HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 4/20/2006Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 1 of 24
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING AND
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2006
1:00 P.M.
BOARD ROOM, COUNTY COURTHOUSE
WASHBURN, WISCONSIN 54891
Packets were handed out to the Planning and Zoning Committee Members prior to the meeting. The packets
include correspondence and/or information the Planning and Zoning Dept receive after the mailings were sent
out.
1. Call To Order Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting:
Chairman Jardine called the meeting to order at 1:03 pm.
2. Roll Call: Beeksma, Jardine, Maki, and Rondeau were all present. Miller was absent.
A. Election of Chairman
Committee Member Maki made a nomination to elect Committee Member Kenneth Jardine. Member
Jardine declined. Committee Member Rondeau made a motion to nominate Committee Member James
Beeksma, seconded by Committee Member Maki. Nominations were closed. Motion carried.
B. Election of ViceChairman
Committee Member Rondeau made a nomination to elect Committee Member Jardine. Member Jardine
declined. Committee Member Maki nominated Committee Member Rondeau, motion was seconded by
Chairman Beeksma. Nominations closed. Motion carried
Committee Member Maki asked the Committee if he could discuss changing the time of meetings. Director
Kastrosky said it is not a public hearing item, the issue can be addressed under the business portion of the
meeting under other items, but it can not be acted on because it is not an agenda item.
3. Adjournment of Zoning Committee Meeting:
Motion was made by Member Jardine to adjourn Zoning Committee Meeting at 1:04 pm, seconded by
Member Rondeau, motion carried.
4. Call To Order of Public Hearing:
Chairman Beeksma called the public hearing to order at 1:04 pm.
5. Roll Call:
Beeksma, Jardine, Maki, and Rondeau were all present. Miller was absent.
6. Affidavit of Publication:
Director Kastrosky presented the public hearing notice and affidavit to the audience.
7. Public Hearing:
C. Wayne & Miroslava Nelson (Bayfield) – rezone property from RRB to R4
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 2 of 24
(tabled 3/16/06) on their 5.9acre parcel (ID #006103005001), located in Lot 1 of CSM 1225, Section 14,
Township 50 North, Range 4 W, Town of Bayfield. A correspondence letter was received by the Planning
and Zoning Dept from Nichovo Associates (Wayne Nelson) asking that this item be cancelled. Town Board
recommendation was received with disapproval.
Wayne Nelson spoke on behalf of his request and asked to have the rezones withdrawn. He stated he
talked to the Town and they are working on coming up with other plans/ideas. Member Rondeau
questioned if this request was for both items C & D. The response was yes. Member Maki asked whether
he was going back to the Town to come up with other ideas. Member Maki questioned whether the Town
would make a final decision. He was told no, the County has the final decision. Mr. Nelson stated the town
will come back with another recommendation. Member Jardine asked Mr. Nelson if he wanted it denied so
he could move forward. Director Kastrosky stated this item was tabled which means it was acted upon, so
the Committee will have to make a decision.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition.
D. Wayne Nelson (Bayfield) – rezone property from Ag1 to RRB (tabled 3/16/06) on his 15acre parcel
(ID #006103206004), located in Lot 4 of CSM 1379, Section 15, Township 50 North, Range 4 W, Town
of Bayfield. A correspondence letter was received by the Planning and Zoning Dept from Nichovo
Associates (Wayne Nelson) asking that this item be cancelled. Town Board recommendation was received
with disapproval.
There was no discussion on this item; it was addressed in the previous item (C).
E. Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance – (Section 13 & 14)
Chairman Beeksma asked Director Kastrosky to discuss this item. Director Kastrosky stated a petition was
brought forward a month ago. The dept has since drafted revised language. It was drafted within the last
month and was finalized yesterday. He stated should the Committee decide to approve this change we
would not have to change the petition? Director Kastrosky stated he knows its short notice, but it’s the
best that could be done. Member Rondeau questioned whether this is to replace the one they received in
their monthly packet. Response was yes. Beeksma asked the audience if anyone wished to comment.
