By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — Regulating housing density in unzoned townships in Dunn County appears to be going back to the drawing board.
Although the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee has forwarded a proposed land division ordinance to the Dunn County Board for consideration that includes a revision to manage residential density by ratio in unzoned townships, the PR&D committee most likely will ask the county board to send the proposed ordinance back to the committee for changes.
At a meeting of the unzoned townships and their county board representatives in the Town of Elk Mound April 29, representatives for the unzoned townships said regulating residential density with an 8 to 1 ratio in the unzoned townships takes away local control of land development, said Tom Carlson, county surveyor, at the Planning, Resources and Development Committee’s May 11 meeting.
In spite of publishing the notice of the public hearing in the newspaper, e-mailing the notice and a copy of the draft ordinance to 35 surveyors who work in Dunn County, to all the town clerks in Dunn County (22 townships), and to 41 realtors and title companies that work in Dunn County — not to mention the Colfax Messenger and the Glenwood City Tribune Press Reporter also publishing several articles pertaining to the proposed revisions to the land division ordinance — no one showed up for the public hearing held by the PR&D committee on April 13.
The proposed ordinance establishes a residential density of one lot per eight acres (1:8) in unzoned townships.
A density of 1 to 8 is already established in Dunn County’s zoning ordinance for zoned townships.
Density of 1 to 8 does not mean there is a minimum lot size of eight acres.
According to the proposed ordinance, a landowner in an unzoned township in Dunn County who owns 40 acres that he or she wishes to subdivide, for example, could divide the parcel into five lots (40 divided by 8 is 5). The minimum lot size is one acre, so the parcel could be divided into four one-acre lots and one 36-acre lot.
Under the proposed ordinance, the 36-acre lot could not be subdivided again.
Townships that have adopted county zoning in Dunn County include the Towns of Sheridan, Wilson (exclusive agriculture), Tiffany, Hay River, Otter Creek, Grant (exclusive agriculture), Sherman, Tainter, Colfax, Lucas (exclusive agriculture), Menomonie, Red Cedar, Weston, Dunn, Peru and Stanton.
Townships that have not adopted county zoning in Dunn County include the Towns of New Haven, Sand Creek, Elk Mound, Spring Brook, Eau Galle and Rock Creek.
Not pleased
The meeting in the Town of Elk Mound lasted for two hours and was a good opportunity for representatives of the unzoned townships to air their opinions — and they were not pleased with the proposed ordinance, Carlson said.
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee, said if Dunn County would accept town zoning, then the unzoned townships would not have to abide by the 8 to 1 ratio.
Bjork said he was working with Carlson and with Nick Lange, Dunn County corporation counsel, to write an amendment to the proposed ordinance pertaining to the townships having their own zoning ordinance.
Bjork said he planned to introduce the amendment during the county board meeting when the land division ordinance is under consideration.
Under county zoning, or if a township adopts its own zoning, then more housing density would be allowed if the parcel is rezoned to residential, Quinn said.
The unzoned townships do not have options to rezone to residential because they are unzoned, Bjork noted.
Under the proposed ordinance, the unzoned townships are at a disadvantage because once the 8 to 1 density is reached, the parcels cannot be further subdivided, said David Bartlett, county board supervisor from Boyceville and chair of the Dunn County Board.
The unzoned townships are not zoned by choice, he said, adding that the Town of Elk Mound has been discussing the possibility of writing their own zoning code for the township.
June meeting
The proposed land division ordinance will come before the Dunn County Board at the June meeting for a first reading, Bartlett said.
The county board can send the proposed ordinance back to the PR&D committee, can approve the ordinance or can deny approval of the ordinance, he said.
Carlson did a good job with publishing the proper notices and sending out the correspondence notifying town clerks, surveyors, realtors and title companies, said Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
The Glenwood City Tribune and the Colfax Messenger had “wonderful articles” explaining the proposed land division ordinance “very clearly,” he said.
Unfortunately, people did not read the newspaper and did not pay attention to the other communication, Kneer said.
The PR&D committee “tried hard” on communication, and “it didn’t work,” he said.
Tony Christopherson, chair of the Town of Elk Mound, noted that one provision in the proposed ordinance that he did like is the requirement for an agreement on road maintenance among landowners for a private road.
Amendments
Two ways to change the proposed ordinance would be to send it back to the PR&D committee or to offer an amendment to the ordinance at the county board meeting, Lange said.
All of the PR&D committee members are county board members, so any of the PR&D committee members could make a motion at the county board meeting to send the proposed ordinance back to the PR&D committee, he said.
If the PR&D committee asks for the proposed ordinance to go back to the PR&D committee, the Dunn County Board is very likely to send to the proposed ordinance back to the PR&D committee, Bartlett said.
Kneer said he had “kept waiting for comments” from the unzoned townships but that no comments had been forthcoming.
“I thought we were communicating, but we were not,” he said.
Quinn said he would notify the executive committee that it is the PR&D committee’s intention to request the proposed land division ordinance come back to the PR&D committee for further action and that he would make the motion to bring the ordinance back to the PR&D committee at the county board meeting.
The PR&D committee did not intend to make an adversarial situation out of the land division ordinance, Quinn said.
