City council OKs Smart Growth plan
JANESVILLE The public might be split on Janesville's comprehensive plan, but the city council was almost unanimous in its approval Monday night.
The approval followed more than two years of work from city staff, the plan commission and a consulting firm and more than two hours of discussion Monday among residents and council members.
Wisconsin statute requires all municipalities to enact 20-year comprehensive, or Smart Growth, plans by the end of 2009. The council approved the plan 6-1 with Tom McDonald opposed.
McDonald and several speakers Monday worried that the plan will eat up valuable farmland.
The plan, created with the help of consulting firm Vandewalle & Associates, targets nearly 10,000 acres for future development, although 1,600 acres are vacant spots within existing city limits, said Brad Cantrell, community development director.
About 60 percent of the remaining land is north and east of the city, with 40 percent to the south and west, according to the ordinance. The plan applies "long-term, logical growth boundaries" such as the South Highway 11 Bypass, Henke Road and the city of Milton.
The farmland surrounding the city is too precious to develop, some speakers said.
"It is some of the most fertile farmland in the entire planet," said farmer Marion Barlass, 6145 County A, Janesville. "I don't want my children not to be able to produce food that's going to be able to feed the world."
But developers and city officials said growth is inevitable in Janesville, and they need guidelines to make sure the growth is logical.
Even though the city has lost employers, it's still in a growth corridor near Chicago and Milwaukee, council member Yuri Rashkin said.
"We need to be prepared for that growth," he said. "We can't stumble into it blindly."
Officials said the plan is just a guide and does not force farmers to give up their land. Future city councils and market forces will determine how closely the city follows the plan, they said.
For the farmland to be developed, a number of steps have to be taken, officials said. The farmer has to sell his or her land to a developer. The city has to vote to annex, rezone and divide the property.
Several developers spoke in favor of the plan. They said the city shouldn't tie future councils' hands and landowners should have the right to do what they want with their property.
But other speakers said allowing developers to build all around a farm forces that farm out of existence.
"If everyone around you is being developed, that's pretty much the same as being forced to sell your land," Barlass said.
City staff addressed concerns about farmland by recommending that the council eliminate an "urban reserve designation" from the map, but the council denied the recommendation.
McDonald, chairman of the sustainability committee, introduced several amendments aimed at preserving farmland and making the plan more environmentally friendly, including limiting the city's east-side growth to where its sewer service already extends. The amendments failed.
Other council members said the plan balances the need for development and farmland preservation.
"No matter what we do here tonight, the growth, any growth from outside our corporate city limits now, is going to be decided by future councils, future plan commissions," George Brunner said. "We have a good plan. It's there. It's a guideline."
Ag secretary questions comprehensive plan
A Wisconsin department head questioned Janesville's comprehensive plan, especially the inclusion of nearly 10,000 acres for new development, in a letter to the city last week.
Rod Nilsestuen, secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, asked City Manager Eric Levitt in a letter dated March 4 to carefully consider the plan.
"As you know, the prairie soils in this area are some of the most productive agricultural soils in the world," Nilsestuen wrote. "Farmland with such value should not be considered for non-agricultural uses without very careful consideration."
Nilsestuen praised some elements of the plan, including recommendations to explore bio-based production and promote the processing and distribution of specialty foods.
"But I must ask if the conversion of 9,800 acres of farmland, even over a 20-year period, is efficient development," he wrote. "Clearly, the loss of some of Wisconsin's most productive farmland is neither efficient nor appropriate in terms of agricultural development or sustainable land use …
"I am therefore respectfully asking the city to consider very carefully the growth and development projections and how these projections might impact one of Wisconsin's most important natural and economic resource areas."

Mar 16, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillian have you ever farmed or lost land and crop to government control well our family has and we didn't have a say. IMO You always seem to have all the answers to what the gov. will and won't do. Do you work for the GOV. do you call them for imput on if they are going to be fair on this one? Well they do what ever they choose and the people don't have a chance to defend their actions as to crap like this enacted against what people say. Yes we know what The Smart Growth is! The Smart Growth plan is not an INTENT to develop, it is a GUIDE for development that occurs. But that doesn't mean they will follow what it is meant to be. I wonder why the council even has open meetings to get input from the people as they don't hear them anyway. IMO They are going to do whatever they want anyway regardless of the input of the exact ones that elected them. Politician promises are IMO a promotional tool to get the power to do what they want that fits their life, IMO IMO
Mar 16, 2009 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
For the farmland to be developed, a number of steps have to be taken, officials said. The farmer has to sell his or her land to a developer. They can force a sell if they choose to IMO and with this smart growth in writing they will do whatever they choose.IMO Take the empty factories tear em down and use that land Let the farmer make his own decisions without The city council forcing his hand to sell. And I have seen forced sales as to developement and it isn't fair. Just my Opinion
Mar 10, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Smart Growth plan is not an INTENT to develop, it is a GUIDE for development that occurs. The impetus for developing a parcel largely comes from the property owner. The plan incorporates development needs for all edge areas of the city because the city cannot predict where development is really going to occur. The point of the law is for the city to have a plan in place when it does occur.
.
One of the former members of the plan committee had an effective op-ed in the print Gazette stating that the plan lacks enforcement provisions, and the council would do well to consider those in a future revision of the plan. Right now the council does appear to be interested in conservation, but that may not be the case for a future council.
Mar 10, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
local may know better than state know it all.
Rubber Stamp?? rehearsed Responses?? Pro Sprawl??
Smart growth is possible with this Comprehensive plan. You just mentioned a few of the positive recommendations to the plan. Spend energy trying to make the positive happen. Nobody listened to Chicken little.
Mar 10, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
So the Council knows better than the Wi Secretary of AG??? Now that Council has rubber stamped the plan, administration will rehearse the "request to annex the parcel is consistent with the comprehensive growth plan" phrase. There doesn't have to be a battle between development and farmland, preserve the farmland and get SMART about development. Infill, smaller lots, taller buildings. "Smart Growth" is impossible in this town with this pro-sprawl planning department.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.