[Minutes]

MINUTES SPRINGDALE JOINT PLAN COMMISSION AND TOWN BOARD MONDAY, Aug 24, 2026 at 7pm Approved Sept 28 2026 PC members present: Plan Commission Chair Jester, Bunn, Aburomia, Hanson, and Dorn. Absent: Carrico and Sullivan. TB Members present: Town Board Chair Rosenbaum, Supervisors Schwenn and Altschul. 1. Call to order at 7pm and certification of compliance with open meetings law. 2. Minutes from July meeting. MOTION (Hanson/ Dorn) to approve minutes from July meeting with a correction on the person seconding the second motion of agenda item 2. 3-ayes, 0-nays, 2-abstain – MOTION CARRIED 3. J Voell/ 2253 State Hwy 92/ Public Hearing CSM and Rezone 3 lots from AT-35 to RR2, RM8 and RM- 16 for residential Development/Sec. 19. MOTION 1 (Bunn/ Aburomia): to recommend to the town board the approval of the waiver for the 66’ frontage requirement for Lot 2 with the condition that the town board approve a joint driveway agreement meeting the standards outlined in Dane County Chapter 75. 5-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED MOTION 2 (Bunn/ Hanson): to recommend to the town board approval of the preliminary CSM as it is consistent with the concept plan on file with the town and the town land use plan 5-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED MOTION 3 (Jester/Bunn): to recommend to the town board the rezone of three lots to RR2, RM8 and RM 16 based on changed lot sizes due to division in rezone petition #12332. These lots are not eligible for further divisions per the town of Springdale land use plan. 5-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED Background: The Voell lands (previously Thompson) had two houses on the same property (allowed in prior A1 zoning district and allowable as a grandfathered use in AT35) – the land was still eligible for one additional density unit per the land use plan and so a concept plan was done to locate a location for the additional density unit – the approved concept plan showed three possible development locations. Voell worked with the town via JSD engineering and a letter dated June 9, 2026, to the Town Chair specified a path to building envelope C that meets the Town Driveway standards. Public Hearing: No one present wished to make comment during the public hearing on this agenda item. Discussion: Because this was a farm and the two existing houses on a single lot already shared a driveway AND because the layout of the land and the creek meant that flagpole frontage for lot 2 would never be able to be used for access, the PC recommended that the town allow for an exception to the 66’ frontage for Lot 2. This action is allowed by recommendation of the town board and if the applicant submits a shared driveway agreement that conforms to Chapter 75 of the Dane County code. The PC reviewed the standards from Chapter 75 and agreed that the requested frontage exception did not violate the land use plan and met the standards. The PC reviewed the concept plan on file and building site C was selected for Lot 1. The owner worked with JSD engineering to show a driveway path that met the driveway standards as this was a requirement on the concept plan for the use of this building site. 4. Stagecoach LLC (J. Hamilton)/ 7946 Paulson Rd/ Public Hearing for Building Envelope Change/ Sec 1. MOTION (Jester/Bunn): to recommend to the town board the revision of the building envelope for the replacement house more than 100ft from the original location – about 500 ft northwest of the original house site. This is a replacement location for the house associated with the farmland – not a new lot or division. 5-ayes, 0-nays MOTION CARRIED Background: In Feb 2024, the town approved a replacement house building envelope change for this land. The original house has since been demolished, but the replacement house was not constructed. The owner now wishes to move the location of that replacement house to the location. Discussion: This request is for a replacement house that is staying with the farmland (on the original Helt Trust lands of approx. 160 ac) and is not a building envelope for a house associated with a land division. None of the farmland is being divided. It is all one contiguous ownership. The farm owner stated that this location was chosen because it is less productive than the hay field that is closer to the road (that is used in the operation of the farm to feed animals and it is proximate for viewing the location of other farm operations as well. The town has criteria for building envelopes on concept plans when a land division is being exercised or for approving lot lines – however, this is not a land division. Bunn observed that this site location felt odd because it seemed like the location is not one that would be approved if it were part of a land division but recognized that it was not a land division. This property is still eligible for division per the town of Springdale land use plan, however, there is no concept plan on file as the owner does not have any plans to divide the land at this time – the PC reviewed contour maps and floodplain maps and discussed that the location of this site