Plan Commission ‘06 survey results

 

1. We need to keep property owner rights intact. Would like to see tiered program to get people to build on poorer land and protect good productive crop land when possible.

 

2. Our town has seen huge changes in the last ten years and we need to change with it. Out present 20 acre density was compromised between those who want no government interference and those who want government to control everything. I think the 20 acre compromise is fair. I am in favor of protecting property owner’s rights and would like to create incentive for property owners to build on wooded pasture or other rough land. I would like to see crop land preserved when possible. List in order of importance:  1. TDR statewide 2. Incentive plan for town  3. Purchase Development rights. The transfer of development rights statewide would be great but to do something at the town level the incentive plan is more realistic. The PDR is good if it can be done without raising taxes higher.

 

3. If you would like some editorial assistance, or if you would like some one to bounce ideas for good and clear question writing off of I am willing to help. I need much more information to answer your questions. Yes, a very good idea in principal, but this one is so poorly written, so incomplete, and so confusing that I really think you need to do it again to obtain any meaningful results.

 

4. I would recommend the tiered land division along with increasing the acreage per lot to 40 acres per lot. Its working in Dane county. I also think purchasing development rights by the county and federal funds is good plan, but I think raising that money could be a problem. The federal government is bankrupt and no one likes the mill rate to go up. Preservation of farm land for future generation is even more important than fattening our personal bank accounts. Our children’s children will pay for our mistakes.

 

5. I would be interested in selling development rights. I already have sold off a couple of lots and would rather sell development rights instead of lots

 

6. Current situation is not acceptable… uncontrolled; illogical development on prime agriculture and scenic land, in a helter-skelter fashion, is a failure on our part to act as responsible custodians of the land for future generations. Some of the modalities of responsible actions neglected on attached questionnaire absolutely deserve our careful and immediate attention.

 

7. In regard to the purchase of development rights, I don't believe a small rural town like York can ever afford to do this. Leave the open market on lots or building sites take its own course.

 

8. The town board is doing a great job. Let’s consider pursuing the use of our Ag land for bio-fuel production.

 

9. There is too much interference into landowners business by the vocal minority - In example, the lighting issue. I hope issues like that stay guidelines and not become ordinances. Land sales and development should be market driven. Our town has very little excellent farm land and is more suited to housing development

 

10. This is a wonderful idea. York Township has some amazing natural resources. There should be some way to protect some of it. Once these natural resources are developed they are lost forever. Is this the legacy that we want to leave our children? York Township is one of the prettiest places in Wisconsin. Surely the beauty of it has inspired many souls.  I would be more than happy to sell development rights. I'll be the first one to sign up if need be. You folks are on the right track with this. Have you ever considered purchasing land out right perhaps in coordination with the county? This part of Wisconsin has virtually no protected natural land owned by the county. There are several counties, mostly north of here, that own several thousands of acres protected public natural land. Please find a way to protect some of it. P.S. The tiered land division idea sounds horrible. Land that is not productive for farming may be very productive habitat for a significant population of plants and animals. By preserving only productive farm land you favor only those plants and animals that thrive in that environment while destroying the environment of other plants and animals. Thus, you create serious imbalance that in the long term causes more problems = $

 

 

11. Purchasing development rights is a totally unacceptable idea. By doing so you would have equated zoning with "taking", and you would diminished the value of land use zoning forever. For years Wisconsin courts have avoided even taking cases where someone claimed that zoning their land in a certain way was a diminishment of land value and therefore a "taking" As soon as you pay someone to develop their land in a certain way or to not develop their land in a certain way, you have put value on zoning. You have opened the door for fraud and abuse, and everybody’s taxes go up to the benefit of a few who claim that they were or were not going to develop their land in a certain way. Tiered land division is the best way to go. As Madison grows, and people want to live a reasonable distance from their work and still enjoy country living, demands for land will be placed on areas like Green County and the Town of York. There are those who things this is a bad thing and to be avoided. Its going to happen whether you like it or not - the best thing to do is shape how it happens through zoning, tiered zoning. Some ideas if land is tillable (has been farmed in the last X number of years), limit lot size to 35 acres. If land is not tillable (wetland, or rock, or too steep, limit lot size to 10 acres, or whatever is appropriate. if land is wooded, limit lot size to 5 acres. This is pretty simple stuff, just not always politically popular.

 

12. Our taxes are high enough, were always going to have people wanting something that doesn’t belong of these; if they want to preserve land go buy it, I think some of these people need to read about history, all the solders did for freedom, now then want to tell everyone when, where and how many houses they should build

 

13. Currently property owners of smaller parcels (5-20 acres) should not selfishly impose more restrictive policies now that they have their parcels. I am a conservationist at heart, but not at the expense of personal rights.

