Town of Rutland Minutes

Joint Planning Commission and Board Meeting

Tuesday, April 19, 2011-6:30 p.m.

Rutland Town Hall – 785 Center Rd.

 

Agenda:

 

Chairman Dale Beske called the joint Board/Planning Commission meeting to order.  Board and Planning Commission members present:

Planning Commission:  Harley Stokstad, Bruce Sime and Mark Porter.

Board:  Chairman Dale Beske, Supervisors Jeanette Walker, Jim Lunde and Milt Sperle.

A large number of residents and radio tower applicant representatives were also present.  An attendance list is on file.

 

1.  Discussion and necessary action regarding Petition 10275/CUP 2157 by Dick Rogers, agent for Stoughton Farms, Inc. to rezone 15.5 acres located south of 3768 Old Stage Rd. (Sec. 34) for zoning compliance for FM radio tower and Cup for FM radio tower in the A-2(8) zoning district. 

 

The Board and Planning Commission reviewed the 17-page list of questions, dated April 16, 2011, compiled by the Town Board from questions raised by the Board and residents; information that had been received relative to the list from both the applicant and other sources is also included in this document.  Some of the information received from the applicant is taken from the following document dated April 10, 2011. The question list and information is incorporated into the minutes by reference; the question list was posted on the Town’s website prior to the meeting.

 

The goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan were reviewed as well as resident responses from the town-wide survey taken when the Comprehensive Plan was being developed. The following goals and policies included in the Comprehensive Plan were considered:

 

Page 2-1 – Development should not impact Town’s rural character
Page 2-5 – Objective 3 under Goal 6 – Preserve the rural character of the Town
Page 2-6 – Policy 7.b Split is needed  
Page 2-7 – Policy 11 – encourage development of community facilities in or near surrounding communities
Page 2-7 – Policy 15 – limit light glare and trespass
Page 2-10 – Policy 5 – encourage technology-based infrastructure such as high speed internet
Page 2-10 – Policy 9 -  Promote economic development that fits into the community vision
Page 2-11 – Goal 11 Policy 2 – protect scenic vistas
Page 3-5 – Survey – Loss of Rural character important and becoming more important

 

The 42-page document of information received from Magnum was reviewed next, followed by updated zoning drawings from Magnum, photo simulations from various sites in the Town, and adjacent property structures.    This document includes the six standards set out by Dane Co. Ordinance 10.255.and the applicant responses.  It also addresses the town questions included within the question list. (All of the documents received on April 10,2011 from the applicant were posted  on the Town website prior to the meeting).

 

The Planning Commission considered each of the following six standards necessary for action on the Conditional Use Permit:

 

1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare.  Discussion revealed that the effect on bird mortality could be considered under standard 1 or 2.

Motion by Jeanette Walker that Standard #1 has not been satisfied; second by Bruce Sime; discussion noted that a yes vote would indicate agreement that Standard #1 has not been satisfied and a no vote would indicate that it is satisfied; discussion also noted that this is a standard under which the property values could be included; motion carried 6-0.

 

2. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use.

Motion by Jim Lunde to recommend to the Board that Standard #2 has not been satisfied; seconded by Harley Stokstad; a “yes” vote would mean agreement that standard #2 has not been satisfied; a no vote indicates that this standard is satisfied; this relates to the surrounding property and the development of the property; property values could also be considered under this standard; motion carried 6-0.

 

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.

Motion by Harley Stokstad to recommend to the Board that Standard #3 has not been satisfied; seconded by Jeanette Walker; a “yes” vote would mean agreement that standard #3 has not been satisfied; a no vote indicates that this standard is satisfied motion carried 6-0.

 

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made.

Motion by Jim Lunde to recommend to the Board that Standard #4 has been satisfied; seconded by Harley Stokstad; this would include any improvements that would be made during construction of said tower; the application indicates there are no drainage issues as the site is on a hill; a “yes” vote would indicate agreement that standard #4 has been satisfied; a no vote would indicate that the standard is not satisfied; motion carried 6-0.

 

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.

Motion by Bruce Sime to recommend to the Board that Standard #5 has been satisfied; seconded by Jim Lunde; a “yes” vote would indicate agreement that standard #5 has been satisfied; a no vote would indicate that the standard is not satisfied; Beske noted that the information presented indicated that after construction there would be no addition to traffic; motion carried 6-0.

