I've attached 2 short letters on Bluff Land protection and thoughtful redevelopment.  The letters specify issues I'm most concerned about. Without a doubt, the majority of Winona County residents want to protect the integrity of the bluffs through thoughtful development. 
P.S.: Documented archaeological sites should also be considered in this process.

1) Dear Dave Stoltman - Winona County Commissioner:
Here's a short note about how many county residents feel about bluff lands protection and thoughtful development:
"We need a strong ordinance in Winona County to insure that development takes place is done in a manner that protects the bluffs.  I'm sure a majority of county residents would agree.  The current draft ordinance is not strong enough.  Buildings should be set back far enough that they are not visible from roads in the valley below or the main channel of the Mississippi.  In addition, construction should not be permitted on slopes greater than 18%.  Funding should be included to make sure that the new ordinance is enforced. (The current draft does not require a view shed analysis).  You may want to look at Fillmore County's Zoning Ordinance for comparison.
I encourage you to think of the long term public good when finalizing Winona County's ordinance.  What do you want the bluffs to look like in 50 years?"

In January, my wife Kathy, a fourth grade teacher in Winona, and I sent a letter to the editor on this issue to Winona's papers.  A copy of that letter is attached. Feel free to contact me with your thoughts or questions.  Thank you for all your hard work!

Bluff lands Protection and Thoughtful Development

In ten years when you look up from the valley floor to the bluffs that surround Winona, what do you want to see?  Do you hope for an uninterrupted view of wooded bluff tops and rock faces, or would you prefer a continuous line of homes?  Decisions made by the city of Winona and Winona County in the near future will largely determined what the view will be.

Early in the 20th century, a visionary man named John Latsch dedicated himself to preserving open space in SE Minnesota and SW Wisconsin.  The lands he donated are now part of many city parks, state parks and the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge that we all cherish.

Today, both state and federal governments recognize the public good gained by preserving open space.  As such, private land owners that donate or sell development rights through conserving easements can receive significant tax benefits.  In this way, private land rights are safeguarded and open space protected.  Organizations such as the Minnesota Land Title Trust will gladly work with the land owners and/or cities to establish such conservation easements.  Recently, Red Wing worked with the Minnesota Land Trust and La Crosse purchased lands to preserve additional open space.

The Bluff lands of SE Minnesota cover only about 3% of the state, yet this landscape is home to the richest plant and animal biodiversity of the state.  In addition, 43% of the states threatened and endangered plants and animals live in the Bluff lands.  Our ethical responsibility to carefully manage these living natural resources provides yet another reason to be thoughtful in our development.

In a small way we can carry on John Latsch's legacy, by letting city council members and county commissioners know via phone, e-mail or public meetings, that preserving the integrity of the bluff line and protecting steep slopes are important to us.  Positive suggestions that have been made include: 1) Structures should be set back enough from the ridge line that they are not visible from the valley floor.  The city of Winona has technology that can determine whether a bluff top structure of a given height and location will be visible from valley floor locations.  The use of this technology can help ensure thoughtful development, though it has some limitations as vegetation height is not figured in.  2). Development should not be done on slopes steeper than 18%.  And, 3) Once city and county Bluff land development ordinances are established, and ideally they will be consistent, they need to be enforced.  Decisions that determine the future of the bluffs around us will likely be made within a matter of weeks.  This is the time to let your elected representatives know how you feel.
Having the desire to preserve the bluff inland steep slopes, is not blind opposition to development, but rather opposition to blind development.  Preserving these resources for the public good and respecting private land rights can both be achieved."

Our present comprehensive plan was adopted by the County Commissioners on May 8, 2001.  Four years of work went into this.  If there are a few problems, let's deal with those, but not spend money foolishly revamping things unnecessary.
1)  Comment on 160 A plan: We could be closing the door on smaller vegetable growers - direct marketers that 160 A could have a couple of houses, some out buildings and graze animals, and feed our local communities.  This just may encourage larger farmers, investors, more corn, vegetables and beans on the land.  Houses should not be built on sensitive areas or bluffs.  We do not need restraint on selling farm sites away from the land.  We lose our chance for the young farmers.
2)  We need to test and document our results on soil and water in the county. Soil test where liquid manure is spread.  We have to find out why and where high nitrates are coming from in our wells - TODAY, NOT TOMORROW.  So, document on a map for the last 10 years and in the future, New well - old depth, new depth, reason for drilling, and costs.  Always remember we need more farmers in the county.  The farmers will bring the livestock.  We, as farmers, have to be ecological in order to economical or we defeat the right to feed ourselves.
3)  The Federal and State have no conservation plan:  The County could adopt green acre incentive - reduction in property taxes for perennial crops.  Maybe it will help this erosion, ditches, corn, beans out here in the country.  Our county could set a good precedent for others to follow.

