Farmland amendment requires state approval
By Kevin O’Brien
Before Marathon County can amend its Farmland Preservation ordinance to include a petition submitted by a town of Marathon farmer, the state has to sign off on the zoning change, corporation counsel Michael Puerner said last week.
Puerner told the Environmental Resources Committee at its July 30 meeting that, under state law, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) must certify any potential changes to the county’s Farmland Preservation zoning ordinance.
A proposal submitted by farmer Tyler Seehafer would allow rural landowners to move a house from one part of their property to another and still qualify for what’s called farm consolidation. Farm consolidations allow landowners to split off a part of a lot with a house on it and still qualify for Farmland Preservation without having to go through a rezoning process.
Proponents of Seehafer’s proposal say allowing him to move an old farmhouse to the corner of his property actually opened up more acres of farmland, while opponents argue that setting that precedent could lead to more housing developments within Farmland Preservation districts.
Members of ERC found themselves in the awkward position of essentially having no choice but to recommend to the county board a proposed ordinance that conforms with Seehafer’s amendment. At its July meeting, a majority of the board voted to send the amendment back to the ERC with instructions to come up with an ordinance to implement it. This came after the board reversed its earlier decision in June to uphold a recommendation by ERC to deny Seehafer’s petition. Under statute 59.69, Puerner said the ERC was obligated to refer an ordinance to the full board that complies with Seehafer’s proposal. Until the board discusses the ordinance at is next meeting, he said no amendments could be considered.
“The way I read the statute, there’s not really any discretion there,” he said. “The committee is directed by the county board to forward that ordinance up to the county board for consideration.”
Supervisor John Kroll wondered why the committee was even required to take action on the ordinance if it was not allowed to suggest any amendments or recommend denial. Puerner said the ERC is acting as the county’s “zoning administrator” in this case, which means it must draft the ordinance according to the board’s motion.
The ordinance was actually drafted by Puerner himself and simply declares that the language of Seehafer’s proposed amendment will be incorporated into the Farmland Preservation ordinance.
Supervisor Alan Drabek, who was the only member of the committee to vote against referring the amendment to the board, wondered what would happen if the motion was voted down by a majority of ERC members.
“I would anticipate a lawsuit would be filed to force us to send it on to the county board because of what the statute says,” Puerner said in response.
Puerner’s only suggestion was to add language to the motion making it clear that approval of the zoning amendment is contingent upon certification by DATCP. If the agency does not give its blessing to the amendment, Puerner said he could foresee the county’s Farmland Preservation ordinance being declared invalid and farmers losing their tax credits.
Supervisor Mike Ritter said he was definitely in favor of adding the language suggested by Puerner, just to avoid any problems with the state.
“Should we do something they don’t approve of, that could shut down everything we’re doing here,” he said.
Kroll asked Puerner if he saw any area of concern in the proposed amendment that would prompt DATCP not to sign off on the change. Puerner said he’s “not particularly concerned” about DATCP rejecting the amendment, but he also acknowledged that he’s never been involved in this type of review before.
“Until I see it in writing from the state, I don’t know for sure what they’re going to say,” he said.
Shad Harvey, the county’s planning and land information manager, said the issue of allowing houses to be relocated on farmland property will be the focus of DATCP’s review.
Supervisor Chris Dickinson, who is not a member of the ERC, said the board should consider changing its rules in the future to make the process of considering a citizen zoning petition less “clunky.”
“Clearly, we’re in this tennis match going back in forth, and it’s not efficient,” he said.
Michael Puerner
