Nancy Palmer spoke at the county board hearing Tuesday evening in the Clover Room at the Langlade County Fairgrounds. |
After spirited public hearing, board votes to rule on planning in December Nov. 10, 2009 The Langlade County Board of Supervisors decided Monday evening to put off a decision on comprehensive planning until December, bringing an otherwise spirited evening to a quiet conclusion.
The meeting was called as a public hearing with the possibility of adopting the proposed comprehensive plan structure following testimony. But it was obvious that even before the opening of the 7 p.m. session that the evening was going to be complicated.
First, the crowd wouldn’t fit into the County Board Room on the lower level of the Safety Building, and the Clover Room in the fairgrounds multi-purpose building was hurriedly prepared with tables for the board and about 100 chairs in the gallery.
The crowd was on hand to discuss and listen to views on the planning process, which by state rules must be in place by Jan. 1, 2010.
During the meeting, that with the move in location spanned about three hours, was mixed in support and opposition.
The board had a dozen resolutions from town governments endorsing the planning system, but there were also those in the crowd wearing “not” stickers, obviously against the county’s plan.
The meeting opened with Robin Stowe, the county’s corporation counsel, and Dennis Lawrence, from Northcentral Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, explaining the local goals and state requirements.
This is not the first time the issue has been on the county board floor here, and in many other communities.
Counties and other units of government have been wrestling with the development of plans since 1999, when the state passed a statute requiring that actions such as zoning, mapping, subdivision and other regulations be consistent with a comprehensive plan by Jan. 1.
The law is vague and does not specifically mandate that a plan be in place, but without one it appears that the county could be opening itself up to lawsuits over existing zoning, mapping and other ordinances.
In a legal opinion prepared for the board, Stowe said that not having a comprehensive plan in place by the deadline “may jeopardize the county’s ability to enforce certain land use regulations.”
He stressed that the actual decision on adopting a plan was at the “sound discretion” of the county board.
When the state legislature passed the rule as part of an overall budget bill, it was with a stated goal of “plan first, and then establish regulations based on that plan,” Stowe said.
Counties began the planning process immediately and over the past decade some municipalities have spent many thousands of hours preparing documents that detailed everything from garbage pick-up to housing subdivisions.
But planning in other counties, especially in the northwoods, stalled after opponents raised questions about infringement of property rights and other issues.
Langlade County stopped the process in 2003 and returned a state grant that would have provided funding for the process.
The county returned to planning with a lower-key approach in 2007, when the board contracted with North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to complete a plan with input from a citizen advisory committee.
Beginning in that fall, the committee met 11 times and worked with the commission to develop a plan that included nine elements listed in the state statute: Issues and opportunities, land use, housing, utilities and community facilities, agricultural, natural and cultural resources, transportation, economic development, intergovernmental cooperation, and implementation.
Over winter, 2009, the committee met with the various town officials to gather input and develop a draft plan. An open house for the public followed in August.
The advisory board approved the final draft of the plan on Sept. 24, with the Water and Land Use Planning Committee passing a resolution in support.
But support was not unanimous during the public hearing last night
Of the 17 offering testimony, many were opposed as concerns of greater government controls over private land were raised.
A number of people offering testimony were in favor of the proposal for long-range proposes and as a land use tool. Both the people speaking in favor, and opposed, drew applause from the gallery.
Stowe was impressed by the turnout and interest in government.
“This was an example of democracy,” the corporation counsel said.
|
|
|
