Facts Regarding the Proposed County Highway Facility

 

 This is yet another case of very weak, shortsighted, and unintelligent "leadership" in the Village.

   The County purchased property from WPS and located in Kronenwetter. They then, in my opinion basically strong-armed local residents out of their homes abutting this property to enlarge the County property.

 There was a strip of land owned by the Village that cut through this property and which the County wished to buy, but the Village Board under Admin Davel's recommendation instead bypassed APC committee review, and voted to give the property to the County at no cost. I estimate the value of this giveaway at about $20-25,000.

   Now, the County has applied for a rezone of the property which would allow them to apply for a conditional use permit for the highway department complex to be built on that site. This would involve heavy truck traffic on Kronenwetter roads, for one thing.

   If this plan goes through, the Village will have surrendered about 25 acres of prime buildable land to the County for at least the next 100 years, and have no benefit whatsoever to show for the deal.

  The county claims to have a policy of not paying any tax or PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) for the use of land in local jurisdictions; no compensation for the village's loss of potential growth.. So the Village has much to lose with this deal, and nothing to gain.

Below is information in opposition to the plan that I presented verbally to the Plan Commission on July 20, 2026, then again via email on July 27:

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Regarding the proposed rezoning for the county highway facility.

As you know, the hearing is over and no new information should be allowed to be brought to the discussion, so I am not going to do that. What I have below is a summary of the facts and the text of what I read into the record at the hearing.

I have also provided a summary or procedural requirements so if you do vote to deny the rezoning, you will not leave an opening for anyone to say it was improper.

A quick summary-

• The Commission is working under conditions that are heavily weighted against an informed decision.

• The request for zoning map change does not meet the procedural requirements stated in 520-118 C.

• The request for zoning map change does not meet the authority stated in 520-118A.

• The location of a county highway facility is intended to be located in areas already designated as M2. Rezoning commercial-designated areas to M2 just to accommodate a nonconforming use of a highway facility already in the development process, conflicts with and defeats the purpose of zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.

• The request for rezone to M2 for non-industrial government operations use, conflicts with zoning procedure.

• The applicant's narrative and findings of fact contain numerous invalid assumptions and false statements of material fact.

• An objective, critical look at the applicant packet shows numerous drawbacks to the rezone request, and practically no valid benefit to the Village and Community, if any at all.

Procedural Issues

As it is, it seems to me that you are working under several handicaps -

• You have had no objective legal advisement available to you on the matter, which is important in this case.

• You have no Community Development Director/ Zoning Administrator to confirm whether or not anything has been done according to statute, or in an impartial manner.

• There was no staff or anyone qualified to make determinations required by 520-118, or advise in the village's best interests.

  Chapter 520-118 C.

  "No application for amendment to the official zoning map shall be placed on any agenda as an item to be acted upon unless the zoning administrator has certified acceptance of a complete application."

  Item D requires

  "The zoning administrator shall determine whether the application is complete and fulfills the requirements of this chapter. Only a complete application in the determination of the zoning administrator shall entitle a public hearing under subsection F. The zoning administrator shall inform the applicant if the application is incomplete in his or her determination".

  Maybe I missed something, but the Village currently has no Zoning Administrator, and I haven't seen an agenda item where the Board authorized any qualified employee to fill in for those department head duties.

• Staff temporarily filled in to prepare the report, and according to Mr Ullman's June 1 report to CLIPP and other sources, the staff that prepared this packet apparently relies on guidance from the County. This seems to conflict with an objective report.

• Of all the previous weeks and months that this application could have been submitted, it is unfortunate that it came at a time when there is no qualified CDD/ZA in office. This puts the Village at a disadvantage in fact finding.

Facts presented on the record at the hearing.

Before a zoning change can be approved, the facts must address the criteria,including the comprehensive plan, and generally the Kronenwetter public benefit vs the detriment.

As authority for making zoning map changes Chapter 520-118 A. states:

"Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, the village board may, by ordinance, amend the official zoning map of this chapter. Such amendments, often called "rezonings" or "zoning map amendments," shall first be subject to the review and recommendation of the plan commission."