My comment relates to giving up control after having paid taxes on the land for 60 years.  It may force land owners to take their land if the tax rolls by donating the land to religious organizations with the right to live on the land until death. This will cut the tax for the county for the future.  Not a good idea!

We only have one chance to preserve the Bluffs for everyone!
1)  I feel that no development, building or roads should be allowed on slopes with more than an 18% grade.
2)  Buildings should be set back away from the ridge line so they can’t be viewed from the roads in the valley, or from the main channel of the Mississippi River.
3)  These restrictions must be monitored and violators must be held responsible for non-compliance - fines, stopping construction, etc.

The proposed text should have been proof-read before presentation.  For example, the Agricultural District sheet lists Wiscoy Township in the AD, whereas the map shows Wiscoy in the RCD.  On the Sensitive Land District handout, the sentence after “Coordination with other Regulatory Agencies” makes no sense.  Under “Administrative Regulations, there is a reference to appeals being heard by “the District County Court.”  Which is it?  The District Court or the County Court?

Can’t build a non-farm dwelling except on an existing homestead.

With a 500 foot setback in the RCD, how will a feed lot operation expand?

How does Winona County protect the existing farms and feed lot already in the RCD district?
How are abandoned feedlots going to be re-established or re-populated?

Clusters:  Should they be next to cities with infrastructure or just in the country?
If a feed lot wanted to expand, would a cluster voice be stronger than a single farm?

The current 50 foot buffer requirement needs to be enforced!  There are many buildings in the county, and many agricultural activities closer than 50 feet from the wetlands and waterways.  We need to enforce the rules we have before we try to make new rules.  This proposal is silent on measures to strengthen enforcement.

On Sensitive Land District - Performance Standard #5 is much too weak.  Building on bluff tops should be prohibited if the structure appears on the horizon from the valley below.  This should include all bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River.

Agricultural should consider Grade ’A or B’ land - soil quality to keep farm land as farm land.

I strongly believe we need to Maintain the beautiful, historic buildings - the bluff land
We are developing a major art community
Develop strict rules to keep our area looking as it does
Avoid development on the bluffs

No consideration has been given to historic site preservation.  Is there a historic survey that should be considered? Are there burial mounds or other features that should be protected? Old cemeteries? Historic rural structures? Old schools or churches?
Are there unique geological features where the area around them should be preserved?

Given the situation and the (natural) attributes of Winona County an ordinance on “development “ should be the strictest of all.  The present oil crisis demands for a development that must be sustainable. To this end, incentives should be offered to build or renovate houses in town rather than on the bluffs.  Farmers do not need to expand their operations in order to remain competitive.  Rather they should be helped by being offered more local market niches for their products.  The preservation of biodiversity can offer opportunities to make a good living in rural areas such as Agritourisn/Egotourism.

Re: Agriculture District
A.   Wiscoy must not be included in the Ag District
B.   When I consider the sensitive land overlay I really wonder if Alba, Whitewater, Hart & Freemont should be included since so    much of their area involves sensitive lands.
C.   Energy cost and climate change may well move us toward much smaller and more diversified ag. operations.
D.   Does the Ag District designation move use toward more sustainable forms of agriculture?
Re: Sensitive Land Districts
How will the map be updated as more information becomes available?
Will there be P & Z staff capable of doing a sensitive land survey as a proposal is being put forward?
I am concerned about the enforcement of these ordinances.  Will the county attorney cooperate if violations of the ordinance are noted?
Re: Sensitive Lands
I have a concern about how the “top of the Bluff” is defined.  We need to require “natural state” vegetation all the way to where the slope becomes less than 12% and the set back requirement for buildings need to be far enough back so that the building is not visible from the valley below.

