Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com
Published - Friday, March 21, 2008
County adopts controversial comprehensive plan
La Crosse County supervisors from the cities and rural areas usually play nicely together at the County Board — but not Thursday, when the issue was the 20-year comprehensive plan.
After more than an hour of sometimes contentious debate, the board approved the comprehensive plan on a 19-12 vote, just one more than the 18 votes needed for passage.
Separately, the board rejected several requests from the town of Onalaska to amend its plan to open about 1,000 more farmland acres to development.
The votes weren’t entirely along city-rural lines — a few rural liberals voted yes, a few city conservatives voted no.
But issues of who controls rural development played out in the debate.
County officials have worked with rural towns for three years on details of the plan, but in recent months many town officials became concerned about “thresholds” in the plan that would limit the number of acres that can be developed in each town over the next 10 years.
The board did vote to call the controls “guidelines” instead of thresholds but rejected two amendments that would have removed the development controls from the plan.
Supervisor Jeffrey Schroeder of the town of Campbell argued the plan was “top down” instead of “bottom up,” and doesn’t respect town plans. He asked the board to wait a year, as state law doesn’t require a comprehensive plan be adopted until 2010.
Supervisor Tara Johnson of the town of Shelby, who was co-chairwoman of the county’s comprehensive plan steering committee, said the county respects the towns’ plans and gives them equal value to its own. She said delaying adoption for a year would be “an act of cowardice,” which drew strong boos from some supervisors.
Johnson argued the plan creates a system of checks and balances between the county and the towns. Even though planning and zoning arguments can be emotional, “there’s value in having tension between the two views,” Johnson said.
Some town officials are concerned the guidelines won’t give them enough flexibility, and could cause them to lose a major commercial development if they had to update their comprehensive plan.
Plan supporters said the guidelines let towns know they have to plan ahead.
How they voted
To approve the La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan for 2007-27:
Yes — Roger Plesha, Sharon Hampson, Brian Kapanke, Margaret Wood, Jill Billings, Keith Belzer, Andrea Richmond, Jacie Gamroth, Maureen Freedland, John Medinger, Tom Rauk, Jai Johnson, Lyell Montgomery, Donald Meyer, Tara Johnson, Vicki Burke, Jim Berns, Joe Bilskemper and Brad Pfaff.
No — Gerald Sebranek, Leon Pfaff, Patrick Schippers, Robert Keil, Ray Ebert, Jim Ehrsam, Donald Bina, Jeffrey Schroeder, George Hammes, Charles Spiker, Ann Fisher and Terry Hanson.
Abstain — Ralph Geary.
County rejects town of Onalaska plan changes
By REID MAGNEY | La Crosse Tribune
La Crosse County supervisors refused Thursday to change the town of Onalaska’s comprehensive plan to allow for more development.
After an election last April ousted three town supervisors, the new town board revisited the comprehensive plan.
Those revisions would have reclassified about 1,000 acres of land from agricultural use to residential and mixed use, a first step to getting the land rezoned.
But the county board failed on three votes Thursday — 11-21, 12-20 and 12-20 — to approve any of the town’s requested plan amendments.
Supporters argued the county shouldn’t tell any town how to plan for development. They said changing the plan doesn’t mean the land will be developed, and the actual development proposals could be turned down at a later time if not acceptable.
County Administrator Steve O’Malley told the board that allowing more rural development will cost urban taxpayers more to maintain county roads that serve rural areas.
O’Malley said the county already has $20 million in unfunded road repairs and improvements in rural areas, including $4.4 million in the town of Onalaska. More development will cost more, and the most of the bill will be paid by La Crosse County’s urban taxpayers, not the rural ones.
Supervisor Jeffrey Schroeder said it sounds like the urban areas are dictating to the rural areas how much they can develop. O’Malley replied that by allowing too much development, rural leaders are dictating to urban dwellers that they have to pay for rural roads.
All stories copyright 2000 - 2006 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.