93.73(4)(b)(b) The importance of the proposed agricultural conservation easement in protecting or enhancing the waters of the state or in protecting or enhancing other public assets. 93.73(4)(c)(c) The extent to which the proposed agricultural conservation easement would conserve important or unique agricultural resources, such as prime soils and soil resources that are of statewide importance or are unique. 93.73(4)(d)(d) The extent to which the proposed agricultural conservation easement would be consistent with local land use plans and zoning ordinances, including any certified farmland preservation plans and zoning ordinances under ch. 91. 93.73(4)(e)(e) The extent to which the proposed agricultural conservation easement would enhance an agricultural enterprise area designated under s. 91.84. 93.73(4)(f)(f) The availability, practicality, and effectiveness of other methods to preserve the land that would be subject to the proposed agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(4)(h)(h) The proximity of the land that would be subject to the proposed agricultural conservation easement to other land that is protected for agricultural use or conservation use and the extent to which the proposed agricultural conservation easement would enhance that protection. 93.73(4)(i)(i) The likely cost-effectiveness of the proposed agricultural conservation easement in preserving land for agricultural use. 93.73(4)(j)(j) The likelihood that the land that would be subject to the proposed agricultural conservation easement would be converted to nonagricultural use if the land is not protected by the proposed agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(4)(k)(k) The apparent willingness of each landowner to convey the proposed agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(5)(5) Preliminary approval of applications. The department may give preliminary approval to an application under sub. (3) after evaluating the application under sub. (4) and consulting with the council under sub. (13). The department shall give its preliminary approval in writing. Approval of an application is contingent on the signing of a contract under sub. (6m). 93.73(6)(6) Information related to proposed easement. A cooperating entity that receives a preliminary approval under sub. (5) shall submit all of the following to the department: 93.73(6)(a)(a) A copy of the proposed instrument for conveying the agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(6)(b)(b) A professional appraisal of the proposed agricultural conservation easement, other than an appraisal obtained by an owner of the land that would be subject to the proposed agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(6)(c)(c) A statement of the purchase cost of the agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(6)(d)(d) An estimate of the transaction costs that the cooperating entity will incur in connection with the purchase of the proposed agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(6)(e)(e) The record of a complete search of title records that verifies ownership of the land that would be subject to the proposed agricultural conservation easement and identifies any potentially conflicting property interests, including any liens, mortgages, easements, or reservations of mineral rights. 93.73(6)(f)(f) Documentation showing to the satisfaction of the department that any material title defects will be eliminated and any materially conflicting property interests will be subordinated to the proposed agricultural conservation easement or eliminated. 93.73(6d)(6d) Second appraisal. The department shall obtain its own independent appraisal of a proposed agricultural conservation easement for which the department has given preliminary approval under sub. (5) if the fair market value of the proposed agricultural conservation easement is estimated by the department to be more than $350,000. 93.73(6h)(6h) Review by joint committee on finance. The department may not enter into a contract under sub. (6m) with respect to the purchase of a proposed conservation easement if the department’s share of the purchase costs and transaction costs would exceed $750,000 unless it first notifies the joint committee on finance in writing of the proposal. If the cochairpersons of the committee do not notify the department within 14 working days after the date of the department’s notification that the committee has scheduled a meeting to review the proposal, the department may enter into the contract. If, within 14 working days after the date of the notification by the department, the cochairpersons of the committee notify the department that the committee has scheduled a meeting to review the proposal, the department may enter into the contract only upon approval of the committee. A proposal as submitted by the department is approved unless a majority of the members of the committee who attend the meeting to review the proposal vote to modify or deny the proposal. 93.73(6m)(6m) Contract with cooperating entity. Subject to subs. (6d) and (6h), after a cooperating entity complies with sub. (6) and the department determines that the proposed instrument of conveyance complies with sub. (7), the department and the cooperating entity may enter into a written contract that specifies the terms and conditions of the department’s participation in the purchase of the proposed agricultural conservation easement. The cooperating entity shall agree to pay the full purchase cost and the transaction costs related to the purchase of the proposed agricultural conservation easement, subject to reimbursement under sub. (9) of the department’s agreed upon share of the costs. 93.73(7)(7) Purchase of easement. After a cooperating entity has entered into a contract under sub. (6m), the cooperating entity may, in accordance with the contract, purchase the agricultural conservation easement on behalf of the cooperating entity and the department if the agricultural conservation easement does all of the following: 93.73(7)(a)(a) Prohibits the land subject to the agricultural conservation easement from being developed for a use that would make the land unavailable or unsuitable for agricultural use. 93.73(7)(c)(c) Provides that the cooperating entity and the department, on behalf of this state, are both holders of the agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(7)(d)(d) Prohibits any holder of the agricultural conservation easement other than the department from transferring or relinquishing the holder’s interest without 60 days’ prior notice to the department. 