon sale of the property to an unrelated third party that's just kind of built into the that land use that would require you know, there there's ways to address that if it were ever sold in that manner. Language about revoking the CUP if there was ever a violation, that's not typically relevant to farm residences, but it's in there. And then we also wanted to document in here, these would have to go as part of a deed notice recorded on the property that's also specified in Chapter 10. But we would recommend adding in the sentence in that deed notice that when the housing density rate goes along with this property just to document where the splits went. That's really helpful for future for us and landowners to know where the splits went.

So that's all I have to say on that one. We have registered in support. And I believe wishing to speak, we have Atessa Brynag and Dexter Brynag. And then other family members, Laurie and Al, are also registered in support and available for questions.

Right.

And they're in person.

Okay.

Alright.

So what we have in front of us, committee, is the staff recommendation to make findings effect as to whether the proposal meets the standards and to, if so, recommend approval with the 16 conditions listed in the report. So with that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Make a motion to approve based on finding the fact that the petition meets the standards for the conditional use permit with the 16 conditions.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig, you know, approval with the 16 conditions. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

We have a second by Posler. Any questions, comments, or discussion?

Guess I do have a so this petition, it it allows for the building of a resident a farm residence plus one other split is available?

No. The construction of the farm residence would use one of the splits.

Oh, that would use it? Yeah. I'm good.

Alright. You're good? Alright. Any other questions or discussion? If not, we'll take a vote. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Can you

believe that baby slept through this whole

I know.

That's behaving. That

was devotion. Well done. It's good to expose your baby to government early. All right. Our next petition is not this one. We already did that one. Okay. Our next petition is CUP2701, Kevin and Gloria Billings in the town of Blooming Grove.

Yes. Mr. Billings submitted this conditional use request for short term rental, transient or tourist lodging for the existing home here. This is in a subdivision that was developed in the 1960s, So that is relevant for what we'll talk about here. We had nothing no concerns with the proposal overall except that for any short term rental request that comes before the committee, if the home is on well and septic, we need to make sure that the septic system is adequately sized for the number of guests that are proposed.

In this case, they would they would have six guests. The septic I mean, to our knowledge, it's still working. It's functioning. But, public health does not actually have very much documentation for the system because of its age. So in that one, we weren't able to easily verify without somebody going out to the site and actually doing some digging, you know, checking the system to make sure that it's functioning and has the capacity to serve the guests.

So at this time, we don't have that verification yet, but my understanding is the landowner is looking into that. Just takes a little time to work through that. So apologies, but that's not ready for action tonight. We're recommending postponement in this case to allow more time for the owner to verify the septic. Oh, but I I forgot to mention the town board recommends approval of the conditional use as well. We have nobody registered in opposition. We have mister Billings here if you have questions.

So just a question. I'm assuming I mean, in order to get a short term rental permit, I mean, health will have

to test septic, correct, or check on that? I think they require that in order to issue the license. Yeah, they do have

to do a water test.

Yeah, so he'd have to get

it that in order to get

the public health license anyway.

Anyways? Okay. Just, you know track

in parallel with what they're doing with Thank public

you. Alright. We have the staff recommendation of postponements. So, with that, would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

Motion to propose. I'm the owner.

Okay. You have a question? Well, do we want to hear from we have we have a few.

Yeah. If you would like to come

in oh, yeah. We yeah. If you wanna come and have a seat right here up at the microphone. And you're Kevin?

Yeah. I'm Kevin.

K. Welcome.

I was wondering, the postponement, would that mean it couldn't be approved based on what we find with the septic and having it dealt with if we decide to deal with it.

I haven't seen that yet, but that

I don't know that that's

not possible. Recommend that the committee postpone this until that information is available for the committee to review because that's part of your answers to the questions on the application about this being a suitable land use. You state that it has a septic system that is will support this, and, you know, I have no reason not to believe that. But what the committee needs in order to make the findings before them is substantial evidence, and that's what we don't have at this point. So it would be out of order for the ZLR to put a condition on this without having that finding before them to to understand.

