Minutes of the Town of Cross Plains

Plan Commission Meeting

November 26, 2007

PRESENT:

COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jim Boland, Chair; Carl (Pat) Jones, Vice Chair;

Mike Coyle; Ken Esser; Wayne Parrell (arrived 8:20); Jeff Baylis; Amelia Williams

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING CONSULTANT: Arnold Harris

BOARD MEMBERS: Harold Krantz, Bob Bowman, Very Riley

Approximately 14 citizens          7:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.

            Boland called the meeting to order. Williams called the roll and read the minutes of the November 12^th meeting.  Baylis moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Coyle, and passed 7-0. 

Role of Arnold Harris with the Planning Commission:

Baylis moved, Williams seconded that Harris be given the title of “Comprehensive Planning Consultant”, with duties as previously described in a letter to the Town Board.  After some discussion of the importance of not presenting himself as an official of the town, and after a discussion of his qualification and experience as a planner, this motion was seconded.  Harris discussed his interest and activity in many local planning issues, and was willing to take any title besides “volunteer”. After some discussion, the motion passed 5-2, with Coyle and Boland, voting against.

Land Use Application Form:

            Baylis had made amendments to the application form, and it was passed with two changes, including removal of the word “DRAFT”, and the addition of a revision number and date.  Baylis will save it as a PDF file, which cannot be changed.  Jones moved, Baylis seconded, and the form with revisions was passed 7-0.

Letter from Jim Mueller regarding an interpretation of the Land Use Plan of 1981:

            Baylis voiced his agreement with the letter, then Boland suggested sending the issue back to the board, and Williams added that the issues could be best considered at the public hearings if they are scheduled. Mueller spoke, saying that a lack of clarity on issues of whether the plan even addressed and defined unsewered development, should keep the Commission from considering the petition from Hawthorne & Stone.  Reeder mentioned that a similar plan for a development had been turned down in 1984, and that the board could reconsider its referral, in light of the present work on the comprehensive plan.  She suggested that the Commission put off a public hearing.  Steph Harris said there were two problems with the petition: Creating a unsewered development district is not allowed, and it is not allowed to take land out of farmland preservation “willy nilly”.  Aaron Otto, representing Hawthorne & Stone, said that he would take the advice of the town attorney, and he presented a letter to the Commission explaining the petitioner’s view.  Two planning opinions were quoted by Boland and Baylis: one by Majid Allen, saying that existing development can be considered as contiguous in another town, and Brian Standing, saying that the plan needed an text amendment to include such a map amendment change.

No motion or resolution was presented in regard to Mueller’s letter.

Setting a fee for the application of a map boundary amendment:

            The amount of a possible fee was discussed, including the costs of newspaper announcements and the cost of the meeting itself.  Some thought the fee should be applied to all equally, even to those applying for a simple split, but others felt that it could be limited to map amendments, where a public hearing is required. Many said that the petitioners who had already made petitions should not be charged a fee retroactively. Krantz mentioned that the Board would take the advice of the town attorney on this issue. Baylis felt that the real cost is in the commissioners’ time, not the cost of the meetings.  Jim Garfoot felt that there is a difference between the big developers who want to come in to put up 30 houses and the smaller landowner residents who want to take their splits.

Boland made the motion to set a fee of $250 for an application for a map amendment that exceeds the 1/35 rule. This was seconded by Coyle. He mentioned that the attorney and the Town Board rather than the Planning Commission could decide about the issue of whether the present applicants would pay the fee.  The motion passed 4-3, with Williams, Jones, and Baylis voting against.

