HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 1/19/2006Page 1 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
MINUTES
Bayfield County Planning / Zoning Committee Public Hearing / Meeting
January 19, 2006
Board Room, County Courthouse, Washburn, WI 54891
1. CALL TO ORDER OF PUBLIC HEARING: By Chairman Jardine at 1:00 PM
2. ROLL CALL: Beeksma, Compton, Jardine, Maki, Rondeau, all present.
3. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION: Read by ZA Kastrosky
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. SISYPHERN STONE, INC., ASHLAND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., OWNER, CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST –
Open / Operate Gravel Pit on 40–acre parcel (ID# 030-1077-06-000) described as the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section
35, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln. (Included in this application, but a separate part of this
hearing, shall require review of the reclamation plan and requirements that any conditions in the reclamation permit
must pertain to the reclamation plan only. All other conditions concerning the operation of the Non-Metallic Mining site
have to be in the conditional use permit.)
Speaking in Support:
Agent Bill Kacvinsky (from Ashland Construction) reported he was approached approximately two to three years ago
by the owners [at that time] of the above property regarding test holes, borrow source, etc. He stated the property was
then sold to an Illinois owner, they worked together, began the permitting process, desiring to have a borrow pit and
possibly a crushing plant on the property. He also said they went through the proper NR135 channels; there’s “roughly
17 acres of gravel source” which is the area to be disturbed; they would stockpile on site; and there is a proposed
reclamation plan, which would be finalized if this request is approved.
Kacvinsky said there is another pit (Sandstrom’s) approximately one-quarter mile down the road; they would widen the
narrow road into the area making it safer for trucks. He stated he understands there is concern because of the B & B
and other neighbors, however, there is a need for gravel as inventories are low in area pits and most of the gravel from
this pit would go to Ashland and Bayfield Counties.
Richard Stephanie, owner of said property (Prospect Heights, IL) stated he was originally told this pit was
“grandfathered” and it was necessary to prove if it had been used in past years. He added he has spoken to Mr.
Kacvinsky re minimizing the impact, truck hauling, and other issues; he hopes to retire on this property, is not just
seeking to run a gravel pit there but does want to remove some gravel to help with property costs, and in the future
would like to install a pond, use property for hunting and actually live there. Mr. Stephanie said this area has
traditionally been forest and gravel pits and area residents have ‘helped themselves’ to stone from this pit through the
years, including the B & B owners.
Supervisor Maki asked if there are records proving this has been a gravel pit. Bill Kacvinsky presented a letter dated
June 21, 2004 addressed to him at Ashland Construction from Dean Chambers. Director Kastrosky read the letter into
the record which states in part, “There was an existing gravel pit south of my driveway on Snake Trail Road when I
purchased the property. During the years I owned the property gravel and stone were removed from the existing pit
every year. Some gravel and stone was purchased by the Town of Lincoln and some by contractors. In addition, over
the years many neighbors have been allowed to take gravel for personal use.” The letter also reports that he sold the
property in 1999 to Arbor Vitae Property, LLC and he continued to live at the residence near the pit.
Kastrosky said he researched County pit activity and no permits are recorded but that doesn’t mean gravel was not
taken from the site.
Richard Stephanie said photographs show the difference in appearance between the 1980s and ‘90s in the borrow pit.
Kastrosky reminded the Committee and audience that this agenda item is not to question the grandfathered status, but
NR135 requirements and opening a gravel pit under today’s standards. AZA Mike Furtak asked Stephanie how long
he planned to use the gravel pit and the answer was, “I’m thinking not more than five years but the market determines
Page 2 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
some of that”. He added he’s not interested in long-term, but to access some of the stone, reclaim it and let it return to
woods.
Maki asked that Furtak review the layout and landscape, State (DNR) requirements, waterways (Morgan & Hawkins
Creeks), etc.
Stephanie said there is desirable gravel and stone on the property but as long as he owns it, it would not be
[completely] sold, however, that may not be so if doesn’t own the property. Kastrosky stated that whatever the
Committee grants is what could be mined, not any more than that, “only the allowable acreage under the conditional
use permit”.