Kim Bro came forward. He questioned Director Kastrosky about his memo regarding his EIA request.
Director Kastrosky told him the EIA issue he wishes to address was approved by Full Board in March. Mr.
Bro stated the EIA item was published in the public hearing notice. Director Kastrosky said the section in
the notice was not necessarily regarding #18 of a previous amendment. The public hearing and notice of
publication (affidavit) was reviewed. Director Kastrosky did not see where it had been published, he
questioned Mr. Bro. Mr. Bro questioned whether the paper published the wrong one. Karl reviewed a
second time and stated the notice was correct. He offered Mr. Bro to come forward and review the notice
himself. Mr. Bro asked if he could address the EIA anyway. Director Kastrosky stated he did not believe it
could be addressed because it is not part of the revisions so he would have to wait until later in the meeting
under other items. Director Kastrosky informed the Committee that he asked Mr. Bro to prepare his view
on the Environmental Impact Analysis being he was involved when this came to be in the 70’s.
No one else spoke in support or opposition.
The amendments listed below were mailed out the Committee Members in March.
1. The definition of “Lot” in Sec. 1314 (a) (35) is repealed and recreated to read as follows:
(35) Lot. A parcel of land occupied or capable of being occupied by structures and/or uses
consistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the Bayfield County Subdivision Control
Ordinance. Adjoining lands of common ownership shall be considered a contiguous parcel even
if divided by public or private roads, easements, or navigable rivers or streams.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 3 of 24
(35) Lot. A parcel of land under common ownership. (Except for lots and outlots established by
certified survey map or plat approved pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 1), contiguous lands under
common ownership shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter and land under
common ownership but separated by a river, stream, county highway, town road, private road or
easement shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter. Lands under common
ownership separated by fee title, road, state or federal highway or public lake bed shall not
constitute a single lot; provided separated parcels have a conforming building site. Effective
_________ (date of amendment adoption).
2. Sec. 1314 (a) (35a), (35b) and (35c) (to be inserted between Sec. 1314 (a) (35) and (36)) are
created to read as follows:
(35a) Lot Area. The horizontal projection of a lot, exclusive of any portion of public right of way or any
portion of a lot fifty (50) thirty (30) feet or less in width. Measurements are to be made by
standard surveying methods. Any portion of a lot covered by a private easement shall be
included in the lot area.
(35b) Lot, Average Width. For lots with lake or stream frontage, the
average horizontal distance (measured parallel with, and landward from, the line defining the
shoreline frontage of the lot as defined in this section) between the side lines of the lot. A lot
shall be deemed to meet the minimum average width requirement for the district in which it is
located, if such requirement is met from the line defining the shoreline frontage of the lot
landward to a point at which the lot’s minimum area requirement has been satisfied: no
additional area of such a lot need meet the minimum average width requirement. For a lot
without lake or stream frontage, its average width shall be the average horizontal distance,
measured perpendicularly to its longest side, between the sides of the lot.
(35c) Lot, Depth (for lots with lake frontage). The average distance from the line constituting the
shoreline frontage (as defined in this section), measured perpendicularly to such line, to the
opposite boundary line of the lot.
3. Sec. 1314 (a) (72) and (73) are repealed.
(72) Width. The width at any point on a lot shall be the shortest distance between the lot side lines
at that point.
(73) Zoning District. A geographical location dividing zones.
19. Sec. 13160 (a) is amended as follows:
Sec. 13160 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.
(a) Subject to subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) below, Zoning District Dimensional Requirements for
lots shall be as follows (provided that for lots with lake frontage or adjoining or including rivers or
streams, any more restrictive applicable requirements in Sec. 13132 shall apply instead):
Minimum Side
& Rear Yards
Zoning Minimum Minimum Minimum Principal Accessory
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 4 of 24
District Area Frontage Average
Width
(see example)
Building Building
RRB, R1 30,000 sq.
ft.