So once you have that, we can put you on a following, committee meeting, and there shouldn't be any other issues beyond that one identified. And I would imagine you'd get your approval at that time.

Thank you.

Alright. Does anybody have any questions for the speaker before you okay. Alright. So recommendation is to postpone until we have that available information. So what a committee member like to bring forth motion?

Motion to postpone? Yeah. Yeah. Make a motion to move to postpone.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig to postpone. We have a second.

Second.

We have a second by Peterson. Questions, comments, or discussion before committee takes a vote? Great. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Great. Motion carries. Alright. So we're down to item f, zoning map amendments and conditional use permits from previous meetings. We have rezone petition 1200140, Michael and Nancy Barth in the town of Christiana.

Yes. This petition has some interesting aspects. This was before the ZLR committee for a public hearing in February 2025. So it's unique in its age. It's it's been a little more than a year. If you recall so Kayla and Tyler Peppenfoss have bought this property from the Barths. We're in the process. Can't recall it. Closed on the property for their business, South Central Landscapes LLC, to locate here. And this proposal is for rezoning the property to HC Heavy Commercial.

It's currently RM 16. But to enable this type of business and the specifically the outdoor storage, that's one piece of it, although most of the materials would be indoors. The HC would fit with their business and what they're looking to do. So that's the district they requested. We discussed at the hearing several aspects of the proposal.

The main concerns with this was the property is unique, that it has some floodplain on it, some wetland. It's definitely got environmental factors to contend with. So the applicants, when they came before you for the hearing, we just didn't have enough information yet to really understand where is the floodplain. A flood study had to be done to really verify the extent and how much of the property is upland so that they knew where what kind of space they had to work in. They've done all that.

They've done a lot of due diligence on the property, had the flood study done. Try to be brief here, and then if you have questions, let me know. But they've basically, of the things they've followed up on since the February hearing, and we've had some staff updates to the committee, if you recall, in the intervening months. So they've continued to stay in contact with the county on this and work through it. They've obtained the access permit from Wisconsin DOT that would support the level of traffic they anticipate.

They did the floodplain study, as I mentioned, to establish the base flood elevation and ensure compliance with floodplain regulations. They hired soil testing, had an inspection with public health that verified soils are suitable for a mound septic system. They had prepared engineering plans, based on all of this, submitted that to Dane County Land and Water Resources to verify they'll have adequate room for stormwater management. So they're doing all of that. They've provided updated site and lighting plans, again, by the the site characteristics they found.

Lighting plans would meet county ordinance requirements, have fairly low levels of lighting, trying to minimize glare and impacts to neighboring lands. Proposed signage, that's been a little bit fleshed out in the revised proposal. So that would be a change from last year from what you would have seen. However, they're requesting less than the maximum that HC zoning would allow, a little bit more than what general commercial zoning would allow. So they're kind of in between there.

That kind of helped to blend it with the area a little better. They've also agreed restrictions to govern the future development and use of the property. Because HC zoning is fairly intensive, it really opens the door to a wide range of land uses. Whenever we see proposals for HC, it typically comes with some kind of deed restriction that the township can determine what they feel is appropriate for land uses, and county staff weighs in on that as well. Draft deed restrictions here were prepared by Roger Lane, our our previous zoning administrator.

He worked with them and I think brought that before the committee as well in a memo at one point. Worked with the applicants on that to hammer out what what they could all agree to to help this move forward. So there is agreement on that. That's included in the packet for your consideration as well. Long ago, we've had town board recommending approval of this.

The town is behind this proposal. They really do wanna see the business locate here. So I'll leave it at that. And unless the committee has questions for staff, we're recommending approval tonight conditioned on a deed restriction that basically limits land uses as listed, limits commercial development of the property to the seven acre area depicted on their site plan. That's the the upland area That does not prohibit stormwater management outside that area, but otherwise, other everything else would have to be in the box.

Limiting outdoor storage and outdoor display to the areas depicted on their site plan that they've carefully preparing that, limiting signage to what's proposed in terms of the number and and type, prohibiting billboards on the property, lighting plan according to the plans they submitted. Also, screening and landscaping shall be installed and maintained according to what they submitted in their plans. If you have questions, we are available for that. I'll just put their site plan up here. They have building plans, a lot of a lot of materials in your packet there so you can see. Right.

