Discussion at last Tuesday night's meeting of the Manitowish Waters Plan Commission was mostly devoted to our controversy du jour: the creation of new cranberry farming operations in areas not zoned for agriculture. To cover this whole issue as it has developed to this point would require way more typing than I feel inclined to perform, and would result in a post way longer than most readers' attention spans, so as concise as is possible:
A new cranberry operation was started last year on Town Line Road on land properly rezoned to allow agruculture (and Land Use Plan updated.)
This year an area adjacent just across Pine Lane was clear cut (permit obtained) and new water control structures and cranberry beds are being contstructed. This land is still zoned "Residential" under town and county zoning. Only hobby farms are allowed in residential districts.
This year an area just south of Hwy 51 on Twin Pines Road was clear cut with the intention of creating more cranberry beds. These beds would require water from Manitowish Lake, probably obtained via some kind of pipe. This land is zoned "Recreational." This zoning classification does not allow agricultural operations.
All of these operations are being established on forested uplands, not on marshy or marginal areas.
All of these operations are owned by the same individual.
- This individual bases his defense for his actions on Wisconsin's statute 94.26, Wisconsin's so-called "cranberry law." This law was originally passed in 1867 to encourage the production of cranberries in the state. The owner of these new cranberry operations maintains that state law trumps local zoning ordinances, and therefore he can create a cranberry operation in any zoning district -- no additional permission is required.
- Believe it or not, he actually has a legal leg to stand on, even though it seems like a crazy idea and poor public policy. To settle the issue of what the statue really says would probably require action in circuit court, the court of appeals, and the state Supreme Court (very expensive process.)
- A number of the members of the community are very unhappy about all of this, a several expressed their opinions during public discussion Tuesday night.
At last Tuesday's meeting, Hanson moved, and Bauers seconded, a motion directing the town's zoning administrator to issue a citation to our new cranberry farmer based on his violation of our zoning ordinance as it relates to establishing an agricultural operation in a residential district. Discussion followed, and I was first to speak. I expressed my reservations about the motion, and they revolve around the question of whether an agricultural operation yet exists. So far trees have been cut, and earth has been moved, but is it yet an agricultural operation? No agricultural operation, no basis for a citation. Sure, issuing a citation might seem like someone is doing something and it might feel good, but we most likely would end up in court defending it, where if we lost, would end up paying all court costs and be even farther from a resolution. Rayala, Sleight, and Johns offered similar viewpoints, Johns specifically requesting a written opinion from the town's attorney. The last I checked, you can't fine someone for intent. Hanson had spoken to our attorney about the issue, but none of us were privy to that conversation and nothing was on paper. Sensing defeat, Hanson offered a second motion, seconded by Bauers, to table the first motion pending our attorney's review and opinion. Motion passed.
I am sure that many town's people left the meeting disappointed, some perhaps angry, but the Commission took the right action. The town's attorney is scheduled to view the operation in question next week, after which he will render his written opinion and the Commission will take the matter up shortly after that. Stay tuned.
