http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:29:46 -0500 MyBB http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-46.html Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:03:07 -0400 Cindi Haack http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-46.html
Property Rights for “Sesame Street”
Janet Beales Kaidantzis

Ever seen two children quarreling over a toy? Such squabbles had been commonplace in Katherine Hussman Klemp’s household. But in the Sesame Street Parent’s Guide she tells how she created peace in her family of eight children by assigning property rights to toys.

As a young mother, Klemp often brought home games and toys from garage sales. “I rarely matched a particular item with a particular child,” she says. “Upon reflection, I could see how the fuzziness of ownership easily led to arguments. If everything belonged to everyone, then each child felt he had a right to use anything.”

To solve the problem, Klemp introduced two simple rules: First, never bring anything into the house without assigning clear ownership to one child. The owner has ultimate authority over the use of the property. Second, the owner is not required to share. Before the rules were in place, Klemp recalls, “I suspected that much of the drama often centered less on who got the item in dispute and more on whom Mom would side with.” Now, property rights, not parents, settle the arguments.

Instead of teaching selfishness, the introduction of property rights actually promoted sharing. The children were secure in their ownership and knew they could always get their toys back. Adds Klemp, “‘Sharing’ raised their self-esteem to see themselves as generous persons.”

Not only do her children value their own property rights, but also they extend that respect to the property of others. “Rarely do our children use each other’s things without asking first, and they respect a ‘No’ when they get one. Best of all, when someone who has every right to say ‘No’ to a request says ‘Yes,’ the borrower sees the gift for what it is and says ‘Thanks’ more often than not,” says Klemp.]]>
Property Rights for “Sesame Street”
Janet Beales Kaidantzis

Ever seen two children quarreling over a toy? Such squabbles had been commonplace in Katherine Hussman Klemp’s household. But in the Sesame Street Parent’s Guide she tells how she created peace in her family of eight children by assigning property rights to toys.

As a young mother, Klemp often brought home games and toys from garage sales. “I rarely matched a particular item with a particular child,” she says. “Upon reflection, I could see how the fuzziness of ownership easily led to arguments. If everything belonged to everyone, then each child felt he had a right to use anything.”

To solve the problem, Klemp introduced two simple rules: First, never bring anything into the house without assigning clear ownership to one child. The owner has ultimate authority over the use of the property. Second, the owner is not required to share. Before the rules were in place, Klemp recalls, “I suspected that much of the drama often centered less on who got the item in dispute and more on whom Mom would side with.” Now, property rights, not parents, settle the arguments.

Instead of teaching selfishness, the introduction of property rights actually promoted sharing. The children were secure in their ownership and knew they could always get their toys back. Adds Klemp, “‘Sharing’ raised their self-esteem to see themselves as generous persons.”

Not only do her children value their own property rights, but also they extend that respect to the property of others. “Rarely do our children use each other’s things without asking first, and they respect a ‘No’ when they get one. Best of all, when someone who has every right to say ‘No’ to a request says ‘Yes,’ the borrower sees the gift for what it is and says ‘Thanks’ more often than not,” says Klemp.]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-45.html Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:41:21 -0400 Cindi Haack http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-45.html Cindi

NATIONAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-funded manual on land use draws fire
By MICHAEL COLLINS
Scripps Howard News Service
March 07, 2002
WASHINGTON - Supporters say it's a how-to manual for controlling urban sprawl through planned or "smart growth" development.
Critics say it's a handbook for radically altering land-use plans nationwide, stripping property owners of their rights and devastating small businesses.
A $2.5 million, government-funded guidebook that tells states how they can manage urban sprawl and other land-use problems has ignited a debate among business groups, property-rights advocates, environmentalists and members of Congress.
"It's anti-freedom. It's anti-choice. It's anti-culture,'' said Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Nonsense, countered Robert Manley, a Cincinnati attorney who helped draft the document through the American Planning Association.
"The guidebook contains nothing that is not already on the books, with a (proven) track record,'' Manley told the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. The panel held a hearing about the manual on Thursday.
The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he has serious concerns that the guidebook promotes a "top-down" approach to land-use planning that would remove such matters from the hands of local authorities.
The "Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook,'' a seven-year project sponso red by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was drafted by the American Planning Association. The document contains recommendations for changing state and local land-use laws.
Opponents contend that property-rights groups and small-business organizations were deliberately excluded from the 18-member committee that developed the manual. Some are asking that Congress refuse to give money to states and local communities to carry out the recommendations.
The guidebook promotes "bad policy" that would make the United States "one big zoning law,'' Alford said.
Among the critics' primary concerns are recommendations that local governments be required to write land-use plans that follow state goals and regional plans - even if residents in those areas don't agree with such plans.
The guidebook also says local governments should be authorized to regulate the location, size, height and other features of commercial signs, including those found on small businesses.
Such signs generally are given greater constitutional protections than large commercial billboards, but business groups fear local communities would be permitted to ban them outright under the guidebook's recommendations.
That could change the character of minority communities such as San Francisco's Chinatown, where signs posted on businesses help give the area the ethnic identity that makes it such a big tourist draw, Alford said.
Manley said the guidebook does not promote a "top-down" approach to planning but merely offers a "menu" of options states can choose from.
Land-use plans need updating because planning tools in most states are based on model statutes drafted during the 1920s, when growth was largely confined to central cities, Manley said.
The rapid development of rural areas means the "one-size-fits-all" approach no longer works, he said. Local communities should be allowed to select the approach that best suits their needs, he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(Contact Michael Collins at CollinsM(at)shns.com or online at http://www.shns.com)]]> Cindi

NATIONAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-funded manual on land use draws fire
By MICHAEL COLLINS
Scripps Howard News Service
March 07, 2002
WASHINGTON - Supporters say it's a how-to manual for controlling urban sprawl through planned or "smart growth" development.
Critics say it's a handbook for radically altering land-use plans nationwide, stripping property owners of their rights and devastating small businesses.
A $2.5 million, government-funded guidebook that tells states how they can manage urban sprawl and other land-use problems has ignited a debate among business groups, property-rights advocates, environmentalists and members of Congress.
"It's anti-freedom. It's anti-choice. It's anti-culture,'' said Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Nonsense, countered Robert Manley, a Cincinnati attorney who helped draft the document through the American Planning Association.
"The guidebook contains nothing that is not already on the books, with a (proven) track record,'' Manley told the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. The panel held a hearing about the manual on Thursday.
The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he has serious concerns that the guidebook promotes a "top-down" approach to land-use planning that would remove such matters from the hands of local authorities.
The "Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook,'' a seven-year project sponso red by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was drafted by the American Planning Association. The document contains recommendations for changing state and local land-use laws.
Opponents contend that property-rights groups and small-business organizations were deliberately excluded from the 18-member committee that developed the manual. Some are asking that Congress refuse to give money to states and local communities to carry out the recommendations.
The guidebook promotes "bad policy" that would make the United States "one big zoning law,'' Alford said.
Among the critics' primary concerns are recommendations that local governments be required to write land-use plans that follow state goals and regional plans - even if residents in those areas don't agree with such plans.
The guidebook also says local governments should be authorized to regulate the location, size, height and other features of commercial signs, including those found on small businesses.
Such signs generally are given greater constitutional protections than large commercial billboards, but business groups fear local communities would be permitted to ban them outright under the guidebook's recommendations.
That could change the character of minority communities such as San Francisco's Chinatown, where signs posted on businesses help give the area the ethnic identity that makes it such a big tourist draw, Alford said.
Manley said the guidebook does not promote a "top-down" approach to planning but merely offers a "menu" of options states can choose from.
Land-use plans need updating because planning tools in most states are based on model statutes drafted during the 1920s, when growth was largely confined to central cities, Manley said.
The rapid development of rural areas means the "one-size-fits-all" approach no longer works, he said. Local communities should be allowed to select the approach that best suits their needs, he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(Contact Michael Collins at CollinsM(at)shns.com or online at http://www.shns.com)]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-44.html Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:42:29 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-44.html
I would most like the plan to remain as it is. I lived outside of Verona for more than twenty-five years and watched as the rural character was ruined by development. I moved to Primrose eight years ago and don't want that to happen here. The plan seems to me to be sound: it protects agricultural land, the beautiful rural landscape, and still allows room for growth, for newcomers like me. FYI I bought an existing parcel and am happy to comply with the requirements for driveway placement and emergency access.

If compromise requires some changes, I would support varying density requirements and farm houses following the same rules as other landowners.

Thank you for all your efforts to respond to the needs of all the landowners in the township. I truly value my rural home. I would be willing to assist this process by serving on a committee and attending meetings.

Linda Uttech
203 County U]]>
I would most like the plan to remain as it is. I lived outside of Verona for more than twenty-five years and watched as the rural character was ruined by development. I moved to Primrose eight years ago and don't want that to happen here. The plan seems to me to be sound: it protects agricultural land, the beautiful rural landscape, and still allows room for growth, for newcomers like me. FYI I bought an existing parcel and am happy to comply with the requirements for driveway placement and emergency access.

If compromise requires some changes, I would support varying density requirements and farm houses following the same rules as other landowners.

Thank you for all your efforts to respond to the needs of all the landowners in the township. I truly value my rural home. I would be willing to assist this process by serving on a committee and attending meetings.

Linda Uttech
203 County U]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-43.html Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:35 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-43.html I would like to see Primrose stay rural and agricultural, but we need to all get involved in the new Land Use and Comprehensive Plan decisions. Every Property Owner in the township of Primrose needs to look at this closely. On the surface, the plan looks reasonable, but once you take a closer look, you will understand how this will encroach on your Constitutional Rights as a land owner.
If you own property that could be used for, or fits in the following categories you will be affected by the new Comprehensive plan. Government entities want control of all of these areas. They include but are not limited to the following:
Travel Corridors, Environmental Corridors, Open-Space Corridors, Recreational Areas both in and out of the Open Space or any of the other items listed, View Sheds, View Scapes, Wooded Property, Grasslands, Land on Slopes, Wildlife Corridors. Property that has Scenic Qualities, Scenic Driving Corridors, Historical Sites, Wet Lands, Hydraulic Soils, Hydraulic Plants, Recreational Trails, Bike Trails, Hiking Trails, Park Trail s and Possible Park Trails. Any property that will link DNR land to Parkland and/or all Trails together, also property that has a Conservancy use. All Watershed areas, Expanded Floodplains, Public Right of Ways, Public Easement, Wildlife Habitat, Erodible Soil, Savannas and Property with Mineral Rights. Any property having Natural Resources, or Property that is used for Ground Water Recharging, Flood Control, Ecosystems, and all Adjacent Landscapes. All Streams, lake beds, Ponds, Open Water Bodies, any Property that will Protect all Landscapes, Prairies, Natural Areas, Trails for Canoes, Kayaks, Watercraft and Property that can be used to Access Waterways. It also includes any Property that is Adjacent to a State, County, or Local Park. Archaeological sites, Wildlife or Conservation Area, and Open-Space Networks. All Property That can be used for Natural Resource Protection or Conservation Utility Corridors, Stream Corridors, Shoreland and Stream Banks. Any Property that has Natural Scenic Beauty, Urban Lakes, or stream Bank buffers. Included is Property that can be used to Manage Storm water Run-off and All Property used for Natural Infiltration and Headwater Areas, Vegetative Buffers, Slope Protection and Conservancy Overlay Districts. Any Property that will Protect Wellheads, Ag land, Property with Good Soils, Urban Service Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Land, Large Tracts of Ag Land, Property with Poor Soil, and Property with Other Resource Features, Sledge Meadows, Wet Meadows, Inland Fresh Meadows, Deep and Shallow Marshes, Swamps, . This will a lso affect anyone who has Riparian Water Rights. (The previous items are direct quotes from governmental documents and Maps issued by Dane County Planning and Zoning.)