150’ 150’ 10’ 10’
F1, R2, A1 4 ½ acres 300’ 300’ 75’ 30’
R3 2 acres 200’ 200’ 20’ 20’
F2, A2 35 acres 1,200’ 1,200’ 75’ 30’
I, C* 20,000 sq.
ft.
100’ 100’ 5’ 5’
R4
(a)
Sewer/water
10,000 sq.
ft.
75’ 75’ 10’ 10’
(b) Sewer only 15,000 sq.
ft.
75’ 75’ 10’ 10’
( c) Water only 20,000 sq.
ft.
100’ 100’ 10’ 10’
For Setback: Requirements See see Section 13122.
For Minimum Average Width for nonshoreland lots see Section 1415 (h).
Lots must have legal access from public roads and comply with Article C, Section 14140
Survey and Recording Requirements.
22. Sec. 1415 (f) and (g) are amended as follows:
(f) Lot. A parcel of land under common ownership. (Except for lots and outlots established by
certified survey map or plat approved pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 1 this chapter), contiguous
lands under common ownership shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter and land
under common ownership but separated by a river, stream, county highway, town road, private
road or easement shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter. Lands under common
ownership separated by fee title, road, a state or federal highway or public lake bed shall not
constitute a single lot; provided separated parcels have a conforming building site. Effective
_________ (date of amendment adoption).
(g) Lot Area. The horizontal projection of a lot, exclusive of any portion of public right of way or any
portion of a lot fifty (50) thirty (30) feet or less in width. Measurements are to be made by
standard surveying methods. Any portion of a lot covered by a private easement shall be
included in the lot area.
23. Section 1415 (h) is repealed and recreated as follows:
(h) Lot, Average Width. The average horizontal straight line measurement between the side lines
of a lot. A lot shall be judged to meet the minimum average width requirement for the district in
which it is located, if the district’s average width dimensions are maintained from the point(s) at
which the lot’s frontage width is determined to the point(s) at which the lot’s frontage width is
satisfied: no additional area of a particular lot in question need meet the minimum average width
requirement.
(h) Lot, Minimum Average Width. For lots with lake or stream
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 5 of 24
frontage, the average horizontal distance (measured parallel with, and landward from, the line
defining the shoreline frontage of the lot as defined in this section) between the side lines of the
lot. A lot shall be deemed to meet the minimum average width requirement for the district in
which it is located, if such requirement is met from the line defining the shoreline frontage of the
lot landward to a point at which the lot’s minimum area requirement has been satisfied: no
additional area of such a lot need meet the minimum average width requirement. For a lot
without lake or stream frontage, its average width shall be the average horizontal distance,
measured perpendicularly to its longest side, between the sides of the lot.
(h) Diagram showing “Nonshoreland lot minimum average width example.”
[insert graphic]
24. Sec. 1415 (ha) (to be inserted between Sec. 1415 (h) and (i)) is created to read as follows:
(ha) Lot, Depth (for lots with lake frontage). The average distance from the line constituting the
shoreline frontage (as defined in this section), measured perpendicularly to such line, to the
opposite boundary line of the lot.
Nonshoreland lot minimum average width example:
This calculation example will work in most cases to calculate average width on irregular shaped lots;
(example case requires a 200 ft average width).
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 6 of 24
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BAYFIELD COUNTY
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE
1. Sec 13132 (b) is amended as follows:
(b) Inland Lake Lot Requirements.
(1) Except as provided in Section 13126, no land use permit shall be issued for a lot having frontage
on a classified lake unless the lot meets the following minimum lot requirements, and except as
provided in Section 13122 (a)(2), (5) and (6), Section 13140, and paragraphs (2) and (3) below,
any structure thereon shall meet the following minimum setback requirements for the class in which
the lake is included:
Lake Class Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Lot Size Area 30,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft.
