County reverses its decision on farmland rule

By Kevin O’Brien A town of Marathon farmer will get his wish for more flexibility within Farmland Preservation Zoning after the county board voted Tuesday to have his zoning amendment written into a new ordinance.

Tuesday’s action was a reversal for the county board, which voted 21-12 in June to reject the petition made by Tyler Seehafer, who came up with the idea for the amendment after running into problems with moving an old farmhouse on a parcel he owns.

At the board’s July 18 educational meeting, corporation counsel Michael Puerner said the board’s bylaws allowed supervisors to reconsider the proposal because someone who initially voted to reject it requested to have it back on the agenda.

Supervisor Tim Sondelski, who voted to reject Seehafer’s amendment in June, said there was “some misunderstanding” by himself and others about what the proposal would actually do. After talking to Seehafer and several citizens, Sondelski said he believed the proposal deserves a new hearing.

“In the spirit of farming and farmland preservation, what Mr. Seehafer has done has improved the land for farming usage, and we always need to look out for what’s best for the people we serve here in Marathon County,” he said.

During public comment last Thursday, Seehafer said he purchased the lot six years ago, and after 30 years of no farming on the property, he was able to reclaim the farmland – in part by moving an 1898 house from the

See AMENDMENT/ page 3 Amendment

Continued from page 1

center of the lot to the edge of the field.

“I did this legally,” he said. “I did this with all proper permits, and there’s no issue with the house where it currently sits.”

However, when he went to apply for a farm consolidation – which allows the portion of the land with the house on it to be sectioned off from the rest of the parcel – he was told the house did not qualify because it was considered “new construction” after being moved.

“I was met with the answer that I either need to sell the entire property that the house sits on or I need to rent the house out,” he said.

Seehafer said the zoning ordinance, as currently written, does not say anything about moving a house within a parcel, so with the help of staff at Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ), he developed the amendment to clarify the issue. He noted that both the CPZ and the Department of Agriculture agree that pulling a house out of the center of a farm plot is “in the spirit of farmland preservation.”

“The interpretation by CPZ that the house is a new residence – whether it moved a foot or 100 feet – is an extreme restriction of property rights,” he said.

At Tuesday’s meeting, supervisor Jacob Langenhahn, who represents the town of Marathon, made a motion to postpone the board’s reconsideration of Seehafer’s amendment until after a Marathon County judge has ruled on an appeal filed by Seehafer in response to the county board of adjustment rejecting his effort to qualify for farm consolidation.

Langenhahn also said he wanted more time for town of Marathon officials to work out a possible “third option” with Seehafer’s attorney, the details of which were not shared Tuesday.

“I think it’s fair to say it’s a compromise,” Langenhahn said.

A majority of board members, however, did not want to delay their decision, and Langenhahn’s motion failed by a vote of 10-20.

The board then voted to reconsider its action from June, which was to uphold a recommendation from the Environmental Resources Committee (ERC) to reject Seehafer’s proposal.

Debate about the proposed amendment centered around whether it would actually hurt or harm farmland preservation efforts and whether ignoring the town of Marathon’s recommendation against it would send the wrong message to other townships with county zoning.

Supervisor Matt Bootz, who previously served on the town of Texas board, predicted “a mass exodus of townships jumping out of county zoning if we start telling townships what to do with their land.”

Langenhahn echoed Bootz’s comments, saying the town of Marathon’s preference should be given more weight than other towns that don’t have Farmland Preservation Zoning. He said this issue is dividing town residents, but he personally believes approving the amendment will lead to landowners “playing games” with zoning by separating off parcels and moving buildings to allow for more residential development.

“I think everyone in the town of Marathon, because of how they value farmland, doesn’t want subdivisions popping up in their town,” he said.

Other supervisors, however, said the county board does not always need to “rubberstamp” a township’s recommendation, and they disputed the idea that Seehafer’s request would lead to less agriculture.

“Moving one home and creating more farmland is not creating subdivisions in the town of Marathon,” said supervisor Gayle Marshall.

Supervisor Chris Dickinson said he considers it a good thing that a citizen recommended a zoning amendment based on his concerns.

“I don’t think this sets a bad precedent,” he said. “I don’t think we’re losing farmland. I really don’t.”

Based on Tuesday’s vote – basically 22-8 in favor of the amendment – Puerner said the ERC will need to draft an ordinance that complies with Seehafer’s proposal and refer it back to the county board for approval.