By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENONOMIE — The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee has directed county staff to develop more details for a variance process to control residential density in unzoned townships.
The PR&D committee discussed three options for controlling density in unzoned townships at the June 22 meeting, including using county or state plat maps, creating a variance process, or removing residential density in unzoned townships and reducing the number of land divisions allowed by certified survey map (CSM).
The options pertain to a proposed land division ordinance that establishes a residential density of one lot per eight acres in unzoned townships.
A density of one lot per eight acres does not mean a minimum lot size of eight acres.
A residential density of 8 to 1 is already established in Dunn County’s zoning ordinance for zoned townships.
One reason for establishing housing density is for the protection of groundwater.
The PR&D committee forwarded the proposed ordinance to the Dunn County Board for consideration at the May meeting, but after receiving complaints from unzoned townships in the county, asked the county board to send the ordinance back to the PR&D committee for further consideration.
Tom Carlson, Dunn County surveyor, pointed out at the June 22 meeting that the proposed land division ordinance should have a provision to remove density for unzoned townships that have their own valid town zoning ordinance.
There are no unzoned towns in Dunn County that have their own zoning ordinance now, but unzoned towns might adopt their own zoning ordinances in the coming years, he said.
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.
In towns that have adopted county zoning, if a landowner wishes to create more lots than the density requirement allows under agricultural zoning, the landowner can apply for a rezone to residential.
Variance
Of the three proposals that were discussed, creating a variance process to address the concerns of the unzoned townships would be the best option, Carlson said.
The variance for density should be tied to a set number of lots. If the landowner wants to exceed the density, then the variance would apply, he said.
Under the proposed ordinance, a landowner in an unzoned township in Dunn County who owns 40 acres, for example, that he or she wishes to subdivide for residential development could divide the parcel into five lots (40 divided by 8 is 5) by certified survey map over five years. 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 as it is currently written, the 36-acre lot could not be subdivided again.
A set number of lots would determine whether the land division in an unzoned town is created by CSM or by county or state plat, Carlson said.
As an example of a variance, perhaps the landowner could create three extra lots by CSM if the landowner has not exceeded the limit of five lots in five years, he said.
The number of lots would dictate the process, Carlson said.
To use a variance process for the unzoned townships, clear standards and requirements would have to be established, he said.
The advantage of using a variance process is that it would allow additional development in certain areas and would prevent unsuitable areas from being developed, Carlson said.
One disadvantage might be that the PR&D committee and the town board might not be in agreement about the land division. Another disadvantage might be that it would take more administrative time to track variances and lots, he said.
The PR&D committee would have the final authority to grant the variance, and the variance would not come before the Dunn County Board for approval, Carlson said.
Would the town boards have veto authority over the variance? asked Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee.
“That’s a good question,” Carlson said.
Veto
The town boards would approve the variance first, so in a sense, they would have veto authority, said Nick Lange, Dunn County corporation counsel.
The town boards would have a veto in the form of making the first determination, because if the town board turns down a variance, then the variance request would not come before the PR&D committee, he said.
What about other criteria? Quinn asked.
Lange said that he and Carlson had kept the options general with few details until the PR&D committee selected an option to pursue, and then the focus can be put on developing criteria and standards for the preference.
Opinion
When asked if he agreed with Carlson’s assessment that a process for a variance would be the best way to address the concerns of the unzoned townships, Lange said he agreed.
Lange said he and Carlson can work on developing standards for the variance process, and then the PR&D committee can review the proposed standards.
A variance process takes the best parts of what the PR&D committee is trying to do to protect natural resources, such as groundwater, and would make sure that land is developed responsibly, he said.
The variance process can keep the density in place, creates a process if a landowner wants more lots and also takes the town board’s approval into consideration, Lange said.
A process to ask for a variance would “incorporate the best of everything,” he said.
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she concurred on the idea of creating a variance process to exceed housing density in unzoned townships.
Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said he agreed, too.
The whole goal is to meet the county’s environmental goals, he said.
“I like it,” said Jim Anderson, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
“We will ask the staff to move forward,” Quinn said.
The PR&D committee did not set a timeline for Carlson and Lange to develop details for a variance process.
The proposed land division ordinance was not on the agenda for the PR&D committee’s July 13 meeting.