Shoreline Frontage 150 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.
Lot Depth 200 ft. 300 ft. 400 ft.
Buildable Core 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq.ft.
Shoreline Setback 75 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft.
Shoreline Vegetation
Protection Area
50 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft.
Side Yard Setback 10' min/ 40' min total 20' min/ 50' min total 30' min/ 60' total
Rear Yard Setback 10 ft. 20 ft. 30 ft.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 7 of 24
2. The introductory text in Sec. 13132 (d) is amended as follows:
(d) Lots on Rivers and Streams. Lots adjoining or including rivers or streams shall meet
the following or minimum requirements (provided that if an applicable zoning district
dimensional requirement in Sec 13160 is more restrictive, it shall apply instead):
Lot Size Area 120,000 square feet
Shoreline Frontage 300 feet
Shoreline Setback 100 feet
Lot Depth 400 feet
Side Yard Setback 30 feet/60/feet total
Shoreline Vegetation Protection Area 75 feet
View Corridor 30 feet
3. Addition of Building Core definition to Section 1314.
(5) Buildable Core. That internal area of a lot greater than twenty (20) feet in width which meets all
applicable setbacks, has no wetlands or other unbuildable areas, and can accommodate the
placement of a structure.
Article C: Survey and Recording Requirements
Sec. 14140 Survey Requirements.
(a) Prior to the final approval of land divisions to which this Chapter applies, the owner of the land shall
have the parcels surveyed by a registered land surveyor. The surveyor shall create a certified survey
map or plat, in the manner prescribed in Ch. 236.34, Wis. Stats.; unless exempt under the provisions of
Section 14122 or unless waived in writing by the Zoning Committee.
(b) A certified survey map shall be prepared and recorded for all land divisions resulting in the creation of
1, 2, 3, or 4 lots of less than five (5) acres, or of any size if a shoreland lot (as defined in Section 1314
(60).
(c) Subdivisions created under Ch. 236.03, Wis. Stats., shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this
Chapter C.S.M. checklist
(d) Checklist is as follows:
s.236.34(1) CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP OF NOT MORE THAN 4 PARCELS OF LAND
1._____ Total number of parcels, including lots and outlots, cannot exceed 4. (Public dedications such as
rightofways and parks do not count as parcels.)
s.236.34(1) (a) THE SURVEY
2.______ Survey performed and map prepared by WI Registered Land Surveyor. (Each sheet (single
sided) must be signed, sealed and dated by the Surveyor.)
3._____ Ratio or error in latitude and departure closure may not exceed 1’/3000’.
s.236.34(1) (b) MONUMENTS (crossreferenced to s.236.15 Wis. Stats. Shown below)
4._____ (b) All corners shall be monumented in accordance with s.236.15 (1), (c), (d), & (g).
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 8 of 24
5._____ (c) All lot, outlot, park and public access corners and the corners of land dedicated to the public
shall be monumented by iron pipes at least 18” long and 1” outside diameter, weighing not less
than 1.13 pounds per lineal foot, or by round or square iron bars at least 18” long and weighing
not less than 1.13 pounds per lineal foot.
Title 14, Chapter 1, Article C Land Divisions Revised 050103 Title 14Chapter 1Article CPage 2
6._____ (d) The lines that extend to lakes or streams shall be monumented. These shall be at the point
of intersection of the lake or stream lot line with a meander line established not less than 20 feet
back from the ordinary high water mark of the lake or from the bank of the stream.
7._____ (g) In cases where strict compliance with this subsection would be unduly difficult or would not
provide adequate monuments, the department county surveyor may make other reasonable
requirements. (Existing accepted and archival monuments should not be removed or reset. They
should be noted as existing or found and described by type, material, diameter, and shape.)
s.236.34(1) (c) PREPARATION (crossreferenced to s.236.20 Wis. Stats. Shown below)
8._____ The map shall be prepared in accordance with s.236.20 (2) (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (I), (j),
(k), and (L) and (3)(b), (d), and (e) and must be clearly legible. (Additional features may be
shown such as wetland, building and driveways, environmental corridors, and floodplain
boundaries.)