Brad Gustafson, of Ashland Construction, stated he has met with John Spangberg of the DNR re this request, the
permitting process, plans for roads, etc. He said they would work with the Township, County, DNR, and landowners
regarding their concerns, and that the DNR environmental analysis would take up to six months.
Speaking in Opposition:
Lucinda Laymon reported they own a Bed & Breakfast, directly across the road from the applicant’s property and are
opposed as a gravel pit is incompatible with their business. Ms. Laymon stated they purchased their property in June
of 2000 and prior to closing, were assured by the owners that they would never open a gravel pit, nor sell to anyone
who would open a pit. She cited noise as an issue from the Sandstrom pit which is less than a mile away, thus noise
directly across the road would have an immense negative affect on their B & B business.
Ms. Laymon said in early fall of 2004 they learned that Brian Wanasuk was “going back on his word” and Ashland
Construction was working in the pit. She reported the dangerous situation with trucks hauling at that location because
the postal service will not deliver mail on Snake Trail because of safety concerns for their drivers. She also said the
Town of Lincoln reported there has never been a pit there and would not approve one and that they (the Laymons)
would never have purchased the property if there was a gravel pit in operation, nor if there were any intentions to open
one at that location.
Ms. Laymon presented a photograph of the area from John Spangberg and stated that any earlier inference to
widening the road would presumably need DNR approval due to the close proximity to both Hawkins and Morgan
Creeks. She said she believes property values would decrease and in general have a negative impact; she presented
a petition with 146 signatures, however, not all are from the Town of Lincoln but from those opposed to a gravel pit at
that location.
Ted Galdi (Lincoln Township) expressed opposition citing effects such as water pollution, erosion, loss of vegetative
cover, incompatible use, and future impact on the Town. He said there are several pits in the Town now which produce
dust and dirt, becoming permanent eyesores; “this one is badly located with no way to conceal it”.
Ellie Williams (Lincoln Township) stated she helped w/ the Town’s land use plan which was adopted approximately
one year ago and 78% of year ‘round Lincoln residents responded to a survey helping to create the plan. She urged
the Committee to read their plan and presented photos of Snake Tr. Road, Hawkins & Morgan Creeks.
Steve Sorenson (Lincoln) lives across from applicant’s property and reported the above property has never been a
commercial pit, the Town is opposed, there is strong opposition in the township ; it does not makes good sense to
allow development of gravel pit in that area. He urged the Committee to follow the wishes of person, politics, and
public, which have all spoken.
Jack Wichita (Lincoln) expressed concern over water quality and believes it would be threatened by a gravel pit
operation (harm from increased silt / sediment). He suggested the track record of Ashland Construction has not been
good, mentioning one case with citation in the Town of Ashland, Ashland County and urged rejection of this gravel pit.
Robert Hanna, Wheaton IL, (property owner on Marengo Lake) stated the quality of life, peacefulness, and serenity
are reasons his family came here 30 years ago and the reason he continues to come back and is opposed to gravel pit
use in the same area as a B & B as well as safety being threatened on the roads now used by hikers and bikers.
Dan Vaillancourt (Town Supervisor / Lincoln resident 50+ yrs.) reported “this was never a gravel pit and what Mr.
Chambers said, is incorrect. He said the Town did pay Chambers at one point, not for gravel from the pit, but when
they straightened the road only. He also reported problems working with Ashland Construction, “it has been a hassle”,
Page 3 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
he said.
David Krupid (Attorney for Applicants / Superior, WI): Discussed conditional use compatibility issues, desires of
neighbors, and stated the “majority do not feel it [gravel pit] is compatible” (with the Laymon’s conditional use permit).
In referencing an aerial photo, Mr. Krupid asked the Committee to look at the vegetation and said, “except for an area
on Snake Trail Road, it is in a fairly natural state”. He also explained which boundaries have been surveyed; stated
that the area requested in the application is located “right on the road, there is no buffer zone”. Mr. Krupid said if Mr.
