Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone Denial topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County board denies petition to rezone five-acre parcel from exclusive agricultural use; vote 15–9

3426088 · May 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Manitowoc County Board voted 15–9 to adopt a report denying a petition to rezone a five‑acre parcel for home construction, citing farmland preservation criteria and the Planning and Park Commission’s recommendation to deny.

The Manitowoc County Board of Supervisors voted 15–9 to adopt a report denying a petition to rezone a five‑acre parcel out of a larger agricultural tract, a proposal the Planning and Park Commission had recommended against.

Supervisor Kalkowski presented the Planning and Park Commission’s report and moved to adopt the commission’s recommendation to deny the petition. Supervisor Niles seconded the motion. Corporation Counsel explained that the county board may accept the commission’s recommendation, reject it and refer the matter back to the commission, or approve the rezoning; a denial at this meeting would not permanently bar the landowner from returning with a reconfigured proposal.

Board members debated the petition at length. Supporters of denial, including Supervisor Behnke and others, said the parcel lies in productive farmland and is enrolled in farmland‑preservation designations; they argued carving out a five‑acre home site would undermine the parcel’s agricultural integrity and the program’s purpose. Opponents of the denial — including Supervisor Ryan Phipps and others who noted the Town of Manitowoc Rapids had communicated support for the rezone — said the town had followed its comprehensive land‑use plan and urged the commission and board to work with the landowner on an alternative configuration.

Planning staff and commission members said soil and slope information did not show limitations that would prevent agricultural use, and the commission indicated it had been exploring alternative survey configurations with the landowner. The board’s action was to adopt the commission’s report and deny the specific rezoning petition as presented; the record shows the owner may return with a revised proposal to the Planning and Park Commission.

The clerk conducted the vote and announced the resolution to deny was approved 15 to 9. The denial applies to the petition as presented at this hearing; the Planning and Park Commission and staff indicated there is an opportunity to reconfigure the parcel and present a different petition for future consideration.