As you can see, this includes just about everybody. As if this isn't enough, by acquiring these corridors, and gaining control of other properties, they are going to use this as a basis to grab or control more property later. I have been digging in these documents, both on the Internet and information from other places for close to four years now. They are using Overlay Maps to encroach upon private property. Do not make the mistake of looking at just one document or one map, it is cumulative, map, after map, after map.
We agree that the “protection of natural areas including the wet lands, wildlife habitat, lakes, woodlands, open-space and ground water resources” is a good idea but not at the expense of the land owners Constitutional Rights. The problem comes when you look at the details. Every single phrase or a paragraph, which talks about preserving and protecting our groundwater, immediately includes “for recreational activities or View Scapes.” So, it appears to me that the comprehensive plan, as the county has written it, only wants the control of more property. Dane County planning and zoning actually has training manuals that explain how the comprehensive plan will be used as a “police power” to control the land owners use of their property. In addition to the 1981 adoption of Farmland P reservation, we have gone from 1 house per acre to 1 house per 35 acres, dedicating 30 + acres to Farmland. In other townships where this policy has already been implemented, property values have been driven down and no buyer in their right mind, wants anything to do with it.
Since my husband and I purchased the property in 1981, we have been involved in multiple preservation activities. We have a DNR easement that runs along the creek on our property for public fishing. We have sold 61 acres to what is now called Donald Park. We have also added property to the Forest and Fame Park in the village of Mt. Vernon. My husband Bill was involved in the very first group of farmers who started sustainable agriculture and no till Programs. When we’ve harvested trees we don’t clear cut, we always hire a Forrester to select trees to cut, and we have replanted 100’s of trees here. We have worked with DNR officials, Raptor Ridge, and Veterinarians to rehab and save wildlife. Our farm also serves as a release point for owls and other wildlife. The Sugar River Horse’n Around Club was started in our kitchen. We were then able to communicate to Dane County, and Dane County Parks that people were interested in an equestrian trail through Donald Park. In the planning stages, I spent many hours on the phone with the architectural company, who were drawing up plans for Donald Park. Bill went around to local land owners to get private easements to make the trail longer and helped=2 0to create it. We received an award from Ducks Unlimited, and were recognized by Dane County Board for our contribution to Donald Park. Our property is unique because we have fostered and protected wildlife and worked to preserve the land, so we are the home of many animals and several Breeding Sand hill Cranes, kestrels, a breeding pair of Wood Ducks, Canadian geese, Great Blue Herons that return here every year. Even though we have voluntarily done all this work, and contributed to the parks, and to public fishing, to the preservation of the environment, and to the preservation of wildlife, we find out at a meeting that there is a big chunk of our property in “Dedicated Open Space” that the county is basically taking from us, without due process, and forbidding us to build on it. Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. That property meets every other requirement of the Farmland Preservation criteria within Primrose. This is right along our driveway, on the poorest Ag land we own. This is also along the equestrian trail that we worked so hard at to get established.
The County will tell you that you can have this status changed by asking for a variance or having an inspection by the Zoning Administrator. We have been that very route and it took us 2 years and the help of our County Rep to get the Zoning Administrator here and to have an inspection of the Flood Plain Setback and its navigable water ways and now Dane County Planning and Zoning have told us that the inspection=2 0and the decision and the documents do not mean anything. I had asked The Zoning Administrator about correcting the FEMA maps to reflect his decision, and I was told by the Zoning Administrator that FEMA and the Government were responsible for changing the maps. Now, we are told that we are supposed to pay a fee for an application to change the maps. I have been to the FEMA website, and there are people on there who have submitted applications that have been waiting for years for a decision about changing the maps. Currently, we have been waiting for an additional two years, for a Parcel Status Determination that we never received. We had to submit an application along with $100 for a decision that was never given. In the new Comprehensive Plan, the county wants to set aside funds and collect fees to employ more people to do site inspections. We don’t understand this, because we've already been told that the decisions and documents that the Zoning Administrator issues are worthless. They can't have it both ways. We would like to know what the exact truth is. Part of the fee structure to hire these people will be to tax and license farm equipment, and charge us for rezoning Ag land, but then, they say they want to help farmers. What is the truth?
I really felt picked on when I found out about the Dedicated Open-Space on our property until I started looking at the rest of the township. Now, I feel worse for a lot of you people, because you have it way worse than we do, and most of you don't even know it. That is the purpose for my letter. Make no mistake, I love living in the country. I do not want to see our township built up, but please, start asking questions to Dane County Planning and Zoning and the Dane County Board. Ask to see the maps, take time to read the documents (and not the white washed version on the Town website). Once they are approved and the comprehensive plan is approved, it will be too late. Don't be like other townships, where they have passed the plan, and are now are asking questions about losing their land owner rights. Our Township has to have this plan completed by 2010, or the county is going to do it for us. Time for this is running out so please do it now.
I have a list of links and more information if anybody is interested.
Thank You
Cindi Haack]]> I would like to see Primrose stay rural and agricultural, but we need to all get involved in the new Land Use and Comprehensive Plan decisions. Every Property Owner in the township of Primrose needs to look at this closely. On the surface, the plan looks reasonable, but once you take a closer look, you will understand how this will encroach on your Constitutional Rights as a land owner.
If you own property that could be used for, or fits in the following categories you will be affected by the new Comprehensive plan. Government entities want control of all of these areas. They include but are not limited to the following:
Travel Corridors, Environmental Corridors, Open-Space Corridors, Recreational Areas both in and out of the Open Space or any of the other items listed, View Sheds, View Scapes, Wooded Property, Grasslands, Land on Slopes, Wildlife Corridors. Property that has Scenic Qualities, Scenic Driving Corridors, Historical Sites, Wet Lands, Hydraulic Soils, Hydraulic Plants, Recreational Trails, Bike Trails, Hiking Trails, Park Trail s and Possible Park Trails. Any property that will link DNR land to Parkland and/or all Trails together, also property that has a Conservancy use. All Watershed areas, Expanded Floodplains, Public Right of Ways, Public Easement, Wildlife Habitat, Erodible Soil, Savannas and Property with Mineral Rights. Any property having Natural Resources, or Property that is used for Ground Water Recharging, Flood Control, Ecosystems, and all Adjacent Landscapes. All Streams, lake beds, Ponds, Open Water Bodies, any Property that will Protect all Landscapes, Prairies, Natural Areas, Trails for Canoes, Kayaks, Watercraft and Property that can be used to Access Waterways. It also includes any Property that is Adjacent to a State, County, or Local Park. Archaeological sites, Wildlife or Conservation Area, and Open-Space Networks. All Property That can be used for Natural Resource Protection or Conservation Utility Corridors, Stream Corridors, Shoreland and Stream Banks. Any Property that has Natural Scenic Beauty, Urban Lakes, or stream Bank buffers. Included is Property that can be used to Manage Storm water Run-off and All Property used for Natural Infiltration and Headwater Areas, Vegetative Buffers, Slope Protection and Conservancy Overlay Districts. Any Property that will Protect Wellheads, Ag land, Property with Good Soils, Urban Service Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Land, Large Tracts of Ag Land, Property with Poor Soil, and Property with Other Resource Features, Sledge Meadows, Wet Meadows, Inland Fresh Meadows, Deep and Shallow Marshes, Swamps, . This will a lso affect anyone who has Riparian Water Rights. (The previous items are direct quotes from governmental documents and Maps issued by Dane County Planning and Zoning.)

