Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Vernon County board to delay comprehensive plan, cite notice and property-rights concerns
Summary
Multiple speakers during the public-comment period urged the board to postpone a vote on the proposed comprehensive plan, arguing it enables countywide zoning, limits rural residential development, and that statutory notice and distribution requirements (66.1001) may not have been satisfied.
Several residents urged the Vernon County Board of Supervisors to delay a vote on the proposed comprehensive plan, raising concerns about notice, property-rights impacts and loss of local control.
George, who identified himself as a citizen member of the county Planning Commission, told the board "If you vote for the plan, you're voting for countywide zoning," and asked the board to return the proposal to committee so supervisors can separate three distinct decisions he said are being bundled into one vote: adopting the plan, adopting countywide zoning, and adopting a zoning ordinance he described as originating in Madison rather than locally drafted. George argued concentrating future population growth near cities and limited village expansion could limit rural residential construction and harm property-tax growth in towns.
Other commenters echoed procedural and constitutional worries. John Franke, speaking as a private citizen, said the plan would create an ordinance affecting private property rights and questioned changes to the plan issued after the public hearing materials were distributed. Don Subra, a former supervisor, read provisions of Wisconsin Statute 66.1001 and said the plan's adoption process must meet public-participation and notice requirements that he believes were not fully satisfied.
Corp Counsel advised the board that, under statute 66.1001, the county's procedures to date appear to be within lawful authority but acknowledged petitioners' concerns and said there is no legal requirement to delay adoption; counsel recommended the county may nonetheless respond in writing and treat written submissions as comments on the plan. The clerk recorded a petition signed by 32 residents objecting to notice and asked the board to enter the petition into the record; the board voted unanimously to do so and discussed whether to delay consideration when the ordinance is called later in the meeting.
The board did not take an immediate final vote on the comprehensive-plan ordinance during the petition discussion; members debated public outreach and whether a postponement would build goodwill with residents who say they were not personally notified of the hearing.