93.73(7)(e)(e) Complies with any other conditions specified in the contract under sub. (6m). 93.73(8)(8) Acceptance and recording of easement. A cooperating entity that purchases an agricultural conservation easement under sub. (7) shall submit the agricultural conservation easement to the department for its acceptance. Upon acceptance by the department, the cooperating entity shall promptly record the agricultural conservation easement and acceptance with the register of deeds of the county in which the land subject to the agricultural conservation easement is located and shall provide to the department a copy of the recorded instrument conveying the agricultural conservation easement, certified by the register of deeds under s. 59.43 (1c) (i). 93.73(9)(9) Payment. The department shall reimburse a cooperating entity for the department’s agreed upon portion of the purchase cost and transaction costs related to the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement after the cooperating entity does all of the following: 93.73(9)(b)(b) Submits documentation showing that any material title defects have been eliminated and any materially conflicting property interests have been eliminated or subordinated to the agricultural conservation easement, as required by the contract under sub. (6m). 93.73(9)(c)(c) Submits proof of the amount of the purchase cost and transaction costs that the cooperating entity has paid, consistent with the contract under sub. (6m). 93.73(10)(10) Transfer or relinquishment of holder’s interest. The transfer or relinquishment of another holder’s interest does not affect the department’s interest in an agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(11)(11) Enforcement of easement. The department or any other holder of an agricultural conservation easement purchased under this section may enforce and defend the agricultural conservation easement. 93.73(12)(12) Record of easements. The department shall maintain a record of all agricultural conservation easements purchased under this section. 93.73(13)(13) Council. The department shall appoint a council under s. 15.04 (1) (c) to advise the department on the administration of this section. 93.73(14)(14) Rules. The department shall promulgate a rule, consistent with sub. (1m) (i), relating to allowable transaction costs for the program under this section. 93.8093.80 Arsenic in wood. The department, jointly with the department of safety and professional services, shall review scientific evidence to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that wood treated with copper, chromium, and arsenic is harmful to the environment or to human health. 93.80 HistoryHistory: 2001 a. 16; 2011 a. 32. 93.9093.90 Livestock facility siting and expansion. 93.90(1)(1) Statewide concern. This section is an enactment of statewide concern for the purpose of providing uniform regulation of livestock facilities. 93.90 NoteNOTE: The definition of “animal unit” at NR 243.03 (3), Wis. Adm. Code, was repealed and a definition of “animal unit” was recreated at NR 243.03 (5) by CR 07-075.
93.90(1m)(b)(b) “Application for approval” means an application for approval of a livestock facility siting or expansion. 93.90(1m)(c)(c) “Board” means the livestock facility siting review board. 93.90(1m)(d)(d) “Expansion” means an increase in the number of animals fed, confined, maintained, or stabled. 93.90(1m)(e)(e) “Livestock facility” means a feedlot or facility, other than a pasture, where animals used in the production of food, fiber, or other animal products are or will be fed, confined, maintained, or stabled for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. “Livestock facility” does not include an aquaculture facility. 93.90(1m)(f)(f) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town, or county. 93.90(2)(a)(a) For the purposes of this section, the department shall promulgate rules specifying standards for siting and expanding livestock facilities. In promulgating the rules, the department may incorporate by cross-reference provisions contained in rules promulgated under ss. 92.05 (3) (c) and (k), 92.14 (8), 92.16, and 281.16 (3) and ch. 283. The department may not promulgate rules under this paragraph that conflict with rules promulgated under s. 92.05 (3) (c) or (k), 92.14 (8), 92.16, or 281.16 (3) or ch. 283. 93.90(2)(b)(b) In promulgating rules under par. (a), the department shall consider whether the proposed standards, other than those incorporated by cross-reference, are all of the following: 93.90(2)(b)4.4. Based on available scientific information that has been subjected to peer review. 93.90(2)(b)5.5. Designed to promote the growth and viability of animal agriculture in this state. 93.90(2)(b)6.6. Designed to balance the economic viability of farm operations with protecting natural resources and other community interests. 93.90(2)(c)(c) The department shall review rules promulgated under par. (a) at least once every 4 years. 93.90(2)(d)(d) The secretary shall appoint a committee of experts to advise the department on the promulgation of the rules under par. (a) and on the review of rules under par. (c). 93.90(2)(e)(e) In addition to the rules under par. (a), the department shall promulgate rules that do all of the following: 93.90(2)(e)1.1. Specify the information and documentation that must be provided in an application for approval in order to demonstrate that a livestock facility siting or expansion complies with applicable state standards under sub. (2) (a). 93.90(2)(e)2.2. Specify the information and documentation that must be included in a record of decision making under sub. (4) (b). 93.90(3)(3) Political subdivision authority. 