    None of those 4 reasons - public necessity, convenience, or general welfare are served by a zoning change in this case, and good zoning practice basically only requires strict adherence to Chapter 520 rules.

Nor can a government entity like the County by definition be construed as the Kronenwetter "public", or the "local community".

This whole matter might have been more appropriately settled as some kind of inter-governmental agreement, where the Village actually participated in collaboration with the County.

The bottom line fact is that there is nothing in the way of benefit to the Kronenwetter public with this application as presented, and plenty of drawbacks and negative consequences, regarding Village plans and goals.

The staff report and findings generally and uncritically mirror the applicants narrative. As a taxpaying member of the public, I am strongly opposed to this zoning change and the way this whole thing has been handled right from the beginning. Here are some facts and reasons for this opinion.

Start with the zoning and the future land use map. The area is currently designated as General Commercial and future land use as Commercial/industrial. Neither type allows for heavy industrial, hazardous/nuisance type zoning except possibly in an industrial park setting.

Since this is a government entity making the application, actual use that is described in the application should clearly be considered governmental/institutional. The described use is NOT heavy industrial, even if it the governmental entity conducts some of the same activities or creates the negative consequences as a bona fide heavy industrial operation might do.

They are two different things

Here is how the Kronenwetter ordinance defines M2 zone:

§ 520-11. - Listing and purposes of standard zoning districts.

"M2 General Industrial. The M2 district accommodates a range of manufacturing, assembling, fabrication and processing, bulk handling, storage, warehousing, trucking, and utility uses. The uses associated with this district may have significant off-site impacts such as heavy truck traffic, noise, and odors. Development within this district is generally served by public sanitary sewer and water services. This district is intended for mapping in limited areas planned for industrial uses within the comprehensive plan, at the village's discretion."

The reason that a conditional use of a highway facility is allowed only in an M2 district, is to protect other areas of the Village from the government operations that result in hazardous and negative consequences similar to heavy industrial use. It is NOT meant to imply or redefine those highway facility operations as being "industrial development" or "economic or cultural growth" within the scope or purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive plan calls for commercial and/or light industrial growth in this area. It does not call for governmental /institutional uses, even if they mimic heavy industrial (M2) operations .

This finding alone is a legitimate reason to deny the zoning change.

Page 8 of the packet

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION:

Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the hearing on a proposed amendment, the Village Plan Commission shall make written findings of fact and shall submit the same together with its recommendations to the Village Board. Where the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment are to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the Village Plan Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to the following matters:

• "Yes. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and its Future Land Use Map (Map 8), which designates this area for Industrial/Commercial uses, intended for concentrated development in heavy industrial or light business/office settings."

This is not exactly true. The Comp Plan page 122 defines it this way -

Industrial/Commercial: Area designated for concentrated development in an industrial park (heavy) or business park (light / office) setting.

This is an important difference, and fact to consider. There is no "industrial park" setting in that area of the proposed highway facility. One government entity setting up operations in the middle of other commercial enterprises is not an "industrial park".

"The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes strategic industrial growth in areas with access to major transportation corridors and adequate public services. Rezoning the property to M-2 supports this vision and aligns zoning with the Comprehensive Plan’s intent to coordinate land use with infrastructure capabilities."

 

This sentence appears to effectively serve as misdirection. It may be true as an isolated sentence, but it does not apply to the current zoning change request because government operations do not constitute "industrial growth". Again, the PC must base their decision on facts, not "visions" or conclusions of intent.

• 2009 Wisconsin Act 372 clarifies that new or amended zoning, land division and official mapping ordinances must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Consistent means “furthers or does not contradict the objectives, goals and policies contained in the comprehensive plan.” This same Act clarifies that the Comprehensive Plan in itself is not a regulation, it is “a guide to the physical, social, and economic development of a local governmental unit” and that “[t]he enactment of a comprehensive plan by ordinance does not make the comprehensive plan by itself

a regulation.” The Future Land Use Map is just one indicator of consistency, which discredits the other 200 pages of the Comp Plan and the Goals and Objectives.

