SPONSOR LINKS
spacer

PRINT ADS

spacer

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes


 Home > News > Story

Published - Wednesday, December 26, 2007

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (1 comment(s))

County faces uphill battle over bluff development

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
La Crosse County’s proposed comprehensive plan does not explicitly forbid home construction on steep slopes as some have suggested, said county planner Charlie Handy, because the plan is amendable and just suggests a guide for development.

Although several people spoke against slope limitations at a public hearing for the comprehensive plan two weeks ago, Handy said many of the comments do not reflect the latest draft of the plan.

Originally, the plan was written to prohibit the development of any land with a grade steeper than 20 percent, Handy said. But after several people told the county board they thought the rule was excessive and would deny development of prime real estate, the plan was amended in October to read that development would be “limited” in slopes between 20 percent and 30 percent.

Handy said the comprehensive plan for every county in Wisconsin that is not in the “Driftless Zone” limits construction to slopes that are less steep than 20 percent. La Crosse County is unique in the state for having so many developments on bluffs and in coulees. But Handy noted that development of land with slopes between 20 and 30 percent offers challenges for construction, erosion and services, so the plan was written to discourage construction there.

“You’ve got to look at the cost-benefit analysis to everyone in the county,” Handy said. “Just because a few people want to have a high view looking out over the rest of us, does that mean that they should be able to?”

Handy said it’s difficult to construct roads and driveways to reach homes on the bluffside. Building away from urban centers also increases costs for garbage pickup, school bus routes, mail and other services.

At the Dec. 10 public hearing on the comprehensive plan, Steve Mader, a board member from the town of Greenfield, said he was concerned that the plan goes too far in limiting development. He said Greenfield is a fast-growing township with a lot of ongoing development near ridge tops.

“There’s not one problem with those subdivisions,” Mader said. “It’s a developer’s dream. It’s a town dream.”

The county’s comprehensive plan steering committee is scheduled to discuss possible changes to the draft at its meeting Dec. 27. The county board would then vote on an ordinance in January to adopt the plan with the final vote scheduled for February.

Even when the comprehensive plan is adopted by the county board, it is not a binding document. For one, cities and villages in the county have “home rule,” and their ordinances trump county law.

Even in the towns — where zoning changes must be approved by the county board — the comprehensive plan is still a guiding document. Handy said the plan is useful because it offers an orderly suggestion for future development which could be especially useful in towns that have a small planning staffs and regular turnover in government.

“What the comprehensive plan does is it allows us a little bit more of a conversation about whether development is appropriate or not,” Handy said.

Jason Gilman, land use and development director for the city of Onalaska, said the city’s building guidelines allow development on slopes up to 30 percent. Of the city’s future developable land, Gilman said “hundreds of acres” are located on slopes between 20 and 30 percent, including a significant amount of Greens Coulee and French Valley.

The Onalaska planning department has looked at limiting development to slopes that are less than 20 percent, but enough citizens have spoken against the additional regulations to keep the cap at 30 percent.

Contact Adam Bissen at 786-6813 or adam.bissen@lee.net.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Handy said.... wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:50 PM:

" ...“Just because a few people want to have a high view looking out over the rest of us, does that mean that they should be able to?” The answer is YES. This is America not the Soviet Union, so why must every personal choice be "approved" or "outlawed" by the government? This plan wants to "control" development. They do not want farm land developed. Neither do they want slopes worthless for farming. Where can people build a home then?
"


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Coulee News.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The Coulee News, please sign in now!
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The Coulee News requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 

About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2009 The Coulee News. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.