So I know there were some significant concerns from the heavy commercial aspect of this. Is there Yes. Been So do we believe that the conditions of the deed restrictions address those concerns adequately? Staff feels that they do. Yes. Okay.

I think I think it really reduces the intensive uses that would be allowed and and restricts the approval to what's being presented with future phases having to come back for additional approval. Okay. So I think that they're the restrictions are well crafted with the intent of really limiting it to the kind of retail storage uses that are being proposed.

Correct. Okay. Alright. My only question would be for the township. Why not we change your comprehensive plan to match your intentions with the restrictions? But,

know Town plans are often at

10,000 foot view. So that's just my concern. All right. So what we have in front of yes.

How conditions were there this?

These One.

Technically one condition, just the deed restrictions.

The deed restrictions. The deed are one condition. Okay. I do like the lighting. Like, it's clearly downcast and not gonna, you know, make the entire countryside glow. All right. So what we have in front of us is the recommendation of approval with the deed restrictions, correct? Right. Okay.

Pardon Sorry, procedurally, because it's been more than one year since the public hearing, I would ask first for a ZLR vote on a motion to suspend your rules to enable a vote on this because it's more than one year past the public hearing? I don't

think anybody could accuse these people of not working hard for the whole time.

Posler makes that motion to suspend the rules.

All right. We have a motion by Posler. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Kroning to suspend the rules. And unless there's any objection, I'd like to have that recorded as being passed unanimously. All right. Motion carries. All right. So now we get to vote on it. We're discussed. So we do we have a motion?

No. No. Sorry. I'll make a motion to approve with the recommended DEEP restrictions.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig to approve with the recommended DEEP restrictions. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Peterson. Any further discussion, questions, or comments before we take a vote?

Just a comment.

Yes.

Thank you to staff and the applicants for, going through all of the the steps to get something here that we can vote on. So I know it's not a not an easy process on on either side to try to interpret rules and and get everything before a town board and our board. So thank you for your your efforts.

Yeah. I'd like to extend that as well. You know, when it comes to making decisions like this, I feel like the things we vote on need to extend beyond the good intentions of the people in front of us. So, and I feel like this has met met met that adequately, so that we follow the rule the rule of law, without bias. So thank you very much. All right. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Alright. Motion passes unanimously. Alright. Alright. So our next petition is rezone petition, twelve thousand two forty four. Applicant Dave and Julie Wood in the town of Blooming Grove.

So this petition, the rezone out of wetlands was before you in January with which resulted in postponement due to opposition from the neighbors. At that time, applicant requested some more time to gather information to address those concerns.

Mhmm.

In summary, chapter 11 requires certain, conditions to be met in order for the county to rezone lands out of wetland. He's proposing to do that to put a driveway in to service a future land development that will be subject to a future rezone. But at this time, this chapter 11 would require basically no negative ecological harm to the wetlands. And in January, we didn't quite have enough information to really give a strong recommendation one way or another if if that would have been met, and I encouraged the applicant to put some thought into that. He shared a lot of information about how he has been managing the surrounding lands and being a land steward, but wasn't specifically addressing some of the wetland concerns.

So Mhmm. He has since submitted in in early April a restoration plan for the wetlands that will remain to help identify, how he can continue to be a steward to those areas. Mhmm. And I believe that that information and implementing the the steps that are outlined in that plan would address the opposition comments that were received at that time. Okay.

So, the recommendation from staff to the committee is to weigh the the benefits of wetland regulations against what's being proposed in terms of satisfying the requirements of chapter 11. And if if you find that those are met, then we're recommending approval with a couple conditions. One, to deed restrict the remaining wetlands from any further development and then implementation of the wetland management plans provided by the applicant with a requirement that at the end of a five year period, he file a report with our office on whether or not that was successful.

Excellent. Excellent. Alright. It looks like a lot

what is Okay. In attendance and registered wishing to speak.

Alright. You

you you want would you like me to speak? You need me to speak?

