RIVER FALLS — Town of Troy residents attempted to make their case to halt a pair of motions regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction, but both items were unanimously moved to the council with a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission at the Nov. 4 meeting.

Assistant Director of Community Development Emily Shively presented information about the items to kick off the public hearing. Those motions were to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to the city’s extraterritorial plat approval jurisdiction and amend municipal code related to extraterritorial plat approval. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is area outside of city limits where city regulations apply.

“The purpose is to promote orderly growth and development, ensure the efficient and sustainable extension of public services including roadways, water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, parks, etc. and to preserve natural resources,” Shively said.

The jurisdiction falls under the Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations and Cooperative Boundary Agreements of the city.

In 2004, the city reached the population threshold required to extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction to three miles outside the city boundary, which occurred automatically. The city created a committee to study that change.

The city opted to exercise 1.5 miles of jurisdiction outside of city limits at the time of the possible three miles. Later in the meeting, Shively mentioned things have changed over the last 20 years, and there are plans for development near the city that could conflict with city plans.

“The city retained the three-mile authority but waived the review of subdivisions between the newly defined boundary and the full three-mile area. There were also efforts to establish cooperative boundary agreements, and in 2019, such an agreement was codified, as I just mentioned, between the City of River Falls and the Town of Kinnickinnic,” Shively said.

In 2022, the City of Hudson reached that population threshold, extending its extraterritorial jurisdiction by three miles. The City of Hudson has been working on a cooperative boundary agreement with the Town of Troy, establishing a portion of land along Highway 35 for city services to be implemented. The area defined in the agreement is within River Falls’ extraterritorial jurisdiction and in “close proximity” to the municipal boundary.

“This has become an issue for the City of River Falls, because these plans are moving forward without the city as a party, and our long-range plans include portions of the area being contemplated in the agreement,” Shively said. “The recommendation for the Plan Commission and then ultimately the City Council is that the city rescind or take back or undo the waiver that was put in place in 2007 and exercise full subdivision review authority to the extent authorized by state statute.”

“The city had previously limited its extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction area, or where we applied those regulations, to a smaller jurisdiction as it was deemed to be sufficient to accomplish that public purpose. But now it’s been approximately 20 years later, and there’s a rational purpose to extend the city’s extraterritorial authority to the full extent allowed by state statute,” Shively said.

What that would mean is that a portion of land in the Town of Troy area would overlap between River Falls and Hudson jurisdictions. The state would then equally divide the jurisdiction of the area between the two.

“Along with that, in alignment with long range future land use planning, a recommendation is before the Plan Commission to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to apply a future land use classification, and the specific classification would be city edge growth preservation area,” Shively said. “This future land use designation is defined as areas within the city’s edge that provide a transition between the city and growth areas and the surrounding townships. The existing uses, open spaces and large tracks of land should be preserved; however, development may be considered and deemed appropriate by city staff and the Plan Commission.”

The city council will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment Nov. 24 and on the rescinding of the extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction waiver in the Town of Troy on Dec. 3. Those would be first readings, meaning they would need to be approved at a following meeting if the council elects to go that route.

Town of Troy Chairperson Doug Rowen sent a 10-page letter to the city regarding the agenda items. Rowen also spoke at the meeting.

“Our comments focus on three issues, one of which may have been resolved based on the earlier presentation. We believe the public hearing process for this public hearing tonight did not comply with Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning statute because it required 30-day notice, and other notice requirements weren’t followed. Hopefully that will be followed in the future public hearings that it sounds like are now planned. Second, the proposed expansion of the extraterritorial subdivision appears, with Wisconsin law, an overlapping extraterritorial jurisdictions. We’ve heard tonight that that may be addressed in the future also, so appreciate being consistent with that. The City of Hudson also has some authority in this area. Third, and most importantly, Troy believes that Chapter 16.10 continues to contain provisions that effectively regulate land use through extraterritorial plat review. These include large minimum lot size requirements, restrictions on future subdivision and covenants prohibiting principal structures to be built. If building structures isn’t land use, I don’t know what is, so prohibiting that seems to be a land use restriction all by itself. Our position is that these zoning matters belong under local zoning authority, not extraterritorial subdivisional review. Over the years, these regulations have affected property owners in the surrounding towns, restricting development, restricting the use of land and hurting individual families and businesses as they try to meet the market needs with their property. We continue to hope to look for ways to collaborate with the City of River Falls and respectfully ask the Plan Commission to address some of these legal issues and policy concerns before moving forward with the proposed amendments,” Rowen said.

Shively later clarified that the city has done more than state statute requires regarding notification, and that the 30-day notice is referring to notice before council action, not a recommendation from the Plan Commission.

Town of Troy resident Matt Bocklund mentioned hearing about the back-and-forth between Hudson and River Falls for years, and now they feel there will be overreach that affects the residents.

“I don’t think you’re hearing us. I don’t think you care about what we are concerned about. So, I think this whole thing should be paused. I think we should, as residents, go down the legal route because we’ve gone through all these meetings, but I think we should actually end up in court challenging this,” Bocklund said. “I think River Falls is overreaching thinking that we’re going to just keep taking it, but by the time that this gets done, you’re going to be in my backyard.”

Troy resident Steve McFarland said all the town is asking for is cooperation rather than dictation when it comes to how the land is governed.