9._____ At a graphic scale of not more than 500 feet to an inch, which shall be shown on each sheet
showing layout features.
10._____ Binding margin 1.5” wide and a 0.5inch margin on all other sides on durable white paper 8 ½”
wide by 14” long.
11._____ It must be in nonfading black image or reproduced with photographic silver haloid image on
double matte polyester film of not less than 4 mil thickness. created on survey map sheets (30 to
36 pound such as white Byron Weston record linen ledger).
12._____ When more than one sheet is used for any map, each sheet number shall be labeled as (Sheet
1 of 3 sheets, etc.).
13._____ “BAYFIELD COUNTY CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP” shall be printed on the map in prominent
letters with the location of the land by government lot, recorded private claim, quarterquarter
section, section, township, range and county noted.
14._____ Seals or signatures reproduced on images complying with this paragraph shall be given the
force and effect of original signatures and seals.
Title 14, Chapter 1, Article C Land Divisions Revised 050103 Title 14Chapter 1Article CPage 3
s.236.20 (2) MAP AND ENGINEERING INFORMATION The final plat shall show correctly on its face:
15._____ (a) The exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and divided must be clearly shown by solid
heavy line.
16._____ (b) All monuments erected, corners, and other points established in the field in their proper
places.
17._____ The material of which the monuments, corners, or other points are made shall be noted at the
representation thereof, or by Legend.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 9 of 24
18._____ The Legend for monuments shall indicate the type, outside diameter, length and weight per
lineal foot of the monuments.
19._____ (c) The length and bearing of the exterior boundaries, the boundary lines of all blocks, public
grounds, streets and alleys, and all lot lines. When the lines in any tier of lots are parallel, the
bearings of the outer lines on one tier may be sufficient.
20._____ Easements not parallel to a boundary or lot line shall be shown by centerline distance, bearing
and width or by easement boundary bearings and distances.
21._____ Where easement lines are parallel to boundary or lot lines, the boundary or lot line distances
and bearings are controlling.
22._____ Where the exterior boundary lines shown bearings or lengths which vary from those recorded in
abutting plats or certified surveys, “recorded as” bearings and distances shall be shown.
23._____ (e) All lots and outlots must be consecutively numbered.
24._____ (f) The exact width of all easements, streets and alleys.
25._____ (g) The distances and bearings along all meander lines, and The distance to the ordinary high
water mark at each lot line (must be greater than 20’).
26._____ (h) The centerline of all streets.
27._____ (I) North referenced to a magnetic, true or other identifiable direction. Related to a boundary line
of a quarter section, recorded private claim or federal reservation in which the subdivision is
located. Include a north arrow on each sheet with details.
Title 14, Chapter 1, Article C Land Divisions Revised 050103 Title 14Chapter 1Article CPage 4
28._____ (j) The area in square feet of each lot and outlot, excluding public (but not private) road rightof
ways and navigable water.
29._____ (k) When a street is on a circular curve, the main chords of the rightofway lines shall be drawn
as dotted or dashed lines in their proper places
30._____ Curves shall show the radius, central angle, chord bearing, the chord length and arc length for
each segment.
31._____ The tangent bearing shall be shown for each end of the main curve.
32._____ When a circular curve of 30foot radius or less is used to round off the intersection between two
straight lines, it shall be tangent to both straight lines. It is sufficient to shown on the plat the
radius of the curve and the tangent distances.
33._____ (L) When strict compliance with a provision of this section will entail undue or unnecessary
difficulty or tend to render the certified survey map more difficult to read, and when the
information on the certified survey map is sufficient for the exact retracement of the
measurements and bearings or other necessary dimensions, the department may waive such
strict compliance.
