MONROE - A question of legality may take the Extraterritorial Zoning Committee into overtime, or shut it down completely. The answer may lie in the land of lawyers.
City Administrator Mark Vahlsing told the Monroe Plan Commission on Wednesday night he received a letter dated Feb. 28 from Monroe Town Clerk Karen Sutter. The letter stated the township board had passed a motion unanimously directing Sutter to notify the City of Monroe that "they will not attend any more (ETZ) meetings, until these meetings are proven to be legal."
The issue in question is the timing of the city's passing of a six-month extension for the ETZ Committee, intended to allow the committee to finish its work of outlining land use and setting zoning boundaries and density requirements beyond the city boundaries.
But the town is questioning whether the extension is legal, since the original interim ordinance had expired.
The original city interim zoning ordinance (Monroe City Code 5-1-9), with a life of "no longer than two years following the effective date" was passed by City Council on Nov. 1, 2005, and became effective Nov. 9. The intended six-month extension was passed on Nov. 6, 2007, and became effective Nov. 13 or 14. The exact date was in question at the commission meeting.
Robert Rufi, who lives in Sylvester township but owns land in Monroe township, said he was asked by the Monroe Town Board to present an e-mail he received from Lee Turonie, assistant legal counsel for the Wisconsin Towns Association.
In the e-mail, Turonie cited Wisconsin State Statute 62.23. (7a)(b): "No other interim zoning ordinance shall be enacted affecting the same area or part thereof until two years after the expiration of the interim zoning ordinance or one year extension thereof."
Turonie concluded, "So, no, it is not 'extended' once already expired, and a new one cannot be enacted for a period of two years."
Rufi said based on the effective date, the original ordinance had expired before the extension took effect.
But Monroe Mayor Ron Marsh, commission chairman, said that without Turonie, or another attorney, present to discuss the issue, the commission "has to go with our city attorney's opinion."
City Attorney Rex Ewald said his opinion was that the extension was "lawful and in effect."
Although there was "a small lapse between the effective dates" of the first enactment and the second enactment, "it does not render the interim ordinance extension ineffective," he said. "There was no interim ordinance for that period of lapse."
But, Wisconsin statues do not state that a lapse makes an interim ordinance ineffective, he said, and thus his firm's opinion is that it is effective through May 31.
But the concept of an ETZ board may be the best the township will get from the city, Marsh said.
Does the ETZ committee "allow the township more input and flexibility than (for the city) to invoke" the extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction, Marsh asked.
The plat approval jurisdiction in state statues grants cities some governance over lands in subdivisions with at least five lots and within one and half miles of city limits.
"The ETZ gives the town a voice and a veto," Ewald said.
• In other action, the commission voted to send to the city council the annexation of a portion of property owned by the Munz family, between the "Wal-Mart area" and the existing city border, and to designate that portion an R-1 (residential) zone, as was previously agreed upon during the Wal-Mart area annexation.
The next regularly planned ETZ Committee meeting is March 12, with no location yet decided.
City Administrator Mark Vahlsing told the Monroe Plan Commission on Wednesday night he received a letter dated Feb. 28 from Monroe Town Clerk Karen Sutter. The letter stated the township board had passed a motion unanimously directing Sutter to notify the City of Monroe that "they will not attend any more (ETZ) meetings, until these meetings are proven to be legal."
The issue in question is the timing of the city's passing of a six-month extension for the ETZ Committee, intended to allow the committee to finish its work of outlining land use and setting zoning boundaries and density requirements beyond the city boundaries.
But the town is questioning whether the extension is legal, since the original interim ordinance had expired.
The original city interim zoning ordinance (Monroe City Code 5-1-9), with a life of "no longer than two years following the effective date" was passed by City Council on Nov. 1, 2005, and became effective Nov. 9. The intended six-month extension was passed on Nov. 6, 2007, and became effective Nov. 13 or 14. The exact date was in question at the commission meeting.
Robert Rufi, who lives in Sylvester township but owns land in Monroe township, said he was asked by the Monroe Town Board to present an e-mail he received from Lee Turonie, assistant legal counsel for the Wisconsin Towns Association.
In the e-mail, Turonie cited Wisconsin State Statute 62.23. (7a)(b): "No other interim zoning ordinance shall be enacted affecting the same area or part thereof until two years after the expiration of the interim zoning ordinance or one year extension thereof."
Turonie concluded, "So, no, it is not 'extended' once already expired, and a new one cannot be enacted for a period of two years."
Rufi said based on the effective date, the original ordinance had expired before the extension took effect.
But Monroe Mayor Ron Marsh, commission chairman, said that without Turonie, or another attorney, present to discuss the issue, the commission "has to go with our city attorney's opinion."
City Attorney Rex Ewald said his opinion was that the extension was "lawful and in effect."
Although there was "a small lapse between the effective dates" of the first enactment and the second enactment, "it does not render the interim ordinance extension ineffective," he said. "There was no interim ordinance for that period of lapse."
But, Wisconsin statues do not state that a lapse makes an interim ordinance ineffective, he said, and thus his firm's opinion is that it is effective through May 31.
But the concept of an ETZ board may be the best the township will get from the city, Marsh said.
Does the ETZ committee "allow the township more input and flexibility than (for the city) to invoke" the extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction, Marsh asked.
The plat approval jurisdiction in state statues grants cities some governance over lands in subdivisions with at least five lots and within one and half miles of city limits.
"The ETZ gives the town a voice and a veto," Ewald said.
• In other action, the commission voted to send to the city council the annexation of a portion of property owned by the Munz family, between the "Wal-Mart area" and the existing city border, and to designate that portion an R-1 (residential) zone, as was previously agreed upon during the Wal-Mart area annexation.
The next regularly planned ETZ Committee meeting is March 12, with no location yet decided.