Dunn County moving forward with update of comprehensive plan 4 years after signing contract
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — After a delay of four years, the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee is ready to move forward with updating the county’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Bob Colson, former Dunn County zoning administrator who now works for Cedar Corporation, said Dunn County had contracted with Cedar Corp in 2019 to update the comprehensive plan.
The work began on updating the plan, then Colson left Dunn County to work for Cedar Corp.
Colson said after leaving the county he had waited for Anne Wodarczyk to become settled into the zoning administrator position before starting to work with her on the comprehensive plan.
Wodarczyk was hired as Dunn County zoning administrator in September of 2021.
If the intent is to move forward with updating the comprehensive plan, then sooner is better than later because Colson said he is planning to retire in August, and then Dunn County would have to start from scratch.
The Wisconsin Legislature adopted the Smart Growth law in 1999. The law does not require county and local units of government to have a Smart Growth plan, but if a Smart Growth plan was adopted, any zoning ordinances approved or amended after January 1, 2010, must be consistent with the unit of government’s Smart Growth plan.
State law requires nine elements to be addressed in the Smart Growth comprehensive plan: issues and opportunities; housing; transportation; utilities and community facilities; agricultural, natural and cultural resources; economic development; intergovernmental cooperation; land use and implementation.
Contract
The contract for Dunn County’s update on the comprehensive plan was signed in 2019. The scope of work was determined, and then Dunn County’s task was to update the base maps and provide information to the consultant (which is Colson) for updating the plan, Colson said.
Colson noted that when he worked for Dunn County, he had worked with the county and the townships in the county for 18 years.
When the county decided to amend the comprehensive plan, then the townships wanted to be involved in the amendment, Colson said.
According to state statute, public participation is required for an update or amendments to the comprehensive plan, he said.
The towns, villages and the city should be able to weigh in how the county’s comprehensive plans fits in with their own comprehensive plans, Colson said.
The statutory requirement is that plan must be reviewed every 10 years and then amended if there is a desire to amend the plan, he said.
In 10 years, the demographics of the county have changed, and the land use section of the comprehensive plan should be updated, Colson said, adding that he is waiting for directions from Dunn County on the future land use map.
Option
One option would be to change the scope of work for the comprehensive plan update, Colson said.
If the original scope of work is changed, Cedar Corp now charges 20 percent more for services than was charged in 2019, he said.
If the scope of work is changed, 30 meetings, to go to all of the town board meetings and village board meetings, is “a lot of time,” and many of the boards meet on the same night. The meetings alone could take two or three months, Colson said.
It would be expensive to change the scope of work, but an estimate could be provided if the PR&D committee would like an estimate, he said.
Another option
Another option would be to submit the work that has already been done, “tidy it up,” and call it the amendment to the comprehensive plan, Colson said.
That way, Dunn County could continue under the current contract, he said.
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, asked about the work done so far by Cedar Corp.
The issues and opportunities chapter is complete and needs to be reviewed. The demographics must be updated, and the land use section needs a new narrative. Land use goals also must be updated as well as the future land use map, Colson said.
To date, Dunn County has not established a procedure for the updates, he said,
There is time to change the future land use map, but a procedure for the update must be established, Colson said.
The town boards and plan commissions would have to say how or if they wanted to change their future land use maps, said Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee.
This is what is being proposed, Colson said.
The PR&D committee would have to approve a draft, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee.
Land use
Is the land use map the most important part of the comprehensive plan? Bjork asked.
The future land use map is important if Dunn County says the land use map should be part of the amendment, Colson said.
One problem with the current comprehensive plan is that some townships are unzoned and have no land use map, Colson said.
Should the framework for the land use maps go to the towns for review? asked Michael Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
Dunn County has its own land use map, and if the county thinks a certain area should be commercial for future land use, then the towns could object or the county and the towns could find middle ground, Colson said.
Dunn County’s direction could be different than the towns, he said.
For the original future land use maps, did the towns set their own plans? Kneer asked.
Dunn County created the maps and then went to each town, Colson said.
Requirements
Quinn asked about the statutory requirements for the comprehensive plan.
State law says municipalities must “open up” the comprehensive plan one time every 10 years, Colson said.
Dunn County has opened up the comprehensive plan, Wodarczyk said.
The question is whether to use the map as it is or to keep going with updating the plan, and whether the work is done by Cedar Corp or internally with Dunn County staff is another consideration, she said.
Morehouse said she would like to see an accounting of what Cedar Corp has done so far on updating the comprehensive plan.
The PR&D committee must also discuss future development, she said.
The demographic data must be updated and aligned with the land use maps. Existing land use maps are finished, but future land use must still be done, Colson said.
The PR&D committee must have discussion on “where we’ve been and where we are going,” Quinn said.
Dunn County staff can meet with the townships for the public participation part of the update, Wodarczyk said.
Procedure
The PR&D committee must discuss how to move forward so the plan can come to the committee as a draft for review, Quinn said.
Colson said he could work with Wodarczyk on the draft of the comprehensive plan update, then the draft can be placed on the PR&D committee’s agenda, the committee can discuss the draft and accept it, and the process can be started for the public hearing and adopting the ordinance.
The Cedar Corp updates can be wrapped up, and then Dunn County staff can work on the future land use map, Wodarczyk said.
And that can all be done under the existing contract? Morehouse asked.
Colson said that it could be completed under the existing contract.
Finishing the format will not take long, and the draft report could be brought to the PR&D committee at the March meeting, or in April at the latest, Colson said.
If the PR&D committee is satisfied with the draft, the public hearing could be set in May or June, he said.
Quinn said the PR&D committee would plan to be able to review the draft by the end of March.