for the replacement house may make siting future development areas more difficult and that actions taken now without a concept plan can alter how/ where or if all of the eligible development in the future can occur. The owner stated he understood, and this was still the preferred location for the replacement house that will be associated with the farmland. NOTE: The slides for this agenda item the slide showing the new home location had red lines drawn around the building envelope area that appeared to be potential lot lines. PC chair clarified with the applicant that this was not a land division or lot creation and PC members and the town board chair requested that the record of the building envelope change have these lines removed and it was clarified that no lot lines were approved nor land division considered for this replacement farmhouse building relocation. Additionally, the slide showed a possible driveway path. While there is an approved farm drive entrance off Paulson Rd at this location, the driveway as shown is not yet approved. The applicant will need to apply for a driveway permit with the town of Springdale. Public Hearing: No one present wished to make a comment on this agenda item. _________________________ JOINT MEETING OF THE TB FOR THE PURPOSES OF REVIEWING AND ACTING ON AGENDA ITEM(S) ABOVE. Call to Order at 7:40pm Minutes from July Meeting MOTION (Schwenn/ Altschul) to approve the town board portion of the joint minutes from the July 2026 meeting. 3-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED • J Voell/ 2253 State Hwy 92/ Public Hearing CSM and Rezone 3 lots from AT-35 to RR1, RR8 and RM-16 for residential Development/Sec. 19. MOTION 1 (Rosenbaum/Altschul): to approve the waiver for the 66’ frontage requirement for Lot 2 with the condition that the town board approves a joint driveway agreement meeting the standards outlined in Dane County Chapter 75. 3-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED MOTION 2 (Altschul/Schwenn): to approve of the preliminary CSM as it is consistent with the concept plan on file with the town and the town land use plan 3-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED MOTION 3 (Rosenbaum/Altschul): to approve the rezone of three lots to RR2 (Lot 3), RM8 (Lot 2) and RM 16 (Lot 1) based on changed lot sizes due to division in rezone petition #12332. These lots are not eligible for further divisions per the town of Springdale land use plan. 3-ayes, 0-nays. MOTION CARRIED • Stagecoach LLC (J. Hamilton)/ 7946 Paulson Rd/ Public Hearing for Building Envelope Change/ Sec 1. MOTION (Schwenn/ Altschul): to approve the revision of the building envelope for the replacement house more than 100ft from the original location – about 500 ft northwest of the original house site. This is a replacement location for the house associated with the farmland – not a new lot or division. 2-ayes, 1-nay (Rosenbaum) MOTION CARRIED. Discussion: Rosenbaum expressed that he did not feel that the requested location met the standards of the land use plan and asked if the applicant had considered a location closer to the wooded area. Owner stated that they considered many locations but that he wanted to maintain the best land for hay and the proposed location was an advantage over others for the operation of the farm and his growing family. and again requested that any lines on the drawing be removed to clarify that we were not approving a land division just a replacement house location in excess of 100’ from the original footprint. MOTION (Schwenn/ Altschul) to adjourn at 7:58pm. 3-ayes 0-nays MOTION CARRIED _____________________________ 5. Sutter Family Farm LLC/ 2074 Sutter Dr /Concept Plan / Sec 29. MOTION (Jester/Bunn): to approve the option 1 concept plan for three development areas for three new divisions and one development area for a density unit that stays with the farmland as presented at the meeting and attached below. 5-ayes, 0-nays MOTION CARRIED. Background: As of 2002 Arthur and Charlotte (original Sutter farm owners) owned 114.37 EX ROW. There was a house on the farm at the time - Option 1= 4 new and Option 2= 7 new divisions. They divided off their house in 2009 1.675 ac and used one of their eligible divisions and left the farm without a density unit. They did not complete a concept plan at that time. Current owners are now looking to create an option 1 concept plan because their son wishes to build a house on the farm. According to the land use plan - 3 new divisions remain – additionally, one density unit may be constructed on the farm and stay with the farm because they used one of their divisions to divide off the original house after 2002. A site visit was conducted on Aug 3rd at 6pm – present were Rosenbaum, Schwenn and Jester and members of the Sutter Family. Zach Sutter presented a concept plan showing multiple development areas – three development areas A, B and C for the location of new lots and a development area D to stay with the main farmland. 6. Adjourn MOTION (Jester/Bunn) to adjourn at 8:15pm. 5-ayes, o-nays. MOTION CARRIED Submitted by Amy Jester Town of Springdale Plan Commission