As you can see, this includes just about everybody. As if this isn't enough, by acquiring these corridors, and gaining control of other properties, they are going to use this as a basis to grab or control more property later. I have been digging in these documents, both on the Internet and information from other places for close to four years now. They are using Overlay Maps to encroach upon private property. Do not make the mistake of looking at just one document or one map, it is cumulative, map, after map, after map.
We agree that the “protection of natural areas including the wet lands, wildlife habitat, lakes, woodlands, open-space and ground water resources” is a good idea but not at the expense of the land owners Constitutional Rights. The problem comes when you look at the details. Every single phrase or a paragraph, which talks about preserving and protecting our groundwater, immediately includes “for recreational activities or View Scapes.” So, it appears to me that the comprehensive plan, as the county has written it, only wants the control of more property. Dane County planning and zoning actually has training manuals that explain how the comprehensive plan will be used as a “police power” to control the land owners use of their property. In addition to the 1981 adoption of Farmland P reservation, we have gone from 1 house per acre to 1 house per 35 acres, dedicating 30 + acres to Farmland. In other townships where this policy has already been implemented, property values have been driven down and no buyer in their right mind, wants anything to do with it.
Since my husband and I purchased the property in 1981, we have been involved in multiple preservation activities. We have a DNR easement that runs along the creek on our property for public fishing. We have sold 61 acres to what is now called Donald Park. We have also added property to the Forest and Fame Park in the village of Mt. Vernon. My husband Bill was involved in the very first group of farmers who started sustainable agriculture and no till Programs. When we’ve harvested trees we don’t clear cut, we always hire a Forrester to select trees to cut, and we have replanted 100’s of trees here. We have worked with DNR officials, Raptor Ridge, and Veterinarians to rehab and save wildlife. Our farm also serves as a release point for owls and other wildlife. The Sugar River Horse’n Around Club was started in our kitchen. We were then able to communicate to Dane County, and Dane County Parks that people were interested in an equestrian trail through Donald Park. In the planning stages, I spent many hours on the phone with the architectural company, who were drawing up plans for Donald Park. Bill went around to local land owners to get private easements to make the trail longer and helped=2 0to create it. We received an award from Ducks Unlimited, and were recognized by Dane County Board for our contribution to Donald Park. Our property is unique because we have fostered and protected wildlife and worked to preserve the land, so we are the home of many animals and several Breeding Sand hill Cranes, kestrels, a breeding pair of Wood Ducks, Canadian geese, Great Blue Herons that return here every year. Even though we have voluntarily done all this work, and contributed to the parks, and to public fishing, to the preservation of the environment, and to the preservation of wildlife, we find out at a meeting that there is a big chunk of our property in “Dedicated Open Space” that the county is basically taking from us, without due process, and forbidding us to build on it. Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. That property meets every other requirement of the Farmland Preservation criteria within Primrose. This is right along our driveway, on the poorest Ag land we own. This is also along the equestrian trail that we worked so hard at to get established.
The County will tell you that you can have this status changed by asking for a variance or having an inspection by the Zoning Administrator. We have been that very route and it took us 2 years and the help of our County Rep to get the Zoning Administrator here and to have an inspection of the Flood Plain Setback and its navigable water ways and now Dane County Planning and Zoning have told us that the inspection=2 0and the decision and the documents do not mean anything. I had asked The Zoning Administrator about correcting the FEMA maps to reflect his decision, and I was told by the Zoning Administrator that FEMA and the Government were responsible for changing the maps. Now, we are told that we are supposed to pay a fee for an application to change the maps. I have been to the FEMA website, and there are people on there who have submitted applications that have been waiting for years for a decision about changing the maps. Currently, we have been waiting for an additional two years, for a Parcel Status Determination that we never received. We had to submit an application along with $100 for a decision that was never given. In the new Comprehensive Plan, the county wants to set aside funds and collect fees to employ more people to do site inspections. We don’t understand this, because we've already been told that the decisions and documents that the Zoning Administrator issues are worthless. They can't have it both ways. We would like to know what the exact truth is. Part of the fee structure to hire these people will be to tax and license farm equipment, and charge us for rezoning Ag land, but then, they say they want to help farmers. What is the truth?
I really felt picked on when I found out about the Dedicated Open-Space on our property until I started looking at the rest of the township. Now, I feel worse for a lot of you people, because you have it way worse than we do, and most of you don't even know it. That is the purpose for my letter. Make no mistake, I love living in the country. I do not want to see our township built up, but please, start asking questions to Dane County Planning and Zoning and the Dane County Board. Ask to see the maps, take time to read the documents (and not the white washed version on the Town website). Once they are approved and the comprehensive plan is approved, it will be too late. Don't be like other townships, where they have passed the plan, and are now are asking questions about losing their land owner rights. Our Township has to have this plan completed by 2010, or the county is going to do it for us. Time for this is running out so please do it now.
I have a list of links and more information if anybody is interested.
Thank You
Cindi Haack]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-42.html Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:21:13 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-42.html
We moved to Primrose Township several years ago. In building our home and driveway, we followed all of the rules and regulations of the Primrose Town Landuse Plan. This came at extensive expense and at times, disappointment, to us. However, we respect the plan's overall purpose to protect the country living offered in the township. Therefore, we DO NOT want to change the current plan.