Does anybody have any questions for

No. I

feel like the report and the emails are pretty, thorough. So thank you very much for and thank you, Hans, for your work on this. Okay. So let's see. Recommendation here.

I believe it would be recommendation with two conditions.

Okay. Sorry.

It'd help if I put it up on the screen. Mhmm.

Oh, so recommendation of what? Yeah.

I'm gonna

read there, or do you want to so we're de restricting the remaining wetland area on the property to prohibit future development, limit the disturbance beyond the proposed driveway footprint. Second, that the applicant implements the recommendations of the wetland management plan for five sequential years. At the end of those five years, file a report by an ecological professional comparing the initial investigation with the results so we have that documentation.

Oh, sure. So three conditions, looks like. All right. Thank you very much. All right. What we have in front of us is the staff recommendation of approval with three conditions. So would somebody like to bring forth a motion?

Make a motion to approve with the three conditions.

Alright. We have a motion by Cronay to approve with three conditions. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Peterson. Any further discussion, questions, or comments about this petition before the committee takes a vote? If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Our next petition is CUP2690, applicant David and Patricia Judd, in the town of Montrose.

Yes. The JEDs were before the committee also in January for a public hearing on this proposal, which is conditional use permit for secondary farm residences. This in this case, this was, submitted to make legal some existing residences that were space that was converted within a barn space or like a shed building. There are two apartment units. They're used for family member, people who live and work on the farm. So they have a substantial horse boarding operation here, as well as agricultural lands. This is just one piece

of the

property that the conditional use would apply to. In January, as it stood, the only concerns we had yet were that how and when would the landowners ensure that the two residential units have met building code, applicable residential building code requirements, and secondly, that the septic system is adequate and up to code in terms of serving those units. What has complicated this for the owners is that the building stuff took a little while to work through, but they have since verified with the town building inspector that the units meet code. So that item is taken care of since they were last before you. The second item, the septic, is a little bit more complicated and just kind of use this map as an example here.

It's just because the septic that is on-site, it's down here, the narrower kind of portion of the property, but some of it extends off onto a residential lot that the Judds created in past years. So that's one kind of wrinkle a little bit, but mostly that the septic is sort of a combined system. It's got a few different tanks, one for the horse boarding stables, one for the primary residence, and one for these two apartment units. But they all feed into the same system, and so it's a little bit hard to disentangle how much capacity do they need. An existing system put in several years ago, so they have to work with public health similar to the other Mr.

Billings who is here, but a little more involved. Because if public health just applies a formulaic kind of requirement to this, It doesn't seem like the septic would meet that requirement, but there are other ways to figure that out. So they're working with public health to they've installed a water meter. They're going to look at wastewater flows and actually just measure actual use during peak times. If they get enough data, then public health will be able to assess that the septic is adequate.

So they're actively working with the sanitarian on that. In this case, based on that information they've provided Let me see kinda how to how to tie this up here. There's a lot in the report, but we just wanted to update the status here. They let's see. We have so action was postponed previously for that reason.

We do have the town board recommending approval. I didn't mention that one yet. It's had some contingencies, like if they go out of business or, you know, if things change with their situation at the Judd property, the town would wanna see them reapply for a CUP or come back before the town and county on that one. Okay. So but if CLRC is fit to approve this, we would recommend because it takes a while to get that data on the sanitary, didn't think it made sense to postpone it longer. Like, they're they're on the right track. So perhaps if you'd like to approve this, could put a one year deadline to achieve that code compliance Mhmm. And just give them some time to work with public health on it. These units are existing. They've been there for many years is our understanding.

So in light of that situation, it's not like they're proposing new construction. People have been living there. Could potentially give them some time to do that. I just want to make sure that It's one year that we're suggesting. So it'd be and they'd probably know sooner than that, but that would allow enough time for the data, figuring it out. And if they needed to install septic upgrades, they would also have some time to do that potentially or modify the system.

So

Okay. So that's built into that. If they do need to modify it, that that would be adequate time.

