TOWN OF FARMINGTON
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING-LAND USE PLAN
JULY 21, 2005

Prior to the meeting, notice was posted in the West Bend News, at the Town Hall, Fillmore Fire Hall and Green Lake access.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Art Seyfert.  Present were Ralph Eisenmann, Joe Enright,  John Guttmann, Dale Spaeth, Diana Susen,  Zoning Admn. Joanne Oneska, Warren Uttecht, and several citizens.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Warren stated the purpose of the meeting was to go over the issues from the June 30^th land use meeting. Below is the list of twelve (12) actions taken by the Land Use Committee (prepared by Warren) with plan commission comments below:

 

1.  Agreed with approving a limit of 30 Final Platted or CSM lots annually.

Plan Commission’s vote on June 21 was for 25 lots.  Diana – stay with 25 lots;   John - more importantly, how the number is divided between subdivisions and CSM’s, example of 20/10; Ralph - 25 or 30; Joe 30, but doesn’t think it is right to pick a number, but rather control the out-of-town developers and let the citizens who live here get the lots; Dale – biggest concern is if developer comes in January with a 30 lot subdivision, there will be nothing left for the people that live here.  Warren – might want to put aside a variety of types of lots for the different types of land splits.  Diana – need to look at the past record on land divisions, CSM’s, subdivision lots, etc. and use those numbers to project future.  Joanne tabulated the park fees paid in past years and reported the breakdown of lots in subdivisions (SB) and lots created by CSM.

*Chart reflects verified amounts on 8/1/05
Decision: None

 

2.  Agreed that lots in the Residential Zoning Category have a minimum lot size of 1 acre.

Joe – 1 acre; Diana 1 ½ acre; Ralph – with well defined boundaries for residential 1 or 1 ½ acre.
     Decision:  1 ½ acre lot in residential.

3. Agreed that residential subdivision be left in the AG zoning district, and that all new subdivisions be zoned with Residential (within a preferred growth boundary) or Country Estates in an Agricultural District.
Joe – wants it stated that subdivision should be rezoned residential. Joanne – If we leave exiting residential in AG zoning, we should rename those areas (i.e. RAG) to differentiate from residential subdivisions created after the Land Use Plan goes into effect.  Warren stated he will come up name for existing residential subdivisions

     Decision:  Agreed, with following: Change the word (residential) to (existing).  Warren will provide new name existing residential in AG zoning.

 

4. Agreed that if residential subdivisions are left in the AG district, some minor adjustments should be made to the AG district to limit types of uses and area requirements on a residential parcel.
     Decision: Agreed.

 

5. Farmland Encouragement District was dropped as a discussion item because it was eliminated as a zoning ordinance amendment by the Plan Commission on June 28, 2005.
     Decision: Agreed.

 

6.Agreed that the preferred growth area be expanded from the original 3 hamlets to include existing subdivision clusters, and that such areas around country plats within the preferred growth area should not include prime farmland.
Farmington citizen, Paul Sebo presented soil maps created by the county for the town to use in verifying that areas of prime farmland are not included in preferred growth area.  Ralph – Area East of 144 & Hwy H should be included in preferred growth; Joe and John agree; Diana – doesn’t agree with expanding growth area beyond all existing subdivisions; Dick – agrees with #6.

     Decision:  Plan Commission needs time to compare soils map and preferred growth areas and adjust the borders created by Warren.  Warren will generate maps that will include this information and have it available for July 26 meeting.

7. Agreed that St Michaels does not have any residential growth within a preferred residential growth boundary.
     Decision: Agreed.

8. Agreed that Boltonville and Fillmore have a preferred growth area one-quarter section beyond existing development.
     Decision:  Agreed.

9. Agreed to small commercial expansion areas near existing commercial land uses in St Michael’s, Boltonville and Fillmore, and commercial land use within a circle that includes all 4 corners of the intersection of CTH A and STH 144.
     Decision:  Agreed.

10. Agreed that industrial land uses should be limited to land around the existing industrial land uses on the north end of the town, on both sides of STH 144.
     Decision:  Agreed. (Warren will write Site Review language)

11.Agreed to put the North Branch Milwaukee River Wildlife and Farming Heritage Area on the Future Land Use Plan as an informational item.
     Decision: Agreed.

12. No support was shown to show any additional parkland or trails on the plan at this time.
Diana – we need to designate an area that residents want for future (recreation i.e. baseball diamonds) -balance the amount of land being developed with open space – increase fees paid by those creating lots to help pay for purchasing parkland; Joe – disagrees, we have enough parks; John agrees for the next 5 years we should be ok with the parks we have.

     Decision:

PUBLIC INPUT:  
--#12 Committee member feels we have enough parks.
--#6 Committee member recalls decision that  the lot sizes for future expansion in the existing subdivision clusters should be consistent with existing lot sizes.

--Residential lots should be not adjacent to working farmland, it should be country estates.
-- There should be a conservancy zoning category – Density on sandy soils should be greater – Look at the density of the existing residential in preferred growth area, and make expansion areas the same density (if larger size lots, make that area country estates) – The plan should identify the need for future playground space (i.e. soccer field) even if we don’t plan on buying in the next 5 years.
--Plan focuses on preserving farmland and has not included preserving conservancy areas – Shouldn’t make decisions according to who owns the land when drawing the preferred growth boundaries.
-- Voter mandate was for slow growth, # 1 does not reflect that - Committee member disagrees with four of the points as they do not reflect what was discussed at the June 30 meeting - need larger acreages to protect Ag land.
--Environmental corridors and conservancy areas have already been identified by SEWPAC, but we need language included in the land use plan to make sure these areas are preserved.
-- Need to limit CSM’s – they do more damage to the farmland – Watch soil maps when determining the growth area, do not expand on prime farmland.
--We aren’t going to preserve farmland - Eliminating St. Michaels from the growth area because it contains working farms is wrong.
-- Need to consider that animal species need tracts of continuous land to exist – Need to provide Ag land for small farms too.
-- We should consider adopting a Right to Farm ordinance.

 

UPCOMING MEETINGS:
Tuesday, July 26, 6:30PM to review soils and Future Land Use Plan maps before 7:30 Plan Commission meeting

Thursday, August 11, 7:00PM Plan Commission review of Land Use Plan

ADJOURNED:  9:00 PM on a motion made by Joe Enright, seconded by Diana Susen and carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Diana Susen
Plan Commission, secretary