Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fitchburg committee approves clarified farm‑residence zoning language, sends ordinance back to planning commission
Summary
The Fitchburg Ag & Rural Affairs Committee voted to approve edits clarifying farm‑residence and caretaker rules — including allowing up to two units per base farm and limiting occupants to owners/operators or close relatives — and sent the ordinance back to the planning commission for review before council consideration.
The Fitchburg Ag & Rural Affairs Committee voted April 19 to approve clarified language for proposed agricultural zoning changes and returned the ordinance to the planning commission for further review.
Brad Sippel of the city planning department told the committee he had highlighted edits that clarify what constitutes a second farm residence and how caretaker‑residence language applies in the AS (small‑lot agricultural) and AX (exclusive agricultural) districts. "Each base farm can have up to 2 units as farm residences," Sippel said, referring to either one duplex or two single‑family units on a base‑farm tract.
The changes also make explicit that if a farm residence is split off into its own parcel it becomes a non‑farm residence, and they refine the caretaker‑residence wording to require the caretaker unit to be attached to the agricultural facility.
Committee members pressed staff on who may occupy a secondary unit. Sippel said the revised language requires the occupant of the second unit to be "either an owner or operator of the farm or a parent or child of an owner operator." Several members urged caution about widening the category to include hired employees; one member argued that reinserting a proposed 50%‑of‑income test would be "unenforceable" and thus inappropriate.
After discussion about definitions and enforceability, the committee decided to retain the owner/operator or parent/child occupancy limitation and to remove the 50% income threshold from the ordinance language. The committee then voted to approve the revised ordinance to return to the planning commission; if the planning commission approves it, the measure will proceed to the city council for final action.
Deanna Schmidt, city planner, and Sippel will provide the planning commission with the clarified text and background used in the committee's discussion. The committee did not record roll‑call vote tallies in the public discussion; approval was recorded by voice vote.