I do not know what they mean by saying the map discredits the rest of the Comp Plan, but the Comp Plan should be compatible with itself. no part of it should discredit any other part. The plan may be a guide, but when the ordinance requires compliance with it, the guide then becomes becomes rules and regulations that need to be observed.

• Page 121 of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan states the following:

Future Land Use Plan

The Future Land Use Plan Map represents the long-term land use recommendations for all lands in the Village. Although the map is advisory and does not have the authority of zoning, it is intended to reflect community desires and serve as a guide for local officials to coordinate and manage future development of the Village

• Page 126-127 of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan also states:

Goals, Objectives, & Policies

As in previous chapters of this plan, a goal and a series of objectives are identified.

Goal: The Village will make sound land use decisions which strive to coordinate future growth and land uses with infrastructure capabilities and availability.

I would agree that sound land use decisions are needed. The question is whether it is a sound land use to allow this facility to operate in this location.

Utilities and Community Facilities Goals Alignment (Chapter 4):

The Village will maintain utility infrastructure to the highest standards to support residents and businesses of Kronenwetter as the community grows.

Again, we have a legitimate statement on its own that is irrelevant or misapplied to the current task at hand.

There is no utility involved in this application, and this facility serves County operations , not the local community, other than incidentally. This is not a Village facility.

Objective A: Highway Facility development is consistent with existing water and sewer capacities, with coordination to accommodate both municipal utility demands and private well usage for operations such as brine production.

Who did they co-ordinate with, and how did they "accomodate" the Village? They frame a private well as "accommodating" the village, when in fact it defeats the goal and purpose of the W&S utility goal of more customers to help spread the cost of infrastructure. It appears that the County is bypassing Village infrastructure and ordinances, not to "accomodate" the Village, but apparently for their own financial cost savings.

Objective B: Much of the property was previously owned by WPS and exempt from taxes, provides a unique opportunity to develop infrastructure with minimal impact on the local tax base while supporting community growth and improved utility services.

The Comp Plan and the general welfare of the Village relies on taxes to pay for services. Since the County cannot construe this facility as a benefit to the Village, they seem to celebrate the fact that it is not too much of a loss for the Village. The unique opportunity is to the county, not the village. The developed infrastructure is for the county, not the village. Kronenwetter did not invite them. They acted for their own best interest, regardless of Village plans and goals.

Who invests money with the goal of "not losing too much". The goal here should be to move the Village forward, not to accept moving backward, which is what his application represents.

Between WPS, the County, and the Village, this looks like a win-win-loose situation. Kronenwetter being the loser.

WPS never informed the Village that this land was available for sale, nor to my knowledge did they put it on the market to even allow for the possibility that a private buyer might buy it and develop a true, tax-paying business operation there.

Instead, they worked together to basically prohibit a chance for Kronenwetter to move forward with any beneficial development.

Now, the County spins the story around like this facility is doing us a favor by not harming the Village too much.

This is not to mention the the several tax-paying homeowners who are now gone due to County efforts. That is a substantial loss.

Transportation Goals Alignment (Chapter 6): Page 9

The Village will develop and maintain a safe, efficient, and interconnected transportation network serving motorists, businesses, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Objective C: The facility enhances connectivity with neighboring communities and regional transportation corridors, promoting efficient traffic flow and commerce.

Objective E: The project encourages collaboration with Marathon County on roadway improvements, access points, and traffic management, supporting local and county infrastructure planning.

The first statement is false. This facility will greatly INCREASE traffic on Village Roads. The second is also, even more false, based on the County's behavior up to this point.

When has the County collaborated with the Village on any issue of significance? When have they ever been "neighborly"? The hard fact is that they contact us when they want something from us. That is not cynicism but merely a fact. We do not owe them any favors as some staff and trustees may assert, and even if we did, Plan Commission Decisions need to be based on objective facts, not favors.

