Adams County planning board postpones conditional-use decision for one‑room school after legal questions on firearms and hunting

The Adams County Planning and Zoning Committee on April (meeting date on file with the county) voted to postpone a conditional‑use permit decision for a proposed one‑room school at 1141 Amber Ave in the Town of Easton to allow county legal counsel and the town to review how state firearms and hunting laws apply.

The delay came after written comments and testimony from a nearby landowner, and extended discussion among committee members, county staff and the applicants about whether establishing a school there would limit hunting or firearm use on adjacent private property.

The applicants, Esther Mullet and Jesse Mullet, told the committee they expect “probably, like, 30 pupils” in the Amish school and described plans for a new classroom structure of about 32 by 36 feet that would connect to an existing 12 by 24‑foot building, which would serve as an entryway. Dusty (county planning staff) told the committee the project had been published under two parcel numbers to make sure neighbors were notified and because planned school grounds or a play area might cross the property line.

Neighbor Michael Ditko, who submitted a written letter and spoke online, said several of his parcels are within 1,700 feet of the site and asked the committee to consider whether a school would “negatively impact the exercise” of hunting and sports‑shooting rights. Ditko cited Wisconsin constitutional protections and state statutes and asked the county to clarify whether nearby landowners would be able to continue hunting on private property.

County counsel and staff reviewed the statutes cited at the meeting. Dusty summarized the relevant language in chapter 948.605 (discharge of firearm in a school zone), saying the statute prohibits possession or discharge of a firearm in or on school grounds and within 1,000 feet of school grounds, but noted a separate subsection states that the prohibition on discharge does not apply to private property that is not part of school grounds. Committee discussion also referenced state law that addresses hunting distances (cited in the meeting as section 29.301), which appeared to establish a 1,700‑foot buffer for hunting in some contexts; committee members said they wanted county and town counsel to reconcile how the statutes apply in practice to this site.

The Town of Easton submitted a list of proposed conditions (provided by town chairman David Collum) that would define the school grounds and restrict uses, including requirements for egress, fire extinguishers at exits, a fence and signage, limits on animals and burning, and a school‑grounds size request (the town asked for at least one‑half acre and no more than one acre, centered on the building). Several committee members questioned whether that list had been formally adopted by the town board (the planning staff said the conditions were provided by the town chairman but not signed by all town board members).

After discussion, a motion to postpone the conditional‑use decision “to give county legal counsel time to research” and to involve the town in clarifying conditions and statutory implications was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote. Committee members who recorded affirmative votes included Poehler, Deason, Notgriner, Milner, Carvillo, McLaughlin and Barood; the chair said the item will return to the committee after legal review and additional town input.

Committee members and staff emphasized that postponement does not authorize construction or change enforcement; Dusty said the county cannot issue the new build permit until the conditional use is approved. The applicants said they hoped to begin a summer build but acknowledged they would need the county permit.

The committee also discussed the practical effect of defining “school grounds” for purposes of the statutes and noted that if the committee or town ties the permitted school grounds to a specific acreage (for example, one acre or an acre‑and‑a‑half), the statutory buffers would be calculated from that defined area.

The item remains pending; the committee directed staff to obtain formal legal advice and coordinate with the Town of Easton before the matter is reheard.