 

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

Motion by Jeanette Walker to recommend to the Board that Standard #6 has been satisfied; seconded by Jim Lunde; Chairman Beske noted that it would be assumed that if a tower was approved, the property would be rezoned to A-2(8) so the proposed tower parcel would then be in a zoning district that included communication towers as a conditional use of the property; motion carried 6-0.

 

Motion by Jim Lunde to recommend that the Board deny CUP 2157; seconded by Jeanette Walker; motion carried 6-0.

 

Motion by Jim Lunde to recommend that the Board deny rezoning Petition 10275 to rezone 15.5 acres owned by Stoughton Farms Inc. from A-1 Ex. to A-2(8); seconded by Harley Stokstad; motion carried 6-0.

 

Board action on the 6 standards as recommended by the Planning Commission as follows:

 

Standard #1(as referenced above including discussion):  Milt Sperle moved, Jim Lunde seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #1 has not been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #1 has not been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Standard #2 (as referenced above including discussion):  Milt Sperle moved, Jeanette Walker seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #2 has not been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #1 has not been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Standard #3 (as referenced above including discussion):  Jim Lunde moved, Jeanette Walker seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #3 has not been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #3 has not been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Standard #4 (as referenced above including discussion):  Milt Sperle moved, Jeanette Walker seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #4 has been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #4 has been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Standard #5 (as referenced above including discussion):  Jim Lunde moved, Milt Sperle seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #5 has been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #5 has been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Standard #6 (as referenced above including discussion):  Jeanette Walker moved, Jim Lunde seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to state that Standard #6 has been satisfied.  A “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the Planning Commission that Standard #6 has been satisfied; a “no” vote would indicated disagreement with the Planning Commission; motion carried 4-0.

 

Milt Sperle moved, Lunde seconded, to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny Conditional Use Permit 2157; motion carried 4-0.

 

Sperle moved, Walker seconded, that the Town Board has made appropriate findings of fact that the standards listed in section 10.255(2)(h), Dane County Code of Ordinances, and section 10.123(3)(a), if applicable, are found to be not satisfied; motion carried 4-0.

 

Sperle moved, Walker seconded, to deny rezoning petition #10275; motion carried 4-0.

 

Steve Ritt, the attorney representing the applicant, requested a copy of the Town Board Action Report-Conditional Use Permit that the Board and Planning Commission were working from and verified that the forms were received blank.  A copy of the blank form was supplied to the attorney.

 

Bruce Sime moved, Harley Stokstad seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission portion of the joint meeting; motion carried 6-0.

 

Additional business before the Town Board included a letter that was received regarding a meeting for a NIMS review class being hosted by the Village of Brooklyn.  Beske, Walker, Lunde and George will attend this meeting on April 27, 2011.

 

2.  Discussion and necessary action regarding refinancing of Oregon Fire/EMS building bond and promissory note.

The District is having a cash flow problem. The Oregon Fire/EMS District is proposing to refinance the building bond and promissory note as allowed in 2012.  The refinancing would have a sliding interest schedule.  Each municipality would have to sign a promissory note that they would pay for their portion of the debt.  This would allow each municipality to list the debt payment as money not counting toward the levy limit.  This decision needs to be made by April 21, 2011.  Sperle moved, Lunde seconded, to approve the Oregon Fire/EMS District proceeding with the plan to have the Village of Oregon issue a bond to refinance the building bond; motion carried 4-0.  This refinancing will also mean that the Fire District/Municipality(s) Agreement will have to be updated to show that the promissory note will be issued by the Village of Oregon and that the other municipalities agree to pay the Village of Oregon for their share. (Motion modified to include this statement in the preceding motion on motion and second by Sperle and Lunde); motion as modified carried 4-0.

 

3. Discussion and necessary action regarding 2011-2012 Salt Bid with Dane County. 

Action needed by April 25, 2011.  The clerk and patrolman Wethal recommend an order of 160T.  Sperle moved, Walker seconded to approve the order of 160T. of salt to be picked up during the 2011-2012 season; motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion and second for adjournment by Lunde and Sperle; meeting adjourned.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Dawn George, Clerk