Town of Fulton

Town Board, Planning & Zoning

1. Call to Order – at 6:00 pm by Chairman Sayre.  Present were Veitch, Strouse, Staff, Walton, Rebman, Brown, Guisleman, and Clerk Zimmerman.  Farrington arrived late.  Absent-Hull
2. Confirmation of Meeting Notice – Zimmerman confirmed the notice was posted at CKSD, Carl’s Shell, Fulton Town Hall, and Fulton’s website, and published in the Edgerton Reporter. 
3. Discussion/Possible Action:  Land Division and Development Activities Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Town of Fulton and Rock County.  Sayre explained prior to signing the MOA as instructed to we received a copy of a letter from Atty. Moore who is an attorney for surrounding towns.  Sayre advised we sent that letter along with the final draft of the MOA to our attorney, Attorney Schroeder who reviewed the final draft and the letter from Atty. Moore.  Sayre stated that he and Kerry Hull met with Atty. Schroeder to discuss the MOA and letter.  Attorney Schroeder completed a memo for the changes to the MOA that he recommends. Staff stated the only thing she saw is the section that talks about the building site permits.  She stated we don’t have that specific language in our ordinance, and she suggested that we need to adopt that language in our ordinance.  Guisleman asked why Atty. Schroeder recommended deleting section 4.4.  Walton stated that section is what he has the most problems with.  Staff stated it is explained in the Attorneys Recommended Amendments to Rock County Land Div. MOA memo.  Staff stated if we want to regulate it, we would need to add it to our ordinance.  Staff stated this is for new land divisions.  Walton stated he understands it to be for everything.  Staff stated she understands this is for lots that are newly created.  Rebman stated he feels it is for any new building, which would require a site permit.  Rebman stated that the current section 4.5 would apply to any construction including single family and two family residential constructions.  Sayre stated that is why Atty. Schroeder suggested the verbiage stating a Town Building Site Permit shall not be required for a single-family or two family building or an accessory building.  Staff stated site permits are important when building a new building.  Staff stated if it doesn’t get sited correctly, there could be problems.  Sayre stated he agrees with Staff.  Guisleman stated this is in the county’s MOA, so the county can look out for it.  Guisleman said the county has the resources to determine if they are doing it correctly.   Motion (Staff, Strouse) to recommend to TB to adopt the MOA with the changes that Atty. Schroder said, for Article 3, section 4.1 section 4.3, and to leave section 4.4  and 4.5 as written by the county but for the building sites section, 4.5 - make sure it only applies for new construction and not additions to existing residences or buildings.  Motion carried 3/2. (Veitch, Staff, Strouse voting in favor; Rebman, Walton voting against).  Staff stated for section 4.4 we could amend our ordinance for that.  Walton stated he has an issue with not deleting section 4.4.  Walton read Atty. Schroeder’s memo stating that section provides requirements that go on those contained in the Town’s ordinance, including the imposition of deed restrictions and conservation easements.  Walton stated his biggest issue with this whole thing is the placement of conservation easements.  Staff said that is done in the land division, not the building site permits.  Walton stated the way he reads this the building site plan applies to anything, whether it is existing or land division.  Rebman stated we can terminate our agreement if we don’t like how it operates, but stated we could also follow the attorney’s suggestions, and if we don’t like how that operates, we can modify the agreement to put parts of 4.4 or all of 4.4 in it.  Rebman stated it goes both ways.  Farrington stated he remembers in November agreeing to all of it, and if we want to opt out or modify at any time, we can.  Farrington stated in November we agreed to go with the whole thing.  Guisleman stated we can always renegotiate with the county rather than just drop the whole thing.  Motion (Farrington, Guisleman) for the Town Board to go along with PZ recommendation.   Motion carried  3/1, (Brown voting no).  Sayre stated with this vote, if the MOA is not working with the county, we will have to get together with them and fix whatever isn’t working.  Sayre stated that will be our responsibility, and we will have to monitor it. 
4. Discussion/Possible Action:  Farmland Preservation recertification – Zimmerman advised Wade Thompson from Rock Co. wasn’t able to attend this meeting tonight.  Staff explained a spreadsheet that she compiled comparing Fulton’s A1 zoning ordinance, and Chap. 91 of the State Statutes.  Staff stated  this compares our ordinance and what the uses are, with Chapter 91 what is considered an Ag use, an accessory use, and what is considered Ag related uses, and what they consider Conditional Uses.  Sayre stated in looking at the spreadsheet Staff made, it doesn’t appear that we will have to make major changes, as was once thought from our previous workshops over a year ago.  Sayre stated our definition of Agriculture and the State’s is pretty close.  Staff advised our ordinance contains many of the same elements that the statute requires.  Sayre said if the Town doesn’t recertify he believed a farmer could still get the credit but it would be at $5/acre instead of $7.50/acre.  Staff and Walton stated that is only if an AEA is created.  Walton stated it is highly unlikely that an AEA would be created for our area.  Staff stated Chairman Sayre reported last month currently 45 farmers in our town are getting a credit on approximately 6,000 acres.  Staff stated that could change, and some might not want to do the nutrient management plan and get out, but then we could gain other farms because large farmers in the past who didn’t really qualify for it, now they qualify because it is per acre, and not per your income how it was before.  Sayre stated who are we to say to our farmers “you are not eligible for this credit”.  Walton said the other side of that is who are we to say that “we’ve decided that we are going to impose the restrictions on your property that go along with Farmland Preservation that apply to everyone regardless of if they are in Farmland Preservation”.  Sayre stated the State changed some of the rules, and we need to know what has changed.  Brown stated our map is pretty much all Ag, and stated that DATCP might accept our map as is.  Staff and Rebman both agreed.  Rebman stated he would prefer to have a meeting with Wade Thompson before a decision be made.  Sayre stated we should all write down our questions, and get them to Clerk Zimmerman and she will forward them to Wade Thompson so he can get answers.  Another meeting was set up for Tuesday, February 7^th at 6 PM.  Zimmerman stated she will contact Wade Thompson first thing in the morning to make sure he can come. 
5. Adjournment – Motion (Farrington, Guisleman) to adjourn at 7:45 pm.  Carried unanimously. 

Submitted by,

Connie Zimmerman – Clerk/Treasurer

Note:  These minutes are not official until approved by the Board. 

• May 15, 2012 Town Board Meeting (unofficial)
• May 01, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Apr 10, 2012 Annual Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Apr 10, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Mar 13, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Feb 14, 2012 TB Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Feb 07, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Jan 24, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)
• Jan 10, 2012 Joint TB/PZ Meeting Minutes (unofficial)