Farmland Preservation proposal tabled after DATCP rejection

By Kevin O’Brien

State agriculture officials have ruled that a proposed amendment to Marathon County’s Farmland Preservation zoning ordinance does not comply with state law, prompting the county board to table the proposal last week.

The proposal, developed by town of Marathon farmer Tyler Seehafer, seemed destined for approval at the board’s Aug. 20 meeting after being voted down by a majority of supervisors back in June and then brought back to the board in July for reconsideration. At the board’s July 23 meeting, 22 supervisors voted to have the amendment made into an ordinance.

However, before the amendment could be codified, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DACTP) had to certify that it complied with state law.

Corporation counsel Michael Puerner provided supervisors with an email from DATCP denying certification of the amendment based on the agency’s interpretation of state statutes.

If the board had voted to approve the amendment anyway, Puerner said the county’s Farmland Preservation ordinance would be out of compliance with state law, and roughly 200 local farmers would risk losing per-acre tax credits provided to them in exchange for meeting zoning requirements.

“I would strongly urge you to consider that in how you decide to proceed tonight, but it’s ultimately the board’s decision,” he told supervisors.

Supervisor Allen Drabek made a motion to deny the amendment request, and supervisor Matt Bootz seconded it, but before it come to a vote, supervisor Chris Dickinson made a motion to “lay it on the table,” which will prevent any further action on the issue for the remainder of the board’s current two-year session.

Dickinson expressed frustration about the board not being able to follow through with its action from the previous month, which ordered the Environmental Resources Committee to develop an ordinance implementing Seehafer’s proposal.

“The will of the board was to move forward with the amendment, but not to violate the law,” he said. “Now, we’re actually going to turn it down. It’s just confusing.”

The board voted 25-10 to table the motion.

DATCP/ DATCP

Continued from page 1

DATCP’s ruling

In a four-page letter to the county, DATCP officials said they could not certify Seehafer’s proposed amendment because it would have violated provisions of the state’s Farmland Preservation (FP) statute. Seehafer had asked that landowners be able to move old farmhouses from one part of their property to another and still qualify for what’s called “farm consolidation,” which allows residences to be split off into separate, smaller parcels without the need for rezoning.

DATCP officials, however, said relocated houses, regardless of their age, no longer qualify as “existing residences” based on the dictionary definition of “existing” as “already in place, before being replaced, altered, or added to.”

In Seehafer’s case, he moved a house built in the late 1800s from the center of the lot to the edge of the field, freeing up more farmland. When he went to apply for farm consolidation, he ran into opposition by town of Marathon officials who were concerned about setting a precedent that would allow landowners to build multiple homes on what is supposed to be agriculture land.

At the board’s Aug. 15 educational meeting, Shad Harvey of Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ) outlined several scenarios to explain what would be allowed if Seehafer’s amendment was passed. As currently written, the county’s Farmland Preservation ordinance allows landowners in FP districts to split off houses built before 2014 from the rest of their lot as long as the new parcel is between 2 and 4.99 acres large, and the remaining land is at least 35 acres.

However, if the house is moved at all, it is then considered “new construction,” and is no longer eligible for farm consolidation. Seehafer’s amendment would have eliminated that restriction.

When questioned by supervisors, Harvey confirmed that any time a house or other structure is picked up and moved from one location to another, it is considered “new construction” because it must comply with current zoning standards.

Supervisor Tom Rosenberg said he doesn’t believe what Seehafer did violates the “spirit of the rules” for Farmland Preservation.

“I’m failing to see how him moving that house around on that lot gets in the way of the goal of Farmland Preservation and changes much of anything,” he said. “What’s the downside to this?”

Harvey said CPZ staff have to enforce the zoning regulations as written, but the board has the option of changing its ordinance, provided that DATCP signs off on the change.

Dickinson piggybacked on Rosenburg’s comments by pointing out that the old farmhouse on Seehafer’s land takes up the same space, 2.26 acres, regardless of the relocation.

“We’re not losing farmland,” he said. “We’re just not.”