Minutes

Concord Town Plan Steering Committee

June 8, 2022

The meeting opened at 3:59 p.m. with Kim Miller, Larry Oliverson, Dale Konle, and Sally Williams present.

Larry stated that the meeting had been properly posted.

Primary areas of concern: Sally & Dale & Kim – questions on A-2, Larry – annexation, is becoming a village a realistic option?

Housing Element review

Clarify town policy for lot splits in section B.3. The town reduces the number of non-prime splits from 3 to 2 per parent parcel. The town follows the county policy for prime lot splits.

Do remaining lot splits available in the town need to be quantified? – the consensus was NO. The wording “hundreds” is sufficient. This is referenced in 2.E.

When the town plan document relates to a specific policy in the current county plan, Jason recommends maintaining an appendix containing snapshots of the relevant current county wording/ policy. That way, if the county plan changes, there is a reference to the county framework around which these town policies were developed.

B.4. Question from Jason - How does the town define the wording high-density housing used here? – smaller lots (i.e. ¼ acre) with community septic? Multifamily homes? 8-12 homes on an acre? Consensus – For the purposes of the plan, define “high density housing” as that which could not accommodate onsite septic or densities requiring community septic.

2.E. Statutes require the plan to evaluate how much housing is needed to accommodate projected growth. The statute is met by saying that there are more than enough splits to meet future need.

Agriculture Element review

Jason – primary question here is how to handle wording about solar installations. The current town resolution is thorough and can be readdressed but the reality is the town has no power over decisions regarding solar.

Wherever the plan references a desire not to have solar installations, it should also reference a desire not to have wind installations.

B.2. update language on how the town handles lot splits

A.6. CAFOs – add language to say the town doesn’t want them but understand the town has no say in decisions concerning CAFOs.

E –Programs to block annexation, such as conservation easements and purchase of development rights, may make land less desirable for annexation. Trusts which purchase development rights usually focus on land deemed environmentally “significant” in some way – not just for the purpose of preventing annexation.

Cultural Element review – no comments, some wording changes from Cindy Arbiture to give to Jason.

Economic Development review

Questions on how to handle business proposals outside the hamlet:

How should criteria be set for this? Traffic and noise impact are a concern.

Are agriculture related businesses more acceptable? May be good to allow, but criteria are important.

Should A-2 even be allowed at all outside the hamlet? could consider allowing with strict criteria, but once the land is rezoned, the town loses control and the county can approve things the town doesn’t want.

Can A-2 be limited to resident landowners? Jason is not sure this would be legal.

The town could try to accommodate people who want a business by allowing only those that fit as home occupations, then land would not need to be rezoned to A-2 and open the door for losing control to the county who could then approve any of the many conditional uses they allow in A-2 that the town does not want.

The current draft of the plan does not allow A-2 outside the hamlet.

Jason asked Matt at the zoning office the following questions and has not yet received an answer:

Can the town identify certain conditional uses from the list of uses in the county zoning ordinance that would not be approvable in the town?

Can the town establish criteria to limit the conditional uses allowable by the county?

If A-2 is to be allowed, criteria would be needed for when/ where to rezone to A-2 and for allowable conditional uses. Additionally, a list of acceptable conditional uses could be developed if the county would allow that. More county input is needed before pursuing this.

Discussion on appendix containing A-2 conditional use criteria. Criteria could address the following (Jason put in some numbers but these can be revisited):

Size – 20000 sf? Unsure – can determine specific number later

Traffic – 250 trips (this is back and forth – so actually ½ as many vehicles)? Could this be different based on road type? County vs town roads? Could accept more traffic for special events – i.e. allow 15 days per year of higher traffic volumes. Could also fine tune based on specific conditional uses.

Light - .1 footcandles at property line? Could establish some added criteria - cutoff for footcandles directly under fixture, limit light at property boundary, stipulate all light must be full cut-off (nothing above 90 degrees from vertical)

Noise – 55 db at property line. This is slightly more than typical background noise.

View – depends on the lot, may need screening in some situations with a period of time to establish

Water runoff/ quality – this is regulated by the state, but the town could add additional criteria

Other criteria to consider - odor, pollution air, hours of op, # employees

8.B. #10 says the town will have strict regulations on development that has potential to interfere with agriculture. Where and when do we establish these regulations? This statement needs more thought.

Intergovernmental Element review

Does the town want its own Hazard Mitigation Plan? Consensus – no

Risks from neighboring communities:

Oconomowoc - Jason wouldn’t worry about plat review authority as the town does not want development and plat review is designed to limit development anyway - would not recommend agreement regarding plat review. Land can be annexed across the county line now. Jason Gallo from Oconomowoc warned that if a boundary agreement is pursued, the city will want something in return if it’s going to agree not to annex town land. The town may want to wait on an agreement until there seems to be some impetus or desire for Oconomowoc to annex and develop land in Concord.

Summit – more of a threat than Sullivan because it will likely grow more, but there is growth potential within the village without annexing. Probably do not need an agreement now.

Sullivan – not really a worry. Not growing. Not worth the effort to do a boundary agreement.

Dousman and the Towns of Ixonia and Farmington – Can omit these from the plan

B.10. working with the county – need to have a clear process in place for having town officials follow the plan. It would be valuable to keep a record of every action the town takes on zoning issues and provide this record to both the town board and the county. The town processes need to spell out how we are being consistent with the town plan for every rezoning effort. Suggest that the adopting ordinance require town officials to follow the plan or go through the amendment process if a petition is not consistent with the plan.

Need to update fire and EMS agreements.

Land Use Element review

The town does not need a local land use ordinance, but if it will help the town board follow through one could be adopted. Basically, an ordinance is not needed, the town board just needs to follow the plan.

Discussed a stand-alone hamlet plan - Jason does not think this is necessary as the town does not want a lot of development. Better criteria and standards for future hamlet development could be incorporated into the plan in an appendix or within the document in a “hamlet land use” section.

Future land use map

Areas currently zoned B are shown as business, the hamlet is shown as hamlet, areas currently zoned R-2 are shown as residential, all else is rural preservation. These are described in Ch. 10. The current version of the plan states that rural preservation can include N, A-1, A-3 (and not A-2). There are 3 options to handle A-2:

1. Do not allow A-2 (the current version of the future land use map does not allow A-2)

2. A-2 could be included in the rural preservation area with criteria OR

3. Specific areas could be designated on the map where A-2 would be allowed. Existing A-2 areas could be put into a separate category, such as rural business, on the future land use map. Then if someone wants a new A-2 area, it would require an amendment to the future land use map and such amendment would be guided by criteria in the plan. When amending the future land use map for a new A-2, criteria for the rezoning would include an evaluation of all the potential conditional uses in A-2 allowable by the county because once the parcel is rezoned, any of the allowable uses become possible for that parcel. If any of them are not appropriate for that location, the rezoning would be denied regardless of the use being applied for.

Note: There are some R-2 parcels that have not yet been developed.

Future land use map with limitations

The overlay allows people to see where development would be limited due to wetlands, floodplains, slopes,…

Survey

Largest question centers around regulation of and desire for rural businesses

Any other questions?

Possibly a question on becoming a village? Not a realistic possibility now but a survey question could include criteria necessary to become a village to avoid annexation – would town citizens want this? The question could also include what is necessary once we become a village – what will it cost to function as a village? So the question could educate people on what is involved to be a village.

Jason can draft some questions and send them to us for our approval.

NOTE: We did not approve minutes from the May 1 Steering Committee meeting or the May 4 Public Input meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

Submitted by Sally Williams