93.90(3)(a)(a) Notwithstanding ss. 33.455, 59.03 (2) (a), 59.69, 60.10 (2) (i), 60.61, 60.62, 61.34 (1), 61.35, 62.11 (5), 62.23, 66.0415, 92.07 (2), 92.11, and 92.15 (3) (a), a political subdivision may not disapprove or prohibit a livestock facility siting or expansion unless at least one of the following applies: 93.90(3)(a)1.1. The site is located in a zoning district that is not an agricultural zoning district. 93.90(3)(a)2.2. The site is located in an agricultural zoning district in which the proposed new or expanded livestock facility is prohibited, subject to pars. (b) and (c). 93.90(3)(a)4.4. The proposed new or expanded livestock facility violates a building, electrical, or plumbing code that is consistent with the state building, electrical, or plumbing code for that type of facility. 93.90(3)(a)5.5. The proposed new or expanded livestock facility will have 500 or more animal units and violates a state standard under sub. (2) (a). 93.90(3)(a)6.6. The proposed new or expanded livestock facility will have 500 or more animal units and violates a requirement that is more stringent than the state standards under sub. (2) (a) if the political subdivision does all of the following: 93.90(3)(a)6.a.a. Adopts the requirement by ordinance before the applicant files the application for approval. 93.90(3)(a)6.b.b. Bases the requirement on reasonable and scientifically defensible findings of fact, adopted by the political subdivision, that clearly show that the requirement is necessary to protect public health or safety. 93.90(3)(a)8.8. The proposed new or expanded livestock facility will have fewer than 500 animal units but will exceed a size threshold for requiring a special exception or conditional use permit that was incorporated into the political subdivision’s ordinances before July 19, 2003, and the proposed new or expanded livestock facility violates a state standard under sub. (2) (a). 93.90(3)(a)9.9. The proposed new or expanded livestock facility will have fewer than 500 animal units but will exceed a size threshold for requiring a special exception or conditional use permit that was incorporated into the political subdivision’s ordinances before July 19, 2003, and the proposed new or expanded livestock facility violates a requirement that is more stringent than the state standards under sub. (2) (a) if the political subdivision does all of the following: 93.90(3)(a)9.a.a. Adopts the requirement by ordinance before the applicant files the application for approval. 93.90(3)(a)9.b.b. Bases the requirement on reasonable and scientifically defensible findings of fact, adopted by the political subdivision, that clearly show that the requirement is necessary to protect public health or safety. 93.90(3)(ae)(ae) A political subdivision that requires a special exception or conditional use permit for the siting or expansion of any of the following livestock facilities shall require compliance with the applicable state standards under sub. (2) (a) as a condition of issuing the special exception or conditional use permit: 93.90(3)(ae)1.1. A new or expanded livestock facility that will have 500 or more animal units. 93.90(3)(ae)2.2. A new or expanded livestock facility that will have fewer than 500 animal units but that will exceed a size threshold for requiring a special exception or conditional use permit that was incorporated into the political subdivision’s ordinances before July 19, 2003. 93.90(3)(am)(am) Notwithstanding par. (ae), a political subdivision may apply to a new or expanded livestock facility described in par. (ae) 1. or 2., as a condition of issuing a special exception or conditional use permit, a setback requirement that is less stringent than a setback requirement under sub. (2) (a) if the setback requirement is incorporated in the political subdivision’s ordinances as a numerical standard. 93.90(3)(ar)(ar) Notwithstanding par. (ae) a political subdivision may apply to a new or expanded livestock facility described in par. (ae) 1. or 2., as a condition of issuing a special exception or conditional use permit, a requirement that is more stringent than the state standards under sub. (2) (a) if the political subdivision does all of the following: 93.90(3)(ar)1.1. Adopts the requirement by ordinance before the applicant files the application for approval. 93.90(3)(ar)2.2. Bases the requirement on reasonable and scientifically defensible findings of fact, adopted by the political subdivision, that clearly show that the requirement is necessary to protect public health or safety. 93.90(3)(b)(b) Notwithstanding ss. 59.69, 60.61, 60.62, 61.35, and 62.23, a political subdivision may not prohibit a type of livestock facility in an agricultural zoning district based on number of animal units if livestock facilities of that type with fewer animal units are allowed in that zoning district, unless the political subdivision also has an agricultural zoning district in which livestock facilities of that type are permitted or conditional uses without respect to number of animal units. 93.90(3)(c)(c) Notwithstanding ss. 59.69, 60.61, 60.62, 61.35, and 62.23, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce a zoning ordinance with a category of agricultural district in which livestock facilities are prohibited unless the political subdivision bases that prohibition on reasonable and scientifically defensible findings of fact, adopted by the political subdivision, that clearly show that the prohibition is necessary to protect public health or safety. 93.90(3)(d)(d) Notwithstanding ss. 92.15 (4) and 281.16 (3) (e), a political subdivision that requires compliance with state standards under sub. (2) (a) as a condition of issuing a special exception or conditional use permit for an expanded livestock facility is not required to determine that cost-sharing is available to the operator of the livestock facility for facilities or practices needed to comply with those standards if the livestock facility will have 500 or more animal units.
/statutes/statutes/93
true
statutes
/statutes/statutes/93/73/9/b
Chs. 91-100, Agriculture; Foods and Drugs; Markets
statutes/93.73(9)(b)
statutes/93.73(9)(b)
section
true