 

14. I found this all very confusing and not well worded. Am I suppose to send this with the tax payment

 

15. Purchase development rights: Financial sources should not include federal funds. These efforts should stay within the states. Tiered land division if denser building sites are permitted in selected areas. The town should be responsible for restrictions to maintain good appearance and property values. This can be difficult to establish and enforce.

 

16. We would not support some development with multi-acre lot divisions (not multiple homes/acre). We are also in support of preserving good farmland.

 

17. I would like to see more incentives for native plant restoration on preserved lands, especially riparian areas.

 

18. This survey does not provide adequate information to assist us on agreeing or disagreeing. This whole difficult subject needs more discussion w/ direction. Some neighboring towns have gone way to restrictive and we haven’t yet done enough.

 

19. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion

 

20. To: Town of York Plan Commission
    Re: Survey
    The first item is so poorly written that it makes no sense. Do you want me to agree/disagree with your definition of conservation easements? Or what?
    Unfortunately, after months of working on this questionnaire it has been sent out to the taxpayers in a very unclear final draft. I have been paying attention to the issues, and it is unclear to me. The intent of the PDR segment of the document is to discern if the homeowners of the township are interested in helping farmers preserve their land for agriculture by financial contribution, and if so, which options are most appealing. That basic information is unclear. The statement about ‘the second’ could have been explained a little better. Who would seek the matching funds, what is the success rate of that process, how much money is available? How many farmers in neighboring townships have taken advantage of this program? How much farmland has been preserved as a result of these efforts, and at what cost? Is it a viable means to farm preservation affecting enough of the township to make it worth the effort and expense? Where can I find any of this information?
    Basic response information has not been provided.
    The plan commission meetings are attended by only a handful of residents. How do you expect the rest of the taxpayers to know who the PC members are and where they can be reached. There isn’t even a reference to the township’s or PC’s website.
    It would have been extremely helpful if the issues of this questionnaire were fully discussed and explained in a newspaper article or document available on the PC website prior to sending it out. In the future, I highly suggest the PC seek outside advice for further documents of this nature. Had I know this was your final draft, I would have been happy to volunteer to help with composition of a basic business letter. I am certain there would have been many people who would be happy to assist if the need was known.
    I appreciate the long hours and efforts of the members of the PC.
    The viability of dairy farming is dependant on milk prices, government subsidies, and property tax relief. Given these other factors, I am not fully convinced that PDR is the sole answer to preserving local farming.
    I am beginning to feel the best way to preserve farmland in the township is to begin drafting binding ordinances that further define our Land Use Plan, directing controlled growth on nonagricultural land.
    Thanks for listening to my opinion,
    
    

 

21. This survey is not clear to the lay person! It is poorly written and the questions are unclear.

 

22. I'm all for the raising of awareness of responsible use of our lands

 

23. The existing land use ordinance is good, but for farmers owning class 1 and 2 land the development rights should apply- unless the farmer wants to sell to a family member, and a limit should be set on that. We need to preserve our farmland since every day we lose many acres to building and other uses. The owners of good land should be paid a good fair price as determined by an average of all the lots in the township. Not many farms in York Township would qualify for development rights. Every farmer or landowner should have the right to sell some of his land for development as our present land use plan permits. Not all owners want to sell land for lots and perhaps this is good so the township would not be built up with houses- some of the building could spill over into Lafayette or Iowa County too as they have lots of open spaces. My thoughts would say we keep the rule 1 house per 20 acres- but put a restriction on building on "good" farmland, which has been the case in many areas. There are many wooded acres in the township where a house or two would not be noticed so much as it is out in the middle of a good farm field.

 

 

 

24. Don't like the way the questions are worded, not a clear answer to any question.
     Common sense is the key to this whole problem.
     Don't take too many rights away from the landowners.
     Most farmers don't sell their valuable land.
     You are dealing with a lot of farmers retirement plan.

 

25. I feel I should have the same future building rights as the present home and land owners in the township.
     As a landowner and taxpayer for 55 years I feel I have the individual rights to manage, develop and/or dispose any or all parcels of my property (real estate) as long as I do not hinder or harm my neighbors’ property. I have done this for the past 55 years and expect the future land owners will continue this.

 

26. The protection of quality groundwater, streams and forests are important to our township. Protect is a very strong word when managing may be the appropriate wording. Our farmlands managed by individual owners who do their best to remain profitable. Our government offers voluntary participation in several programs which offer direct and indirect payments. Property owners pay taxes, insurance, maintenance and the risked of rising or lower property values. Property owners have the right to use their property at their own discretion as long as they don't devalue their neighbors’ property.
     To say I came to York Township to get away from houses and now that I have one and don't want any more houses next to me is just wrong. Good for ME but not for YOU. If property is for sale, buy it; don't keep asking for more ordinances.
     If the PDR program is to work, it will need to be implemented by federal government for the lack of funds and the ultimate cost of PDR.

