Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 834

Comprehensive planning

Topics: Land use planning and control

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 11, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under the current law commonly known as the "Smart Growth" statute, if a city, village, town, county, or regional planning commission (local governmental unit) creates a development plan or master plan (comprehensive plan) or amends an existing comprehensive plan, the plan must contain certain planning elements. A town may create a comprehensive plan only if it exercises village powers as authorized by the town meeting. The required planning elements include the following: housing; transportation; utilities and community facilities; agricultural, natural, and cultural resources; economic development; land use; and intergovernmental cooperation.

Also under current law, beginning on January 1, 2010, certain actions of a local governmental unit that affect land use must be consistent with that local governmental unit's comprehensive plan. The actions to which this requirement applies are official mapping, local subdivision regulation, and zoning ordinances, including zoning of shorelands or wetlands in shorelands. Also under current law, beginning on January 1, 2010, if a local governmental unit engages in any of these specified actions, the comprehensive plan must contain at least all of the required planning elements.

Read the full summary

This bill specifies that the actions of a local governmental unit that must be consistent with the local governmental unit's comprehensive plan are ordinances related to official mapping, local subdivision regulation, and zoning, including zoning of shorelands or wetlands in shorelands. "Consistent with" is defined in this bill to mean "furthers or does not contradict the objectives, goals, and policies contained in the comprehensive plan." This bill also specifies that enacting a comprehensive plan by ordinance does not make the comprehensive plan itself a regulation.

Also under this bill, if a local governmental unit has not adopted a comprehensive plan, it may be exempt from the consistency requirement if either:

1) the local governmental unit has not received a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Administration (DOA), and the local governmental unit adopts a resolution stating that it will adopt a comprehensive plan by January 1, 2012; or 2) the local governmental unit has received a comprehensive planning grant and an extension from DOA. The local governmental unit is exempt from the consistency requirement until January 1, 2012, if it qualifies under the former provision or until the expiration of the extension granted by DOA if it qualifies under the latter provision.

Also under this bill, a town may adopt a comprehensive plan whether or not it exercises village powers.

Who's behind it

2 representatives are its ⁠. 1 is a Democrat and 1 is a Republican.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 4 names

Authors (2)

Signed on in support (2)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 0 · Apr 15, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 15, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Apr 15, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 0.

  4. Mar 23, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Mar 17, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Mar 11, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  7. Mar 11, 2010

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 11, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Hubler and Brooks;Cosponsored by Senators Kreitlow and Harsdorf

  2. Mar 11, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Urban and Local Affairs

  3. Mar 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 23, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  7. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  8. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote

More in the glossary