Richland County committee delays several zoning petitions, discusses surveys, well testing and grants; agrees in principle to credit short‑term rental CUP fees

The Richland County Planning & Zoning and Extension Committee delayed action on multiple zoning petitions because applicants had not supplied certified survey maps (CSMs), reviewed progress on Extension programs and land‑records funding, discussed a proposed county contribution to a regional well‑testing program, and agreed in principle to give credit to property owners who already paid conditional use permit (CUP) fees before a short‑term rental licensing fee is enacted.

The committee postponed three zoning petitions after staff said the applicants had not submitted required CSMs or had other outstanding documentation; staff said surveyor Todd Rummler is scheduled to attend the committee next month to explain CSM requirements and answer questions. Committee members reported that some petitioners asked to delay until their town boards complete reviews and that county plat review or state review of CSMs has, at times, required minor corrections.

Why it matters: zoning approvals depend on accurate certified surveys and correct mapping. Committee members said they want clearer, high‑level explanations of what a CSM is and why plats sometimes return for correction so the public and board members can better understand the record‑keeping and review process.

Key facts and committee discussion

- Pending petitions and certified surveys: Staff told the committee that three petitions would be pushed to a future meeting because the applicants had not provided certified surveys or required paperwork. Committee members asked that the scheduled surveyor provide a brief, plain‑language overview of what a CSM must contain and why the county sometimes asks for corrections. Staff said state review of CSMs costs about $100 when the state provides plat review and that surveyors who commonly work in the county (name‑checked: Todd Rummler and Sean Walsh) have returned corrected plats in the past.

- Zoning map storage and ordinance language: Members discussed updating zoning ordinance language that currently references a physical map in the clerk’s office. Staff said the county’s official maps are maintained as online GIS layers and recommended the ordinance language be revised after attorney review to reflect the current online mapping practice.

- Floodplain/wetland enforcement and DNR involvement: Staff reported an incident in which a landowner cleared ditches and spread soil in an area within the floodplain and shoreland‑wetland. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) signaled it would pursue restoration and potential citations; county staff said DNR indicated it would handle enforcement and that the county would assist if the landowner needed county‑level floodplain support.

- Land‑records funds and GIS work: Staff reviewed two land‑records accounts used for mapping and imagery: a grant fund (fund 23) and a retained‑fees fund (fund 48). Reported balances were approximately $286,000 in the grant fund and about $195,000 in retained fees. Staff said some projects—ortho imagery, LiDAR enhancements and a planned website update—require up‑front county spending that later is partly reimbursed by state NG9‑1‑1 grants; one LiDAR enhancement was expected to require roughly $40,000 from retained fees as the county’s share.

- Extension programs and staffing: Extension staff reported ongoing programs including the Get Real youth event (volunteer recruitment underway), AmeriCorps summer intern placements, upcoming producer‑led watershed discussions, grazing and perennial‑planting initiatives learned at a recent Wisconsin Land & Water conference, and a hands‑on small‑ruminant “Parasite Patrol” workshop. Staff said an office assistant technician, Jen, has been promoted into a combined zoning/sanitation technician role and recommended hiring an office assistant to replace her; the recruitment had been advertised on the county website and job boards.

- Regional well‑testing proposal and budget implications: The committee reviewed a regional well testing program proposal that would test private wells for standard homeowner packages (coliform and nitrates among other parameters). Staff provided current vendor pricing of about $68 per homeowner test; budgeting 100 tests would cost $6,800 if the county paid all costs or roughly $3,400 if the county paid half. Printing and mailing were estimated at about $600. Committee members discussed whether to focus testing in specific areas or offer countywide testing and asked staff to provide the results and maps from prior rounds (the committee directed staff to drop the last two rounds of well test reports in the members’ folder before the next meeting).

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes: Motion to approve minutes carried; mover recorded as “Mister McGill,” second “Mister McKee.” Outcome: approved (voice vote).

- Approval of the meeting agenda: Motion carried; second recorded as “Billy.” Outcome: approved (voice vote).

- Direction to develop CUP credit policy for short‑term rentals: The committee voted to direct staff to draft a policy that would provide credit to operators who previously paid the county $500 for CUPs so they are not required to pay both that amount and a new $25 license fee; the motion recorded Greg as mover and Mark as second. The vote approved the direction; the committee clarified the motion does not set the credit amount or retrospective date range and instructed staff to return with a proposed policy for final action.

- Adjournment: Motion to adjourn carried; second recorded as Richard. Outcome: approved (voice vote).

What the committee asked staff to do next

- Ask the surveyor attending next month to give a brief, plain‑language overview of certified survey maps and typical plat corrections. - Work with the county attorney to revise zoning ordinance language that refers to physical maps and to propose clear language for how GIS layers will be referenced as the official maps. - Provide the last two rounds of well‑testing results and maps for committee review and return with a cost estimate and options (100 tests, targeted testing, or countywide testing with partial subsidies) for budget consideration. - Draft a written CUP‑credit policy for short‑term rental holders that explains eligibility, the look‑back period and the mechanics of applying credit; return the draft to the committee for formal action.

Ending

Committee members said they will review staff materials before the next meeting; several items—the CSM explanation from a surveyor, the well‑testing reports and a CUP credit policy—were scheduled for follow‑up. Staff also noted several county GIS and land‑records projects are underway and that spending from retained fees will be documented and justified as required by state grant rules.