Stefani had done his research prior to purchasing the land on 12/22/04, he would have known there was a B & B
across the street and would have clearly been put on notice that it would require permits, rather than it being
“grandfathered”.
Director Kastrosky reminded the Committee and audience in regards to a reclamation plan, it must be opened as a
separate agenda item, and stated, “for the record, Land Conservation has approved the reclamation plan.”
REBUTTAL:
Richard Stephani: Said he could only speak to the information he was ‘given’ and said he had informed the Laymons
of his plans. He stated he was not informed by the Town of their meeting, therefore, wasn’t present and his agent was
not allowed to speak at the Town meeting. He said the Laymons had opportunity to purchase the land and didn’t do it.
Brad Gustafson: Explained that the 4-1 slope is just as a safety factor, not final reclamation plan.
Karl Kastrosky: In response to a comment made earlier in the meeting that the County had not approved Lincoln’s
land use plan, Kastrosky read a County letter from July 2005, written to the Town. He reported that the County had
concerns over Lincoln’s use of the word ‘prohibit’ in their plan, not that they disapproved of “the plan”, informing them
they cannot prohibit something allowed by county ordinance as there could be legal ramifications with that in the
future..
Kastrosky and Furtak reported they had attended the Town of Lincoln meeting to help and provide input, however, they
weren’t even “acknowledged”.
B. CAROLYN WILLOUGHBY, DWIGHT WILLOUGHBY, PAT SHEPARD, TODD WILLOUGHBY, OWNERS,
REZONE REQUEST - on 40-acre parcel (ID #024-1052-03-990 & 024-1052-30) located in SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of
Section 20, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River to rezone only that portion of the above property
lying west of Gravel Pit Road from Industrial (I) to Residential-1(R-1).
Carolyn Willoughby was present. AZA Casina explained the request, stating it has been used residentially for a
number of years, however, the applicant(s) were unaware until they applied for a land use permit and could not to get
one because it was zoned Industrial. The request seeks to rezone the portion west of Gravel Pit Road; TBA was
received 1/18/06.
No one spoke in approval nor disapproval.
C. PETITION BY KARL KASTROSKY, BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR, ON BEHALF OF
THE BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE, REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BAYFIELD
COUNTY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
1. Revision and/or creation of definitions for “Lot,” “Lot Area,” “Lot, Average Width,” “Lot, Depth,” and
“Shoreline Frontage,” making them consistent in both ordinances.
2. Increases in various fees in the zoning ordinance fee schedule.
3. Clarification of the zoning ordinance provisions pertaining to private road setbacks.
4. Removal of requirement that RV permits be in sticker form.
5. Clarification of the relation between shoreland lot requirements and zoning district dimensional
requirements (namely, that the more restrictive apply.)
6. Clarification of what constitutes a new foundation prohibited for nonconforming structures less than 40
feet from the ordinary high water mark.
Page 4 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
7. Amendment allowing more than one addition to a nonconforming structure between 20 and 75 feet
from the ordinary high water mark so long as the additions cumulatively do not exceed the stated
limits.
8. Requirement that an environmental impact analysis be submitted with a conditional use permit
application rather than at least 30 days before consideration of the application.
9. Replacement of the minimum frontage requirement for non-shoreland lots with a legal access
requirement.
10. Other technical clarifications and corrections.
Director Kastrosky stated these revisions attempt to clear up some “gray areas”, add clarity, allow more measurability,
as well as increase various fees. He referred to a letter in support of the proposed amendments from the Town of
Bayfield.
Roger Dreher (Drummond) stated he was speaking as a ‘citizen’, not representing any organization and presented
several minor modifications outlined in a January 18, 2006 letter to the Zoning Committee which he believes would
make the provisions even more clear. A Jan. 19, 2006 letter from Carol Lebreck, Barnes, was also presented by Mr.
Dreher for consideration. He also asked the Committee not to take action ‘today’ but let Karl Kastrosky filter through
the recommendations.
No one else spoke, either in support or opposition.
5. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING: Motion by Compton, second by Rondeau to adjourn at 2:50 PM. Motion
carried and Jardine called for a five minute break.
6. CALL TO ORDER OF ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING: By Jardine at 2:57 PM.
7. ROLL CALL: Beeksma, Compton, Jardine, Maki, Rondeau, all present
8. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S): Motion by Compton, seconded by Rondeau to approve the December 15,
2005 minutes with one correction. Compton noted on page 3, last paragraph a word [consistent] was missing from the
sentence and should be corrected to read as follows, “Committee must be consistent in this area and wait for Town
plans and input, and in this case, the Town purposely requested it be tabled.” Motion with correction carried.
9. BUSINESS:
A. SISYPHERN STONE, INC., ASHLAND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., OWNER, CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST –
Open / Operate Gravel Pit on 40–acre parcel (ID# 030-1077-06-000) described as the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section
35, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln. (Included in this application, but a separate part of this
hearing, shall require review of the reclamation plan and requirements that any conditions in the reclamation permit
must pertain to the reclamation plan only. All other conditions concerning the operation of the Non-Metallic Mining site
have to be in the conditional use permit.)
Kastrosky reviewed the legal standards and ordinance procedures and handed out excerpts re decisions and the
elements to be reviewed in hearing conditional use requests.
Supervisor Maki asked if the State gives recommendations and the answer was that many times the Committee gives
approval contingent upon other input and regulations. Supervisor Compton said a key thing is to be consistent with
land use plans and Town Board recommendations. He added that it is a misinterpretation by some that the County
disapproved the Town of Lincoln’s land use plan. He referred to Kastrosky’s earlier comment that the concern was not
with Lincoln’s entire land use plan, but with their using the word “prohibited” which could possibly cause legal issues in
cases which are not prohibited by the County.
Motion by Compton, second by Beeksma, to deny the request on the grounds it is inappropriately located, and is
inconsistent with the Town of Lincoln’s land use plan; motion unanimously carried.
B. CAROLYN WILLOUGHBY, DWIGHT WILLOUGHBY, PAT SHEPARD, TODD WILLOUGHBY, OWNERS
REZONE REQUEST on their 40-acre parcel (ID #024-1052-03-990 and 024-1052-30) located in SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of
Page 5 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
Section 20, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River to rezone only that portion of the above property
lying west of Gravel Pit Road from Industrial (I) to Residential-1(R-1).
Motion by Maki to approve the rezone as stated in the request; second by Rondeau; carried.
C. PETITION BY KARL KASTROSKY, BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR, ON BEHALF OF
THE BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE, REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BAYFIELD
COUNTY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
1. Revision and/or creation of definitions for “Lot,” “Lot Area,” “Lot, Average Width,” “Lot, Depth,” and
“Shoreline Frontage,” making them consistent in both ordinances.
2. Increases in various fees in the zoning ordinance fee schedule.
3. Clarification of the zoning ordinance provisions pertaining to private road setbacks.
4. Removal of requirement that RV permits be in sticker form.
5. Clarification of the relation between shoreland lot requirements and zoning district dimensional
requirements (namely, that the more restrictive apply.)
6. Clarification of what constitutes a new foundation prohibited for nonconforming structures less than 40
feet from the ordinary high water mark.
7. Amendment allowing more than one addition to a nonconforming structure between 20 and 75 feet
from the ordinary high water mark so long as the additions cumulatively do not exceed the stated
limits.
8. Requirement that an environmental impact analysis be submitted with a conditional use permit
application rather than at least 30 days before consideration of the application.
9. Replacement of the minimum frontage requirement for non-shoreland lots with a legal access
requirement.
10. Other technical clarifications and corrections.
Motion by Maki, second by Beeksma, to accept the items as submitted and pass on to the the Full Board, as is.
Discussion: Compton asked about the definition of ‘perimeter of a foundation’ and how that applies to one on piers and
suggested there may need to be something added regarding piers or support foundations in the future. Motion then
carried.