Since we have lived here, we notice those who want changes to the landuse plan also want to exploit it. Those who want to make extraordinary amounts of money or leave the community while selling the land to developers who will exploit it. Therefore, we remain 100% against any changes because if we give in a little, we believe the profiteers will take advantage of this opportunity.

If change is inevitable, we support consideration of small, reasonable and practical shifts. For example, it doesn't make sense to tear down a beautiful woods to build a house when a house could be built right at the edge of the woods and conserve most of the farmland. It would be nice to see value in natural beauty and rare ecosystems in addition to farmland. If we must change, do as York Township does and have the minimum lot size 80 acres. In addition to this, a conservation easement added to the deed to prevent development in the future.]]>
We moved to Primrose Township several years ago. In building our home and driveway, we followed all of the rules and regulations of the Primrose Town Landuse Plan. This came at extensive expense and at times, disappointment, to us. However, we respect the plan's overall purpose to protect the country living offered in the township. Therefore, we DO NOT want to change the current plan.

Since we have lived here, we notice those who want changes to the landuse plan also want to exploit it. Those who want to make extraordinary amounts of money or leave the community while selling the land to developers who will exploit it. Therefore, we remain 100% against any changes because if we give in a little, we believe the profiteers will take advantage of this opportunity.

If change is inevitable, we support consideration of small, reasonable and practical shifts. For example, it doesn't make sense to tear down a beautiful woods to build a house when a house could be built right at the edge of the woods and conserve most of the farmland. It would be nice to see value in natural beauty and rare ecosystems in addition to farmland. If we must change, do as York Township does and have the minimum lot size 80 acres. In addition to this, a conservation easement added to the deed to prevent development in the future.]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-41.html Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:59:43 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-41.html
Sincerely, Kate and Brad]]>
Sincerely, Kate and Brad]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-40.html Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:52:09 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-40.html
I am writing about the proposed land use element in the comprehensive plan. I support the Primrose Land Use Plan as currently written. In election after election, Primrose electors have continually elected local candidates who support the land use plan. The majority of Primrose voters support the current plan because it protects agriculture from non-farm development and allows for slow growth. I share that opinion.

The Primrose Land Use Plan has protected agriculture and rural living since it was put in place in 1981. Because of it our township is a beautiful place where farmers can still farm and where there are not developments on every hill. It would be a shame to throw it all away for the short-term financial interests of a few. You only need to look at Springdale and New Glarus Townships to see what happens without appropriate planning.

Sincerely,

Al Colvin

Town of Primrose
8650 Oak Grove Road
Mount Horeb, WI 53572]]>
I am writing about the proposed land use element in the comprehensive plan. I support the Primrose Land Use Plan as currently written. In election after election, Primrose electors have continually elected local candidates who support the land use plan. The majority of Primrose voters support the current plan because it protects agriculture from non-farm development and allows for slow growth. I share that opinion.

The Primrose Land Use Plan has protected agriculture and rural living since it was put in place in 1981. Because of it our township is a beautiful place where farmers can still farm and where there are not developments on every hill. It would be a shame to throw it all away for the short-term financial interests of a few. You only need to look at Springdale and New Glarus Townships to see what happens without appropriate planning.

Sincerely,

Al Colvin

Town of Primrose
8650 Oak Grove Road
Mount Horeb, WI 53572]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-39.html Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:56:14 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-39.html
We would like to voice our opinion on creating a comprehensive plan for the township.

Both Paul and I would like the land use plan to remain the same, without change.

We moved to this area to get away from urban sprawl. The pro-development forces seek to make Primrose in the image of Fitchburg.
Fitchburg was once a lovely farming area. Now, strip malls, and unbridled development are all over the place. People, in one instance, were told a golf course was going to go up near a new housing development. An industrial park went up instead much to the disappointment of old and new inhabitants. Once developers get in, there is no stopping them. They build without much forethought. Money rules not individual residents.

It would be a shame for this beautiful, rural community to become a playground for developers.

Thanks

Paul & Linda Markwardt
940 County Road U
Primrose, WI 53593]]>
We would like to voice our opinion on creating a comprehensive plan for the township.

Both Paul and I would like the land use plan to remain the same, without change.

We moved to this area to get away from urban sprawl. The pro-development forces seek to make Primrose in the image of Fitchburg.
Fitchburg was once a lovely farming area. Now, strip malls, and unbridled development are all over the place. People, in one instance, were told a golf course was going to go up near a new housing development. An industrial park went up instead much to the disappointment of old and new inhabitants. Once developers get in, there is no stopping them. They build without much forethought. Money rules not individual residents.

It would be a shame for this beautiful, rural community to become a playground for developers.

Thanks

Paul & Linda Markwardt
940 County Road U
Primrose, WI 53593]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-38.html Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:37:32 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-38.html
I am in favor of keeping our land use plan as it now stands.

