Board upholds rejection of farmer’s petition

By Kevin O’Brien

On the same night that a new Farmland Preservation Plan was adopted, a question about how to truly preserve farmland in Marathon County divided supervisors over a petition from a farmer in the town of Marathon.

Tyler Seehafer submitted a proposed text amendment to the county’s zoning ordinance that would have allowed an older farm residence to be relocated within the parcel it is located and remain eligible for farmland consolidation, which removes the need for rezoning.

After considerable debate at its June 4 meeting, the Environmental Resources Committee voted 5-4 to reject Seehafer’s petition based on concerns on how it would affect Farmland Preservation zoning. The proposal still came before the full board at its June 18 meeting, with the caveat that it had been recommended for denial by the ERC.

Corporation counsel Michael Puerner told supervisors that, under state law, the board had the option of either upholding the committee’s recommendation for denial or sending the proposal back to the ERC with instructions to draft an ordinance that complies with Seehafer’s wishes.

Ultimately, the board voted 21-12 to uphold the ERC’s denial, but not before supervisors staked out different positions on whether or not Seehafer’s proposal would harm the county’s farmland preservation efforts.

At the ERC’s June 4 meeting, Seehafer said he came up with the proposal after purchasing a parcel with an old house on it, which he moved in order to free up more

See PETITION/ page 2 Petition

Continued from page 1

farmland. Seehafer obtained a permit from the county to relocate the house, built in 1898, to the northeast corner of his lot, but the county treated it as “new construction,” making it ineligible for farm consolidation.

Seehafer appealed the county’s determination, and the Board of Appeals met in March and voted 4-1 to deny his appeal.

Seehafer’s proposed amendment would allow a farm home built before Jan. 1, 2014, to be “moved to a new location on the existing parcel” as long as the occupied land does not exceed 4.99 acres and still meets “the purpose” of the Farmland Preservation District.

Supervisor Jacob Langenhahn, chair of the ERC and representative for the town of Marathon, said Seehafer’s proposal would lead to less farmland in the county and would be inconsistent with Farmland Preservation zoning. He urged the board to defer to the town of Marathon’s planning commission and town board, which voted against the proposal.

“The town of Marathon is county-zoned and knows their land best,” he said. “We should respect their decisions.”

Langenhahn said allowing other rural landowners to do what Seehafer did, without the need for rezoning, would allow people to cover more of their land with houses instead of crops.

“If you move a building to another part of that parcel, split it off and put another building on the other 35.01 acres, it’s common sense, folks,” he said. “You will have less ag in this county.”

Supervisor Tim Dickinson, however, said he was impressed with Seehafer’s presentation to the ERC and said was convinced by an argument made by former county employee, Paul Daigle, who said that moving the house actually freed up more land for farming and eliminated potential conflicts with residential tenants in the future.

“I don’t think it really impacts the loss of farmland in any way,” he said. “In this particular example, there is no loss of farmland.”

Other supervisors, including Jay Schoenbern, said they wanted Seehafer to have more time to present information to the county board about his proposed amendment. Schoenbern said the Seehafers went through a lot of effort to put their proposal together and he doesn’t think they were given a fair hearing. “They are our bread and butter, and if we don’t have them, how do we survive?” he said. Langenhahn acknowledged that the ERC’s June 4 meeting was long, over three and a half hours, but he said Seehafer was given all the time he wanted to argue on behalf of his petition.

Farmland Preservation Plan OKʼd

The board voted 26-7 to approve a new Farmland Preservation Plan, which needed to be updated by the end of this year in order for landowners in Farmland Preservation Zoning to remain eligible for per-acre tax credits.

Supervisor Tim Sondelski said he could not support the plan because it does not address the threat of industrial wind and solar power operations to prime farmland. He said he would vote in favor of the plan only if was rewritten to make it clear that those who agree to have wind turbines or solar panels on their land are no longer eligible for Farmland Preservation.

“It would not be fair to the farmers who are truly preserving their farmland by not signing their land over to industrial wind and solar,” he said.

Langenhahn, however, said the purpose of the Farmland Preservation Plan is to “take a snapshot” of the state of agriculture in the county as of 2024, and not passing it would jeopardize tax credits for farmers. He said concerns about wind and solar operations should be addressed as part of updating the county’s comprehensive plan, not Farmland Preservation.

“I just don’t think this is the tool to address those concerns,” he said.

In other zoning news, the board approved a petition by the town of Plover to allow shipping containers to be used as permanent accessory buildings in the residential areas of county-zoned townships.

Tyler Seehafer