So, let's get back to the facts of this application.

Land Use Goals and Objectives Alignment (Chapter 8):

The Village will make sound land use decisions which strive to coordinate future growth and land uses with infrastructure capabilities and availability.

Objective (a): Strategically locating the highway facility adjacent to the existing Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) facility creates a complementary relationship between infrastructure-oriented uses, enhancing operational efficiency and reinforcing the area as a regional hub for utility and transportation services.

This conflicts entirely with the Comp Plan and current zoning which calls for Commercial/light industrial development along that area, not a "regional transportation utility hub".

Objective (c): The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for industrial and transportation-related development. Rezoning aligns the zoning map with the Comprehensive Plan, ensuring that industrial activity occurs in locations equipped for its intensity and access needs.

This conflicts entirely with the Comp Plan and current zoning which calls for Commercial/light industrial development along that area, not "transportation-related development" with a heavy industry-like "intensity" and traffic impact. Such an operation is detrimental to the prospects of the desired commercial development on this and nearby parcels.

Objective (e): Locating the highway facility with the WPS site clusters compatible industrial and public works uses, minimizing potential land use conflicts, protecting nearby residential neighborhoods, and avoiding scattered industrial development.

This conflicts entirely with the Comp Plan and current zoning which calls for Commercial/light industrial development along that area, not "industrial and public works uses. A government facility with the drawbacks of heavy industrial consequences such as heavy truck traffic is not compatible.

Objective (g): The site’s proximity to Interstate 39/ Old Highway 51 provides convenient access to arterial roadways, supporting efficient movement of vehicles, materials, and personnel.

This is to their advantage, not the Village's. Heavy truck use will undoubtedly interfere with current resident use of that same roadway.

Objective (j): Locating the facility within an established industrial corridor protects community character and quality of life while incorporating design measures to mitigate visual, lighting, and noise impacts.

This is not an "established industrial corridor" of heavy industry-like operations. This area North of Kowalski is primarily commercial/light industrial.

Objective (m): The proximity of the proposed County Highway Facility to the WPS facility directly satisfies this objective. The M-2 rezoning ensures that adjacent properties evolve in a mutually compatible and strategically coordinated manner. This reinforces the Village’s commitment to cooperative planning with public utilities and other key infrastructure partners.

Another Orwellian statement, since the stated Comp Plan goal is for the Village to be in the loop with WPS's land use decisions, and reality the Village of course was excluded and given no consideration at all about this project.

Intergovernmental Cooperation Goals Alignment (Chapter 9):

The Village will strive to develop an informed citizenry that provide valuable input to the Village’s decision-making processes.

Objective E: The facility supports collaboration with adjacent municipalities to enhance motorized transportation networks, improving regional connectivity and infrastructure planning.

Again, this statement appears to be false on its face with no relation at all to the stated goal of "improving motorized and non-motorized transportation sysyems."

Summary:

Rezoning the property to the M-2 Industrial District for a future Marathon County Highway Department Facility aligns with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and multiple policy objectives, including land use coordination, transportation efficiency, utility management, tax base considerations, and intergovernmental cooperation. This strategy location ensures compatible industrial development, supports public service operations, and protects the character and quality of life of Kronenwetter residents while advancing regional infrastructure goals.

This entire section was nearly all fallacious argument by the County, based on assumptions, stretches of imagination, and a few shoehorned facts. When we examine their narrative, it falls apart. It would certainly be a prize catch for the County in "advancing regional infrastructure goals". But advancing County goals at Village expense is not part of Kronenwetter's vision and mission statements, the purpose of zoning, the Comp Plan, or the will of the taxpayers.

Objectively, this facility as already cost the village hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax base.

It has cost the Village about $20-25,000 in a land give-away, courtesy of the administrator and the Village Board. We have people struggling for donations to a park renovation, while these officials are literally throwing away money on an administrator's whim.

• Most of the alleged advantages of the location stated in the application, are advantages to the County, not to the Village.