I think so. That's a

you think Part of that comes down to public health staff. There's just so many variables that they might get enough data in a couple months, but they might see that data and say, we need to see this through to later in the fall. And that would affect the ability if then there's recommendations to add capacity be longer. But we think that one year is an adequate time for approval to get all of that sorted out.

Okay. Do we think that one year if like say the report comes at the end of the year, that one year would be enough to adequately get a plan to address a shortcoming if there was one or

I I think within one year, we would know what needs to be done. It might not all be implemented in that one year period, but have a definitive answer of whether or not the septic can currently support what's going on there or if it needs to be added to.

Okay. So do we have to add a caveat to that with the full cold compliance? Or

No. I believe the way that we've stated it gives us enough options with the CUP process to either treat it as a violation or just bring it back to the committee for review.

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. All right. So what we have in front of us is if based on findings of fact that the CUP with that one year deadline meets standards of approval of the conditional use permit, recommend approval with the 17 standards, and then along with the one year deadline. Correct?

Sure. I I have

a question. I'm Yes. I'm just curious. I don't know if this is point of order or just, like, just a general curiosity here. Like, for this one, it sounds like staff is recommending conditional approval, but I'm I'm trying to understand kind of, like, logistics here since there was a a previous request rezone request came through, and we were postponed due to we wanted to see what what the size of the septic was for, Kevin Billings.

And so I'm just trying to understand for this one. As I read the the packet, it's like we're still waiting on the size of the septic, but this is a conditional use request. Is that what makes this this request different? It's hard to make a it's hard to make a determination here because we still don't know what the size of the septic is. And so what I think I'm hearing is staff recommendation to approve with conditions or put a time limit on it, but I'm just I'm confused. Right?

Yeah. Understandable. I can share 2¢, and you tell me if I'm on the track here. But so the other one was also a conditional use, but for requesting, like, using a home for a short term rental. So it would enable him to start doing that. In this case, it's more of a, oh, we found this existing situation. It's not something and I don't honestly remember how it came to us, but it was, like, reported, I think, to Roger Lane when he was here. So we Mhmm. It's not a formal violation, but it's a violation type of situation where, to make it right, they need to get the CUP or That completely remove sanitary fixtures from the unit

helps in a big way.

Yes, it's more consequential in that way, and also the fact that they're already pretty far along in working with public health, where mister Billings is just at the stage of having to go and investigate that.

Again, just if I had to answer if I walked out of this room and had to answer on my own, like, that's a good good way to put it because it's there's already residents. As far as we know, people are already living there. Like, it's they are not the same situations.

Correct. Right.

If

if anybody on the public or this is being recorded ever watched this, like, hey. Why did Billings not get it, but these guys get a pass? And Mhmm.

It's

because people are already living there, and so they're already using the septic. It's a it's a different ballgame compared to

And it's our way of, legally tracking the situation and Yep. Shut things

up.

That's helpful. Thank you.

I I would also add that public health staff have reviewed preliminary information on it and have given us reasonable assurance that it's not a situation where we just can't deal with the amount of sanitary needs. It's just that something would have to be added. There's a lot of land here for something like that to happen. With the transient housing, that's a very small lot, and we have no information on the sanitary system other than that it's working for its current use. But if they had to put a new system in, there might not be adequate land for that. So

Right. And boatload of neighbors right next door.

Right. Thank you.

Alright. Do I think that okay. Alright. Based on that, do we have a motion?

Make a motion to approve based on findings fact that the position meets the standards of the conditional use permits with the 17 conditions.

And do we have to add the one year deadline into the motion?

It's in there already.

Oh, it's in there? Okay. Thank you.

With that, I'll second it.

Alright. We have a motion by Kronig and a second by Posler. Is there any further discussion, questions, or comments about this petition before we take a vote?

I'll just mention we have Melissa Huggins and Dave Judd present here if there are questions for applicants. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Alright. Motion carries. Thank you. Alright. So we have CUP petition twenty six ninety eight, applicant applicant Patrick Larkin in the town of Albion.