Setting Dates for Public Hearings:

            A letter from Mr. O’Connor of the Citizens for Good Land Use organization was introduced setting out the understanding of the group, but this was referred to the Town Board attorney.  Reeder noted that the Commission needed input from the Board before going on to set the dates. Krantz promised to get the information from the attorney before the Town Board meeting. Since the Town Board will meet on December 10^th, the dates were set far enough in advance to include the input from the Board on these issues, and time for public notification.  Tentative Schedule:

            Hawthorne and Stone: 7:30pm Wednesday, January 16^th, 2007

            John Rafoth: 7:30 pm Wednesday, January 23^rd, 2007

            Katy Reeder & Steve Lowenburg: 7:30 pm Wednesday, January 30^th 2007

Questionnaire Survey Discussion:

            Baylis moved to accept the spreadsheet results and handed a raw data CD to each Commission member, noting that these are in a format, which cannot be changed.  He had worked on summing the results, but noted that since individuals might be discovered in these results, he would scramble the results for the public.  He noted that there may have been errors in processing. Harris submitted a proposal for error checking and completion of the several questionnaires not previously entered. Coyle questioned the veracity of the control numbers and the treatment of the numbers in relation to the addresses. After this was cleared up, Coyle motioned to throw out the surveys lacking control numbers, since some control numbers had been covered up or cut out. Discussion then turned to how to keep and process the surveys.  Harris suggested that the Village of Cross Plains Library be used.  The library will lock up the results, and will be open so that commission members can error check during regular library hours.  M,W,Th 9-8, T,F 9-5, S 10-2.   Williams seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0.

Baylis moved to accept and include in the results all the surveys picked up after Nov 7, but rejecting any received after Nov 26, 2007.  Jones seconded the motion, and it passed 7-0.

Coyle moved to reject the ten surveys, which had obliterated control numbers.  Boland seconded the motion. Discussion of cut-off dates and control numbers followed. The motion was defeated 2-5. (Boland and Colye voted in favor)

Public participation at public meetings and public hearings:

            Boland made a motion to adopt Baylis’ procedure for organizing public input at meetings. Baylis seconded the motion.  Krantz said the main problem was keeping some people from dominating the discussion.  This procedure is as follows:

            PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. The Hearing will be held in the Town Hall in Pine Bluff.

2. The Hearing will be presided over by the Chair of the Planning Commission.

3. All persons attending the meeting will be asked to fill out a form with their name and address, and to indicate that they either support or oppose the proposal, and indicate whether they intend to speak on the issue during the public input phase.  The Commission will collect the forms as people enter and take a seat. 50 or so copies of the 1981 Land Use Plan will be available for reference during a public hearing on a map amendment.

4. The Chair will briefly explain the rules and format of the hearing. All the Commissioners will sit at a table facing the room.

5. Each petitioner has five minutes to present a proposal.  Following the proposal, attendees will each have five minutes or less to make their statements in response.  They should give their names and addresses before speaking.  Individuals will be timed, and cut off when the time is up.

6. Written comments and documents from the petitioners and from the public will be accepted.

7. The petitioner has five minutes at the conclusion of the discussion to summarize.

8. Once the hearing is concluded, the Commission either convenes a meeting and formulates its recommendation(s) to the Board, or announces when and where it will meet to make a determination on the petition(s).

Boland moved to accept Esser’s amendment to include the whole procedure (above). Baylis seconded it and it passed 7-0. Esser suggested that we print copies for the public to read before the meeting.

Other Business:

            Jay Young (4294 Observatory Rd.) has presented a land use change to his property in sections 8 and 9 to be considered at the next meeting.

            Supervisor Bob Bowman, who had been reading a paper called “Why Establish a Town Plan Commission?” by the UW Extension, told the commissioners that they should have been sworn in as public officials, and that care must be taken with public meetings and records, as the courts use these records in deciding cases which come before them.  He emphasized that when the commissioners are dealing with individual petitions, they are acting as quasi-legal officials. Harris mentioned that video-taping public hearings might help to keep records accurate, and also mentioned that “ex parte” communications with an applicant outside the public meetings are not allowed. This is a legal term, which applies here to communications between any governmental official and one party, where the party might benefit from the decision made by the official.  Bowman said that this happens a lot, but can cause many problems in a court of law.

Jones called for adjournment, seconded by Parrell, passed 7-0.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MINUTES AMENDED (in red) on DECEMBER 17, 2007 and accepted 7-0.

Amelia Williams, Sec.