“This isn’t simply changing a line on a map. Your decision could significantly affect the property rights of your neighbors in Troy, people who have no vote in your elections. And I want to point out that to this point tonight, this is a staff recommendation, their fingerprints are all over this. Yours aren’t yet, but if you go ahead and recommend this to the full council, it becomes your recommendation,” McFarland said. “I know that the Town of Troy has approached River Falls on several occasions over the years trying to get a cooperative boundary agreement, and we have been shunned by the City of River Falls. Hudson did the same thing for years, but now they’re at the table.”

One resident whose property is located in both the Hudson and River Falls zones said he continually heard that the city has authority, but state statutes say the landowner has a lot of authority that he felt has not yet been granted.

Michael O’Connor, who lives near the Mann Valley development, also questioned the city staff’s recommendation.

“Nobody in my neighborhood was asked what do we want, what do we want to do, and it looks like Troy, you’re getting the same treatment. We have two noncontinuous properties that are going to have at least 500 units. We’ve had construction noise for the last three years. We’re building one apartment at a time, so we can expect the same for the next six or seven years? That’s great quality of life to live out in the country,” O’Connor said. “It’s not the way to do things to your neighbors. It’s not the way to do things if you want to be known as a welcoming city.”

Jill Berke of Troy said they never thought they would see the extraterritorial jurisdiction reach the full three miles, and that it would impact area farms.

“Our former Chair Dan Pearson, Chair Ray Knapp and now our Chair Doug Rowen have always tried to work with you in terms of a cooperative boundary agreement, and it behooves you to be respectful of those of us that really choose not and have not been contacted regarding any additional expansion into our town,” Berke said.

The commission then had its chance to ask questions to city staff, with Commissioner Chris Holtkamp asking if there is a need to expand the jurisdiction. Holtkamp said if the city is not going to grow out to the area in the near future, does the city need to control the happenings?

“This region is really popular. We’ve seen a lot of growth in both Hudson, and in the Town of Troy and in the City of River Falls recently. Again, the purpose of this is to ensure that as more intense use of land occurs, that we’re doing that in a way that’s thoughtful about how we’re providing public services. Landowners right now have rights to use their land. What this would do though is have, for that purpose of, essentially, preserving existing large lots and other sorts of things that don’t need the public services until such time that the development is there,” Shively said. “What we’re seeing is there’s more and more pressure there, so again, to be able to utilize the authority that we already have to again meet that public purpose is the goal.”

Holtkamp asked why Troy was targeted for this change, to which Community Development Director Amy Peterson said it was due to immediate need, and that the city is working on cooperative agreements with other townships.

“Where I sit, I’m a Commissioner for River Falls, so I look at the interests of River Falls, my city, but I also empathize with what some people have said here is they’re stuck in the middle between these two larger entities,” Commissioner Mike Woolsey said.

The subdivision ordinance includes 35 acres as a minimum lot size, with exceptions to set the number at 10 acres under certain circumstances. Additionally, farmsteads and surrounding farmland can be divided as long as structures are not built on that farmland.

“It is a little tricky because the state statute gives us the ability to review and approve or deny subdivisions, so we can establish minimum lot sizes, because that’s an essential part of subdivisions,” Shively said. “One of the things that came up in case law was if we said the minimum lot size was 35 acres, how many reasonable uses of land could be done on 35 acres other than agriculture? That was the challenge to that, and that’s when our ordinances responded and made those exceptions to the 35 acres.”

Shively said the intent of the lot size requirements is to make land capable of receiving city sewer and water utilities if development occurs there in the future. Peterson said prior to 2009, the city and town were in negotiations regarding cooperative agreements, believing that two drafts were made that did not come to fruition. Those conversations have also been had by former Mayor Dan Toland and current Mayor Alison Page. Woolsey shared a 2025 letter from Toland to Hudson and Troy’s leaders, allegedly expressing interest in collaborating on a cooperative boundary agreement. He said the intention was not to point the finger in any direction, but inform about the conversations.

Commissioner Diane Odeen recalled being a part of the City Council during the Kinnickinnic Township agreement.

“It doesn’t force anybody to do anything, it just says the city is looking to maybe grow in this direction at some point, because it’s contiguous to the city, and this is the circumstances under which it would happen,” Odeen said. “We need a unanimous petition from the landowner to annex, and that also has some agreements on what kind of development can happen in the meantime.”

After the first item was recommended to council, Commissioner Arriety Lowell urged more communication between all parties.

“Somebody is going to end up with control over that land, and whether you want that to be Hudson, River Falls, Troy, 500-acre commercial developments, housing lots, whatever, there needs to be more communication,” Lowell said.

The commission then reopened the public hearing for the second item, hearing again from area residents.

“We feel very strongly that the current ordinance does have land use restrictions in it. If you really believe that building a building is not a land use restriction, I don’t understand where you’re coming from,” Rowen said. “Minimum lot sizes do impact what you can use the land for economically and practically. There are no one-acre restaurants in River Falls, why can’t we have one in Troy?”

Rowen said the city has a 0.1 acre minimal residential lot size, which would be 100 times smaller than what Troy residents would be restricted to.

Mary Yacoub-Raad, who has served on Hudson boards over the years, recalled hearing similar things during that time serving the public.

“When we don’t know what we’re talking about completely and we move something to go to the city council for discussion and vote, you have just given them the ticket. You have just punched their ticket to say, ‘Yeah, let’s do that,’” Yacoub-Raad said. “You are the committee that stands between what’s right and wrong. That’s why citizens are on these committees.”