I understand that there have been discussions about not counting farm houses when figuring densities. Regardless of what may have happened in the past, I believe our plan must state that every house, no matter how it is defined (farm house, residence, retirement house), must be counted when figuring densities.

Sincerely,
Patty Peltekos]]>
I am in favor of keeping our land use plan as it now stands.

I understand that there have been discussions about not counting farm houses when figuring densities. Regardless of what may have happened in the past, I believe our plan must state that every house, no matter how it is defined (farm house, residence, retirement house), must be counted when figuring densities.

Sincerely,
Patty Peltekos]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-37.html Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:32:22 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-37.html We'd like to see very little change from the current Plan. We bought this property over 20 years ago and most certainly don't want it to look like New Glarus township. Protect ag land and keep the township rural.
Thank you
anonymously]]> We'd like to see very little change from the current Plan. We bought this property over 20 years ago and most certainly don't want it to look like New Glarus township. Protect ag land and keep the township rural.
Thank you
anonymously]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-36.html Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:29:09 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-36.html My name is Gerrit (Gary) Dewitt. I am a primrose resident at 8829 Oak Grove Rd. I have tried to get on the Town Square forum site recently but have just been able to access it and not able to post anything. I am emailing you since you are the Chair of the comprehensive planning committee.
I am dismayed at the continuing arguements over the Land use plan. I get an email or a phone call saying that the people want to change the LUP and they need my voice to help counter the persistent pushing of "a minority" of disgruntled land owners who want to exercise there property rights to develop house parcels.
Let me make it clear right now that I support the current LUP. I do this reluctantly... I feel that at this point, it is the plan that limits growth the best and keeps the damage of "growth" or "development" to a minimum.
I see the continuing meetings on this subject tiring and a waste of time. The suggestions or arguements that we need to be in step with the other townships in Dane county do not make me happy. Being a different place, out of step with the rest of Dane is why I wanted to move here in the first place.
Ideally, I would like to see the town Land Use Plan take on a more visionary feel. With the future of a minimum 50 years in scope. These are the things that I would like to see in a Land use Plan. With this new direction of planning I would enthusiastically support it and it would make me feel that we live in a place that is truely sustainable.

1. Acknowledge that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. This is applicable down to our town level. 2. Acknowledge that the next 20 years will be very different than the last 20 years. We are at the peak extraction period for nearly all our resources on or planet. Once we start moving down the other site of this peak extraction period all resource that we use become exponentially more expensive if available at all.
3. Use the creative people in the town of primrose to develop a new vision of our town.
4. Emphasize that development might actually END. 5. Create a community that does not emphasize "sustainable" or "smart" growth but a "steady state" that continues indefinately


In light of these few thoughts a truely "comprehensive plan" would comprehend the potentially dire future of our town, county, state, nation.

We need to see the future and plan in light of it. Too much time and gracious energy has been really wasted. The time to start is now. Just keep the, possibly imperfect, current plan and turn off ears to all who say it has to change.

Let's start a new direction to a steady state community. I am sure many would share this vision and find that it is right. Right and just for us now; and right and just to the many generations to follow us.
Thank you for the time you have spent on this, reading this email, etc. I would be more than happy to sit down and talk about new ways to invision our futures in the town of Primrose. Gerrit DeWitt 832-6759]]> My name is Gerrit (Gary) Dewitt. I am a primrose resident at 8829 Oak Grove Rd. I have tried to get on the Town Square forum site recently but have just been able to access it and not able to post anything. I am emailing you since you are the Chair of the comprehensive planning committee.
I am dismayed at the continuing arguements over the Land use plan. I get an email or a phone call saying that the people want to change the LUP and they need my voice to help counter the persistent pushing of "a minority" of disgruntled land owners who want to exercise there property rights to develop house parcels.
Let me make it clear right now that I support the current LUP. I do this reluctantly... I feel that at this point, it is the plan that limits growth the best and keeps the damage of "growth" or "development" to a minimum.
I see the continuing meetings on this subject tiring and a waste of time. The suggestions or arguements that we need to be in step with the other townships in Dane county do not make me happy. Being a different place, out of step with the rest of Dane is why I wanted to move here in the first place.
Ideally, I would like to see the town Land Use Plan take on a more visionary feel. With the future of a minimum 50 years in scope. These are the things that I would like to see in a Land use Plan. With this new direction of planning I would enthusiastically support it and it would make me feel that we live in a place that is truely sustainable.

1. Acknowledge that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. This is applicable down to our town level. 2. Acknowledge that the next 20 years will be very different than the last 20 years. We are at the peak extraction period for nearly all our resources on or planet. Once we start moving down the other site of this peak extraction period all resource that we use become exponentially more expensive if available at all.
3. Use the creative people in the town of primrose to develop a new vision of our town.
4. Emphasize that development might actually END. 5. Create a community that does not emphasize "sustainable" or "smart" growth but a "steady state" that continues indefinately


In light of these few thoughts a truely "comprehensive plan" would comprehend the potentially dire future of our town, county, state, nation.

We need to see the future and plan in light of it. Too much time and gracious energy has been really wasted. The time to start is now. Just keep the, possibly imperfect, current plan and turn off ears to all who say it has to change.

Let's start a new direction to a steady state community. I am sure many would share this vision and find that it is right. Right and just for us now; and right and just to the many generations to follow us.
Thank you for the time you have spent on this, reading this email, etc. I would be more than happy to sit down and talk about new ways to invision our futures in the town of Primrose. Gerrit DeWitt 832-6759]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-35.html Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:27:32 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-35.html
As a ten-year resident of Primrose Township, I'm happy and grateful to live in a rural area among so many pleasant people. Having attended several township meetings in the early years, I realized some compromise is needed here and am encouraged that your committee is considering one that will essentially keep the current Land Use Plan and still have regard for the family farmers' concerns.

In short, I am in favor of the current plan and the compromise that allows agland use for residences that comes with an increase in density, stringent siting criteria, and conservation easements for all new houses.