• When they allude to truck traffic not going through residential neighborhoods, they are apparently talking about Wausau, not Kronenwetter.

• Kronenwetter does not have county trucks going through residential streets as they mention, and it is not a problem we need to solve.

• In a nutshell, the County is merely attempting to take Wausau's albatross and hang it on Kronenwetter's neck, and do so as cheaply as possible and without a single identifiable benefit to Kronenwetter.

• The County maintains Hwy X, XX, and HWY 153. They do it now, and they will do it later. There is no advantage to us one way or the other to have this facility here.

• We will get the bill for rebuilding old 51 both to the north and south of this proposed location. There is nothing preventing them from cutting across Kowalski to X to get to 29, or Martin to J, just like other trucks do now.

• The backroom sale of the property should tell you whether there is any good faith or truth involved in the County's application, or merely self-serving sophistry.

2. Does the rezoning further the purpose and intent of this Chapter?

• Yes. There are numerous large parcels directly south of this property zoned M2-General Industrial. By rezoning this property, the property would maintain industrial zoning that would be consistent with the surrounding area.

This is not true. The land surrounding this lot is B3 General Commercial, institutional, and agricultural. The only "industrial" zoning is WPS property to the west, across Old Hwy 51 and beyond the railroad tracks and property. The future land use map designates the surrounding property industrial/commercial, which as I mentioned, only allows heavy industrial in a business park setting, such as that south of Kowalski Road.

M2 is not at all compatible in the middle of General Commercial.

This satisfies the Zoning Ordinance purpose of preserving and enhancing the community appearance. The rezone furthers the purpose of this Chapter and the Comprehensive Plan by making more land available for Industrial Development.

This again, does not sound factual, or even rational.

They bought up 25 acres of flat land in a prime location for development, planning to use it exclusively to their own benefit, and they are now trying to tell us they are making more land available for industrial development? Seriously?

3. Does rezoning address any of the following that is not properly addressed on the current Official Zoning Map? This request is not the result of a prior mapping error, however the residential zoning districts no longer reflect the area’s prevailing or intended development pattern as envisioned in the 2019 plan.

Perhaps, but only because the county forced the residents out of their homes, and WPS withheld the property from private buyers or commercial uses which is exactly the intended development pattern as envisioned in the 2019 plan.

The Hwy Dept brings with it virtually no satellite benefit like restaurants, gas stations, etc., and it seems that Wausau can't wait to get rid of it.

The Village already has land zoned as M-2 industrial and for sale. That is where we would expect the County to purchase property if they expected to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. They chose not to do that. It is not the Village's obligation to correct that.

Nowhere in Chapter 520-3 Purpose of zoning, does it indicate an obligation to approve a zoning change request, much less one that conveys a disadvantage to the Village.

Nowhere does the zoning ordinance require a zoning change just to make a property eligible for a CUP application.

Kronenwetter may be a good location for this facility from the applicant's point of view. The drawbacks and abject lack of benefit to the Village makes it a very poor choice from the Village's point of view. These problems will be with the Village for the next 100 years or more

As 520-11 states - changes are made "at the village's discretion". The Plan Commission has a choice and authority to deny this application no matter what the village or county administrators tell you. Neither one seems to care about the Village's best interest.

Kronenwetter's location and land availability is one of the village's strengths according to the SWOT study. It is our obligation to use discretion based on facts to play our strengths wisely and for the benefit of the Village.

The applicant can fictionalize vague associations with the Comprehensive Plan, but regardless of the story they tell, the burden is on them to show you facts in clear terms that you can honestly state for the record that cause you to believe a rezoning is in the best interest of the village.

It clearly is not

For the numerous reasons that I have already described, I don't see how the PC can reasonably recommend this change.

The last time with the sand pit issue, this commission did the right thing, based on reason and facts, and the Village Board disregarded it. This time I hope you again make the right decision based on facts, and deny this application.

If the board again chooses to disregard your decision for political purposes, fine. Let the sin be upon their head and not yours. I hope you understand the basic points I have made.

Thanks for reading.