We need stronger protection of our bluff tops and sides.
1) Incorporate view shed analysis. It is used elsewhere and it can be used here.
2) Prohibit structures that are visible from the valley below and the main channel of the river.
3) Prohibit structures and roads on grades greater than 18%.
4) Require certification of a proposed permit by a licensed professional engineer or geologist.
5) Have city and county officials work together on the bluff land ordinance.

1) Developers should prove their area is NOT ecologically rich.
2) DNR maps are very coarse scale and should not be considered sufficient to prove an area is not ecologically rich or sensitive.
3) Archeologically significance should be evaluated.  Winona County ordinance should address/model after LaCrosse

Once you figure out the kind of lifestyle you want, you can figure out zoning laws. Is it about lust for more and more (money) or is about being a good steward and teaching it to the next generation?  We do have a unique area here.  Call me for an analogy of this.

Will the Ag Overlay District affect townships that have their own planning and zoning?

The proposal is based on old data, such as the 1997 agricultural census and an old, incomplete biological survey.  Do not change the ordinance to establish sensitive land districts until a comprehensive biological survey of the county has been completed.

It appears that most of Outstanding Biological Sites are located in the proposed Agricultural District.  How can these areas be protected when the area are designated for agricultural production?

My main concern is the development on bluff slopes greater than 12% grade.  This is unclear in the material presented and I am worried about the impact of development on these sensitive and beautiful areas.  This seems to require further clarification.

Limit development to slopes less than 18% grade
Slope between 12% - 18% require report by licensed professional engineer or geologist with recommendations regarding the suitability of proposed construction.
Set back all structures on ridgelines (bluff tops) at least 200 feet and after 200 to 300 require a licensed professional engineer or geologist report regarding suitability of proposed construction.
Viewshed standard for all ridgeline homes so they will not be visible from Mississippi River main channel or the main road serving smaller valley.  Set backs and steep slope standards consistent with city Bluff Land Protection Ordinance.

It is unclear on the Ag District sheet if all of the criteria must be met in order for a CUP to be issued.  This needs to be clear and predictable.  All criteria must be met for CUP’s

Instead of 1 building per 160 acres on AD, the county should consider 1 house per 80 acres, that is double the current

1 house per 40 acres and is more of an incremental change.

I feel that agricultural land needs to be preserved but I am not sure this is the best way to protect Ag land and small farms.  The Agricultural zones could just become industrial zones for big farms and contribute to soil erosion and water degradation. Maybe a better idea would be make the size 80 acres, and enforce the 40 acre rule that is already on the books. We maybe just need better enforcement and not new ordinances.  Also we could encourage cluster housing for land jointly owned and farmed responsibly.

We are for the beautiful bluffs in Winona County. We own 40 acres we love.  But you know what, we bought and paid for our land and pay taxes on it.  You have no right to tell land owners what to do with their property.  If you would like to pay our taxes or buy our property then maybe you would have the right to tell us what we can do with our property.  Until then you can’t.

In the currently posted draft ordinance there is language that speaks to property which would be grandfathered and property that would be permitted but non-conforming. The ordinance states that all non-conforming property must eventually be brought into conformance.  It states that non-conforming houses can never be added on to or upgraded and eventually not exist. Surely the county can’t single out certain property and take away property rights they issued the person when they sold them a dwelling permit. This would be changing the deal they have already made by issuing the existing permit. Has the county looked into the legality of this proposal? This would certainly diminish the value of these properties making the county liable for back taxes from decreasing property values. There could also be bigger liability issues there for the county.  All existing properties need to be fully grandfathered with the same rights as any other existing dwelling.

We continue to lose farm land to development in Winona County and in the state.  The most current figures of farm land losses are from 1982-1992.  In that time we lost 500,000 acres.  The loss of farm land since then probably is equal to and more likely greater than the 500,000 number.  The county, state and nation must get serious about protecting our productive lands.  Non farm dwellings do cause problems for active farmers. County must look at this and the proposal of 160 acres would help.  There is a real possibility that if the county does not see fit to protect our land and farmers, the townships will be doing their own zoning.  We must protect the land to feed the nations growing population.

Please so not allow building or developments on the bluffs within view of the Mississippi River or major roadways.