Agenda Review and Alteration
D. RICHARD NORTHROP SPECIAL USE REQUEST– WINERY (tabled 12/15/05) located on a 4.51-acre parcel
(#006-1023-03-000) in the S ½ of the S ½, of the E ½ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 11, Township 50 N, Range 4
W, Town of Bayfield.
Agent Renate Hauser reviewed the proposal and reported the Town Board approved the request with conditions.
Kastrosky said that when this request was submitted there was no winery category in the classification list, therefore a
petition will be forthcoming to add vineyard, processing, sales, etc. to cover this category. Ms. Hauser stated the sale
of wine will be ‘off sale’ only.
Motion by Maki, second by Beeksma, to approve the winery, including allowing off sales in the future, adding that to
the permit at this time. Compton asked if the motion was intended to include the Town’s recommendations. Motion was
amended by Maki and seconded by Beeksma, to also include the Town of Bayfield recommendations / conditions
[copy attached to these minutes.].
E. LARRY / JODY MUNSON SPECIAL USE REQUEST - Animal Sanctuary located on a 10-acre parcel (#050-1049-
09-990), described as the NE ¼, of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 29, Township 49 N, Range 5 W, Town of
Washburn (tabled 12/15/05)
Page 6 of 6
Minutes Bayfield County Planning / Zoning P.H. / Mtg. 01-19-06
This agenda item was withdrawn by the applicants.
F. TERRY & JACQUELINE RAE-LEDIN SPECIAL USE REQUEST – Bed & Breakfast: located in the S 1/3 of the
NW ¼ of the NE ¼, section 21, Township 49 N, Range 4 W, Town of Bayview.
Jacqueline Rae-Ledin addressed the Committee stating Town approval was given Jan. 10, 2006; the location was
previously a veterinarian clinic on Hwy 13, has been empty for 4-5 years and the proposal is for two B & B rooms in the
home, not the clinic building. She said they are not requesting a building addition at this time.
L.U.S. Tulowitzky reported there is a 1991 sanitary mound system which is designed for three bedrooms, therefore is
adequate and he did not see any signs of failure.
Motion by Compton, seconded by Beeksma, to approve the two-unit B & B based upon Town Board Approval.
Tulowitzky reported that Ms. Ledin has been in contact with the State and County Health Dept. and asked if there
possibly might be a condition added that all necessary permits are obtained. Compton then amended his motion
adding, ‘all other necessary State and Health Dept. permits be obtained’. Motion carried.
G. KEN & DALE EXCAVATING SPECIAL USE REQUEST - Building Contractor located on a 25-acre parcel (#020-
1038-02) in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 17, Township 47 N, Range 5 W, Town of Eileen.
L.U.S. Tulowitzky reported he informed the applicants that a special use permit is required. He also said the Town
tabled this request because the applicant was not present at the meeting and they wanted to discuss road issues as
they are concerned about heavy truck traffic; the applicant agreed to attend the Town’s Feb. meeting. Motion by
Rondeau, second by Compton, to table; motion carried.
H. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON NR115 RE-WRITE UPDATE: Kastrosky said there was nothing new
to report.
I. CITIZENS CONCERNS AND INPUT: N/A
J. OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE (DISCUSSION ONLY):
• AZA Furtak reported a warrant was issued to Curtis Poppe; he again has approximately two-to-three
thousand tires built up, had been cited in October. Kastrosky said they finally gave up trying to work
with him, the Dept. “did everything we could for him” and will let the courts settle it. Furtak said they’re
seeking the maximum fine.
• Kastrosky recommended the Zoning Committee attend a land use planning seminar on Feb. 1st at
WITC.
10. MONTHLY REPORT: None available
11. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Rondeau, second by Beeksma to adjourn at 3:34 PM. Carried.
Karl L. Kastrosky, Planning / Zoning Director
Bayfield County Planning / Zoning Dept.
Prepared by MJJ on 1/26/06
Approved by Karl L. Kastrosky 1/27/06
cc: Administrator; Clerk; Corp.Counsel; DNR; Committee; Supervisors
K/MJJ/ZC/Minutes/2006/Jan