Okay. We have a request here by mister Larkin for transient or tourist lodging. This is for a residence in the town of Albion here near Lake Koshkonong. This was before the committee in March for the public hearing, and it was postponed at that time because we did not have town action on the proposal. So since then, we've received the town recommendation for approval. They did not have any conditions to specify for this use of the the existing house. Presented the information at the hearing, so I won't repeat all of that. But that's the change, is that we have the town's recommendation in hand. And this property is actually not on well and septic. It has a public sanitary sewer serving the subdivision, so that's unique.

So we didn't have very much to review in terms of specifics on the property or house.

Okay.

We feel it meets the standards, but we recommend that ZLR committee make your own findings of fact as to whether it meets the CUP standards, and we'd recommend approval with the 15 conditions listed in the staff report.

Okey doke. Anybody here for

We have Patrick Larkin registered in support, and he's available on Zoom on the phone.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. What we have in front of us is the staff recommendation that the ZLR committee made findings of fact that the petition meets the eight standards of approval with the 15 conditions. Would a committee member like to bring forth a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve based on findings of fact that the petition meets the standards of the conditional use permit with the 15 conditions.

Alright. We have a motion to approve with the 15 conditions from Kronig. Do we have a second?

Seconds.

Right. We have a second by Posler. Any questions, comments, or discussion before the committee takes a vote? Right. If not, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Alright. Before we move on, I have to take a five minute recess. So I will be right back. All this talk

of septic systems.

K. My eyeballs are floating.

Have a good night.

Keep the recording going, Rinas.

Gonna pause the recording for the five minute recess.

Yeah. Recording. Thank you. Thank you for your grace. Our next thing so we're back to Platzon certified survey maps. So we have that would be Dan.

Yeah. We, we've already taken up the Eastmead Mhmm. Proposal, and now the next one on the list is a one lot certified survey map in the town of Mazomani for, the last name is Schaefer Mhmm. In section 16. The slot is a little over two and a half acres and currently zoned r r two.

And as per the rules and procedures of this committee, any CSM application not associated with a rezoning or conditional use permit petition that proposes to divide an existing parcel to create a new parcel shall be reviewed and acted by the zoning committee. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compliance with town and county density studies. I have basically put together a, my report includes nine conditions

association associated with the one lot. Okay.

And so this has some unique history. The parcel's been there a long time. The zoning has been in place to allow for residential uses. It sounds like the landowner is looking to sell this, and there's a prospective buyer that would like to build a house. However, in order to bring the parcel into compliance, we need to do this by certified survey map.

The applicant has submitted that, and I have these nine conditions, before you. And so I'm recommending approval subject to the nine conditions. Just a note too, condition number two does, take into account our planning side of things. And so I provided a copy of the application to Kirk Cotel, and he responded, with his memo dated March 23, basically indicating that this proposal is consistent with the town's land use policies. That's the key thing.

Yes.

And I believe, mister Schaefer might be online. I don't know if he wants to speak or if he has any questions.

He did register to speak. We

can give him a chance to speak if you'd like. Well, mister Schaefer, if you would like to speak, you are welcome to do so. You just have to unmute.

Here in case there are any questions that you have for me.

Does anybody on the committee have any questions for mister Schaefer? Alright. We're good. Thank you for attending. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay.

So let's see. How many so how many conditions are we recommending approval?

There was nine.

Nine?

Let maybe I can pull it back up here. Yeah.

Nine. There's nine.

Do you want and do you I mean, the this is fairly straightforward. And just so the landowner knows Dan, Dan, you with regards to this item, this was on the previous agenda in April, but that meeting was postponed. So, you know, there's nothing I can do about that, and so I apologize for the delay. And once the committee takes action on this, if they do approve this conditionally, I'll send out that letter here within two minutes. Okay. So you can go forward with finalizing the CSM, and then I can sign on behalf of the county, and it gets recorded. So

Excellent.

To move it along.

That sounds great. Thank you for that extra work. Right. So the recommendation is approval with the nine conditions. That would a committee member like to bring forth the motion?

Make a motion to approve with the nine conditions.

Alright. Peterson moves to approve with nine conditions. Do we have a second?

Posler seconds.

We have a second by Posler. Any questions, comments, or discussion before we take a vote? Alright. If not, all in favor say aye.