Personally, I have been waiting for this issue to find a favorable conclusion so that discussion of the health of the land may begin:
Agland/woodland issues (such as fragmentation), groundwater issues, and habitat preservation (hedgerows, streams, the trees/shrubs needed for birdlife), as well as the fast-growing problem of invasive plants.

Thank you all for your devoted efforts to retain Primrose's character and wellbeing!
Helen Loschnigg
540 Bowers Road]]>
As a ten-year resident of Primrose Township, I'm happy and grateful to live in a rural area among so many pleasant people. Having attended several township meetings in the early years, I realized some compromise is needed here and am encouraged that your committee is considering one that will essentially keep the current Land Use Plan and still have regard for the family farmers' concerns.

In short, I am in favor of the current plan and the compromise that allows agland use for residences that comes with an increase in density, stringent siting criteria, and conservation easements for all new houses.

Personally, I have been waiting for this issue to find a favorable conclusion so that discussion of the health of the land may begin:
Agland/woodland issues (such as fragmentation), groundwater issues, and habitat preservation (hedgerows, streams, the trees/shrubs needed for birdlife), as well as the fast-growing problem of invasive plants.

Thank you all for your devoted efforts to retain Primrose's character and wellbeing!
Helen Loschnigg
540 Bowers Road]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-34.html Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:43:49 -0400 Bryan Garfoot http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-34.html
The criteria for the crossing of agricultural land should be similar to the following:

• The house site must still meet all of the existing siting criteria as laid out by the present LUP
• The Planning Commission and Town Board must agree that no other options exist for a driveway not crossing ag land
• The driveway must be sited so that any crossing will be minimally disruptive to agricultural activities
• Any driveway proposed in this manner would require two (2) density units in order to build
• No more than one driveway crossing agricultural land should be allowed per property. Thus, clustered development would make sense in cases where multiple densities are being developed.
  

Bryan Garfoot
8670 Garfoot Drive]]>
The criteria for the crossing of agricultural land should be similar to the following:

• The house site must still meet all of the existing siting criteria as laid out by the present LUP
• The Planning Commission and Town Board must agree that no other options exist for a driveway not crossing ag land
• The driveway must be sited so that any crossing will be minimally disruptive to agricultural activities
• Any driveway proposed in this manner would require two (2) density units in order to build
• No more than one driveway crossing agricultural land should be allowed per property. Thus, clustered development would make sense in cases where multiple densities are being developed.
  

Bryan Garfoot
8670 Garfoot Drive]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-33.html Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:01:51 -0400 Robyn Garfoot http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-33.html In addition to the present criteria, I would add a few new ones to address these cases:
-Require 2 density units to be used to cross Ag land (in effect, 1 build per 70 acres). This places the emphasis on siting, being careful not to break up large tracts of land. That land could not be developed in the future once the density units are used.
-Neighbor Consideration: No new houses jammed up to existing ones, or destroying the view.
-Require Cluster Development: if dealing with multiple density units (builds present or future) on the same property. For all builds, crossing Ag land or not.

I like Jean Roberts suggestion that there be no exceptions to these rules - even for farmer retirement homes.
I don't agree with requiring conservation easements in this instance- too complex and doesn't 2 density units used and cluster development serve the same purpose?

Respectfully, Robyn Garfoot
8670 Garfoot Drive]]> In addition to the present criteria, I would add a few new ones to address these cases:
-Require 2 density units to be used to cross Ag land (in effect, 1 build per 70 acres). This places the emphasis on siting, being careful not to break up large tracts of land. That land could not be developed in the future once the density units are used.
-Neighbor Consideration: No new houses jammed up to existing ones, or destroying the view.
-Require Cluster Development: if dealing with multiple density units (builds present or future) on the same property. For all builds, crossing Ag land or not.

I like Jean Roberts suggestion that there be no exceptions to these rules - even for farmer retirement homes.
I don't agree with requiring conservation easements in this instance- too complex and doesn't 2 density units used and cluster development serve the same purpose?

Respectfully, Robyn Garfoot
8670 Garfoot Drive]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-32.html Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:31:40 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-32.html the current plan — our Land Use Plan has protected
agricultural land; protects our rural character; and
promotes slow growth. [The minor revisions that the
Planning Commission has recommended can remain.]

But if we must change the plan (priority 2), I would
consider a ‘compromise’ between the majority who currently
do not want more development and the minority who want
to develop where they currently cannot. Such a compromise
could distribute residential building more fairly across
land-owners, while NOT adding greatly to overall building
in our Town.

Here are the parameters around such a compromise:
(1) Any change that will allow building in, or crossing,
agricultural lands should come with an increase in density
to at least one build per 70 acres. (2) There must be very
stringent siting criteria that protect the diverse
interests of residents — preserve agricultural land,
woodland, Primrose’s rural character, and the privacy
of neighbors. 3) Any development from Land Use Plan changes
must be accompanied with ‘conservation easements’ that
insure that land that remains after development be off
limits to future development. 4) Farm house—there should
be the same rules for all landowners, all houses (whether
farm-house or not) should count against density. There
should be no exemptions for density.]]> the current plan — our Land Use Plan has protected
agricultural land; protects our rural character; and
promotes slow growth. [The minor revisions that the
Planning Commission has recommended can remain.]

But if we must change the plan (priority 2), I would
consider a ‘compromise’ between the majority who currently
do not want more development and the minority who want
to develop where they currently cannot. Such a compromise
could distribute residential building more fairly across
land-owners, while NOT adding greatly to overall building
in our Town.

Here are the parameters around such a compromise:
(1) Any change that will allow building in, or crossing,
agricultural lands should come with an increase in density
to at least one build per 70 acres. (2) There must be very
stringent siting criteria that protect the diverse
interests of residents — preserve agricultural land,
woodland, Primrose’s rural character, and the privacy
of neighbors. 3) Any development from Land Use Plan changes
must be accompanied with ‘conservation easements’ that
insure that land that remains after development be off
limits to future development. 4) Farm house—there should
be the same rules for all landowners, all houses (whether
farm-house or not) should count against density. There
should be no exemptions for density.]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-31.html Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:27:40 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-31.html
First and foremost, I hope that your Committee will keep in mind the fact that time and time again, votes have indicated that the majority of Town residents do not want to open the Township to expanded development.