 

27. Wisconsin also has a trust fund. Unfortunately, it has been abused and not used appropriately. My fear is that a county fund would most likely find the same fate.

 

28. I think we should form a York township land preservation coalition. Have land securities for sale. Offer anyone in the township a chance to buy one or as many as they want. Set a price per security in a sense like shares. Depending on the price per security and the price per acre of land that is up for sake would allow what could be purchased from a seller. When anyone would like to retire their securities that in turn would offer them for sale to any interested parties. If anyone wanted to donate them to the township they could do so. I truly believe this would work if done properly. Call it an insurance policy that could grow in to equity as well as preserve a portion of our beautiful York Township. Cropland could to be farmed and crops could be sold. Any profit could be used to buy more securities and pay taxes.

 

 

 

29. A conservation easement must remain voluntary.  Private property rights of farmers and landowners must supercede any planning by the township, county, or state.  Township should increase future parcel splits from 20 to 35 acres.  Township should, under no circumstances, try to regulate where people can build on their land.  This is the country. Not a city.  If current subdivisions or future land sales deed restrict where building can take place, that is fine- but only on that land.  Please do not go down the road of attempting to mandate building locations on someone else’s private property.  It is not the role of government to make aesthetic decisions about other people’s land.

 

 

30. Comment attached to question regarding current land use: 

 

31. I think the current land division ordinance is good until the town can draft an ordinance that meets the specific goals for land development in York Township.

 

 

32. We feel the three tools proposed (conservation easements, purchasing development rights, and tiered or clustered land division) could all be beneficial to town land use if they are part of an overall plan for development in the township.  We have looked briefly at the planning committee website and have read the vision statement for the Town of York, but we would be interested in knowing what the specific goals of the commission are.  I would assume it is some balance between allowing landowners the right to sell and develop their land while trying to maintain the rural character of the township.  I have read about how the Town of Dunn has used these same tools to manage development with what appears to be good success.  I think we should look at what the Town of Dunn has done but tailor the set of tools to the situation in York Township (or in other words, what worked for the Town of Dunn won’t necessarily be a perfect fit the Town of York).  One thing I found interesting in reading about the Town of Dunn is the comparison that is made between what happened in Dunn and what happened in neighboring Fitchburg.  The two townships started out pretty much the same- rural character and about 4,500 residents.  Fitchburg chose to promote development and in 20 years had 15,000 residents and the costs of providing services to those residents raised taxes significantly for town residents.  Dunn on the other hand chose to manage development and maintain its rural character and grew to 5,400 residents and held taxes at a much lower level than Fitchburg.  The point here is that managing growth may allow York to meet the goal of maintaining rural character and also help control tax increases due to expanded services.  Overall your survey has gotten us interested enough in the issues facing the town that we plan to start attending the planning commission meetings.  We hope to become even more informed and participate in the process.  Thanks for putting this survey together.

 

 

33. Conservation Easement-  The town cannot force a landowner or prohibit a landowner from putting their land into a conservation easement.  It is the sole right of the individual.  It is a wonderful idea in the right situation, but is a non-issue as far as you are concerned.

 

34. PDR- I would want to see a plan to execute before I would formally vote for this tax increase.  Tiered land division-  I agree only if the plan is not so dumbed down to allow anything goes.  If we had a 35 acre density with the allowance of a maximum of 5 acres and a minimum of 2.5 acres on class 4, 5, 6 land we would preserve productive farm land and still allow for the selling of land for residential building.  Five acre lots would sell faster than 20’s.  Existing land use ordinance- This was established to stop sub-divisions.  It has not preserved productive ag land.  Read the vision statement, are we heading toward this vision?  Let your actions guide us toward it.  If you want to change the vision statement authored by a cross section of residents tell the residents of York, but don’t continue to dilute further the agreements reached during the comprehensive plan process.  The planning commission and town board should read the survey results from the comprehensive plan, they are more meaningful than anything since.

 

 

35. Please make available to York citizens the complete results of this survey!

 

36. We need a Land Use Ordinance to cover: 1)  Restriction of home-building to non-tillable land.  I recommend a “tiered land use” element that allows 1 unit per 5 acres if on class 4 or up land, and raising the density minimum to 30 acres for class 1-3 land.  2)  Site homes so roof lines are below nearest hilltop.  3)  Require dark-sky lighting.  4)  Create standards for commercial building (automotive repair, bed-and-breakfast, hair salons, day care, bars, retail).  We are growing.  It’s going to come!