I’d like to see the sensitive land district ordinance with very strong language so that our bluffs are protected as much as possible.  Please keep bluffs so you can’t see structures from valleys or from the Mississippi River. Please- our bluffs are precious and are both beautiful and economically valuable.  We need to protect them.
Also- please enforce the rules once you make them.  Thank you.

Bluffs need to be protected - in all counties but Winona’s is most important to all of us right now.
Houses, garages or other buildings should not be seen from below.  There is a ridge top that can be developed without having to be seen from below.  The majority of residents live in town. The few that want to live on the ridgelines should be restricted so as to satisfy the majority. You don not need to stop all development, just make sure developments are not seen from the valley.

Preserving ag land is important but I question whether the 1 per 160 proposal is the right way to do it.
Where else has that been implemented?  What have been the long-term results? What might be some other options to keeping ag land, tillable ag land in long-term production?
Also, the presumption that there are lots of people moving into the countryside that are against agriculture is completely false. This proposal (1 per 160) suggests that there is not a lot of prime farmland in the eastern part of the county.  This is false. The western part of the county also has a lot of land that is not prime agricultural land.  Why are we not using agricultural data that is more current than 1997?

I am in favor of adding a “viewshed” stipulation that would prohibit development visible from the main Mississippi chancel.

We live in Wincrest addition with a yard that is quite sloped.  The home is 48 years old and has not been in a natural state for that time.  Our question is: Will we be grandfathered in as we are? Also, could we terrace our yard, as we hope to make it easier to care for? The terracing could not be viewed from the city below. Also, perhaps unrelated, why has all the new building been allowed on Garvin Heights Road without a corresponding increase in road access, park space or other infrastructure?

As a member of the Planning Commission when the comprehensive plan was written, I think the Ag District concept is in compliance with the plan and should work well in practice.  Thank you.

The goal of protecting the sensitive areas, including geological, hydrological, and biological features, is landable, but it’s process is totally inadequate. The documents contain types and inconsistencies and the presentations were extremely vague.  Are these people volunteers or at the citizens of Winona County paying for this sloppy work?

The sensitive areas and slopes map confirm that much of Winona County is not well suited to intensive and confined animal Ag business.

On slopes all future building, driveways/roads need to be limited to areas under 18% grade over a 50 foot length. Violators need to be responsible to restore land to prior condition in addition to fines.
I think that a useful addition to the ordinance reconstruction would be a rule that says sinkholes must be bermed. Why do you think we have polluted 2 aquifers? How long will we continue to ignore the obvious? What a simple idea - The owner of the land with the sinkhole is responsible to berm it - PERIOD. The height of the berm should be adequate to prevent any run off from going into the sinkhole.

I think a useful consideration would be an ordinance enacted that would not allow an owner of a farm -(say: house, out buildings, barn - etc. with an acreage that can be farmed - probably 50 acres at least) to sell that land away from the house and out buildings leaving 5-10 acres with the house.  We are becoming BIG row cropped farms with corn and beans as far as the eye can see. There are very few (or none) farms available for someone who want to begin farming.

Make sure no homes will be seen from the valley roads if they are built on the tops of bluffs.  Move the houses back so we do not have to look at them.

My woods is high quality - not shown on map section 23 NH
“Non-Farm Dwelling” should be dropped, simply allow 1 “dwelling” per 40 or 160 or whatever.
I don’t see that there is less farming at Ridgeway that at Utica so why have different density standards for those 2 places?

The limit for the bluff development should be 18% slope, not a 30% slope.  Also, the county needs to include a view sheet analysis for bluff development.  No homes visible on the bluffs!

1 per 40 for the rural conservation district is too middle of the road and would end up promoting sprawl.  Please keep the sensitive land standards and maybe look to higher protections for streams (higher than existing State / Federal Standards)

Maps are only as good as the data supplied.  Don’t bare rules on the maps - bare it on the actual conditions on site.  Use maps as a general quick-guide only.

How many acres are in the Green Acres Program we have in Winona County?  Also, would this help the land owners in our county?

Since the flood of August 19th, 2007, we are seeing new sinkholes along Highway 14 east of Owatonna, MN.  What is taking place under ground service?

One hell of a time for farmers.  Variance and condemnation will destroy zoning and will favor Urban and DNR and against farmers and common sense.