I realize the need for a more in depth and comprehensive document.Therefore, if it's determined that compromises must be made, I would encourage very strict restrictions on any such compromises, in order to avoid Primrose becoming another "suburbia" like the Town of New Glarus and others. Following are examples of what I mean by "strict restrictions":

1. Include very high acreage requirements (70 or more acres) per building site for any approvals on or crossing agricultural land.
2. Building sites that are approved should contain legal restriction from any future additional development.
3. These rules should apply to any and all building approvals on or crossing agricultural land, whether the request is for a farmer owned retirement house, or other. No exceptions!
4. Such approvals should consider the use of that land, in order to retain Primrose's rural character and the privacy of neighboring residents.
Thank you for your time and efforts in this difficult process.

Jean Roberts
56 State Road 69
New Glarus, WI 53574
jeanrob@tds.net]]>
First and foremost, I hope that your Committee will keep in mind the fact that time and time again, votes have indicated that the majority of Town residents do not want to open the Township to expanded development.

I realize the need for a more in depth and comprehensive document.Therefore, if it's determined that compromises must be made, I would encourage very strict restrictions on any such compromises, in order to avoid Primrose becoming another "suburbia" like the Town of New Glarus and others. Following are examples of what I mean by "strict restrictions":

1. Include very high acreage requirements (70 or more acres) per building site for any approvals on or crossing agricultural land.
2. Building sites that are approved should contain legal restriction from any future additional development.
3. These rules should apply to any and all building approvals on or crossing agricultural land, whether the request is for a farmer owned retirement house, or other. No exceptions!
4. Such approvals should consider the use of that land, in order to retain Primrose's rural character and the privacy of neighboring residents.
Thank you for your time and efforts in this difficult process.

Jean Roberts
56 State Road 69
New Glarus, WI 53574
jeanrob@tds.net]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-30.html Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:25:40 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-30.html http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-29.html Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:23:33 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-29.html
I don't know if we have ever met, but my husband, Mike, and I have lived on Peerless Road for nine years. We have two young boys. When we were looking to purchase our first home, we chose Primrose Township for two reasons: the breathtaking natural beauty of the land and the preservation of low building density and rural character. When I look out from one of the overlooks above our property, I see crowded, oversized neighborhoods dotting, no, scarring the landscape in Green County, just a stones throw to the south. If we wanted neighbors close by, we would not have chosen Primrose Township. Once our bucolic township zoning rules weaken, the essence of what makes Primrose such a special place are gone. And they are gone forever. Preserving agricultural land and encouraging the conversion of agricultural land to conservation land, keeping the housing density at one house per 35 acres or more, and discouraging non-agricultural growth are imperative preemptive priorities. If we don't work to conserve what we have, we might as well put a Kwik Trip and Pizza Hut on an intersection where Primrose Center Road dissects the township. Please realize that so many landowners in Primrose do not want neighbors crowding their privacy, their solitude, their home. Please work to preserve our township.

Thank you.

Dr. Emily Leuthner]]>
I don't know if we have ever met, but my husband, Mike, and I have lived on Peerless Road for nine years. We have two young boys. When we were looking to purchase our first home, we chose Primrose Township for two reasons: the breathtaking natural beauty of the land and the preservation of low building density and rural character. When I look out from one of the overlooks above our property, I see crowded, oversized neighborhoods dotting, no, scarring the landscape in Green County, just a stones throw to the south. If we wanted neighbors close by, we would not have chosen Primrose Township. Once our bucolic township zoning rules weaken, the essence of what makes Primrose such a special place are gone. And they are gone forever. Preserving agricultural land and encouraging the conversion of agricultural land to conservation land, keeping the housing density at one house per 35 acres or more, and discouraging non-agricultural growth are imperative preemptive priorities. If we don't work to conserve what we have, we might as well put a Kwik Trip and Pizza Hut on an intersection where Primrose Center Road dissects the township. Please realize that so many landowners in Primrose do not want neighbors crowding their privacy, their solitude, their home. Please work to preserve our township.

Thank you.

Dr. Emily Leuthner]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-28.html Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:02:26 -0400 Joshua Dein http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-28.html bold]]> bold]]> http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-27.html Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:07:55 -0400 Gretchen Hayward http://www.tn.primrose.wi.gov/townsquare/thread-27.html We recommend all of Brian Standing's Goals and Objectives. However, we would add the following Goal:
Encourage formation of volunteer Primrose Historic Society that would among other things collect, document,preserve and copy items related to historic Primrose including an oral history, items available at the Wisconsin Historical Society, historic photos, plat maps and registered land surveyor journals. Make the Town Hall available to the Society for meetings, resources and exhibition of materials.
We would suggest a modification of Standing"s Policies and Programs as follows:
Change the second Policy to read as follows:
Support efforts to help provide restoration grants to willing owners of historic properties by providing (e.g. on Website or at Town Hall) information on the resources available for restoration and preservation as it becomes known to the Town.]]> We recommend all of Brian Standing's Goals and Objectives. However, we would add the following Goal:
Encourage formation of volunteer Primrose Historic Society that would among other things collect, document,preserve and copy items related to historic Primrose including an oral history, items available at the Wisconsin Historical Society, historic photos, plat maps and registered land surveyor journals. Make the Town Hall available to the Society for meetings, resources and exhibition of materials.
We would suggest a modification of Standing"s Policies and Programs as follows:
Change the second Policy to read as follows:
Support efforts to help provide restoration grants to willing owners of historic properties by providing (e.g. on Website or at Town Hall) information on the resources available for restoration and preservation as it becomes known to the Town.]]>