236.20 (3) NAME, LOCATION AND POSITION
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 10 of 24
34._____ (b) The location of the CSM shall be indicated by bearing and distance from a boundary line of a
quarter section, recorded private claim or federal reservation in which the subdivision is located.
35._____ The monuments at the ends of the boundary line shall be described and the bearing and
distance between them shown and have recorded tie sheets on file. If the tie sheets are not on
file or changes have occurred, new ties sheets must be submitted with the proposed CSM.
36._____ (d) The names of adjoining streets, state highways and subdivisions shown in their proper
location underscored by a dotted or dashed line.
37._____ (e) Abutting street and state highway lines of adjoining plats shown in their proper location by
dotted or dashed lines. The width of these streets and highways shall be given also.
Title 14, Chapter 1, Article C Land Divisions Revised 050103 Title 14Chapter 1Article CPage 5
236.34(1) (d) SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The map shall include a certificate of the
surveyor who surveyed, divided and mapped the land which has the same force and effect as an affidavit and
which gives all of the following information:
38._____ (1) State who directed the surveyor to make the survey, division and map of the land described
on the CSM.
39._____ (2) A clear and concise description of the land surveyed by government lot, recorded private
claim, quarterquarter section, Section Township, Range and County, and by metes and
bounds.
40._____ Commencing with a monument at a section or quarter section corner of the quarter section that
is not the center of a section, or commencing with a monument at the end of a boundary line of
a recorded private claim or federal reservation in which the land is located.
41._____ If the land is located in a recorded subdivision or recorded addition to a recorded
subdivision, then by the number or other description of the lot, block or subdivision, which has
previously been tied to a corner marked and established by the U.S. public land survey.
42._____ A statement that the map is a correct representation of all of the exterior boundaries of the land
surveyed and the division of that land.
43._____ A statement that the surveyor has fully complied with the provisions of s.236.34 (1) (d) in
surveying, dividing the land.
44._____ Is the shoreline measurement shown on the drawing as defined by Bayfield County Subdivision
Control Code 1415, Para. “O”, Chapter 1?
45._____ Check math and add all parts to be sure totals are correct.
46._____ Are names of adjoiners or a parcel number shown?
47._____ Has U.S. Public Land Survey Monument Record been filed for section corners shown on survey
map, if so are the reference objects in good condition?
48._____ Access for lots to public or private road shown and described by metes and bounds?
Title 14, Chapter 1, Article C Land Divisions Revised 050103 Title 14Chapter 1Article CPage 6
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 11 of 24
49._____ P.O.B. shown?
50._____ Leave a mandatory 3x3 blank recording space in upper right corner of page 1 of CSM and
corner tie sheets.
51._____ Where it is questionable that a buildable core or dry land access exists, this note must be added
to the CSM: “CAUTION: There may not be a buildable core on this lot nor dry land access to it.”
52._____ It shall be the responsibility of the Owner/Agent to provide a street name compatible with the
Bayfield County Street Sign and Emergency Number Ordinance.
Note: Sec. 14140 (a) of the Bayfield County Subdivision Control Code has been amended to include all
items on this checklist.
Sec. 14141 Recording Requirements.
All certified survey maps and subdivision plats shall be recorded at the office of the Bayfield County
Register of Deeds, in the manner described in Chs. 59.51 and 236, Wis. Stats.
Sec. 14142 Fees.
(a) The applicant shall pay the fee specified in Section 13121(e)(1) for each lot created.
(b) The applicant shall also pay the recording fee as determined by the Register of Deeds prior to
recording a certified survey map or plat.
Sec. 14143 through Sec. 14159 Reserved for Future Use.
**************************************************************************************************************************
The amendments listed below in blue are the amendments handed out to the Committee the day of the
meeting.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BAYFIELD COUNTY
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCES
(Paragraphs 16 are revisions of proposed amendments considered but not adopted at the January 19,
2006 Zoning Committee meeting. The remaining paragraphs are amendments, or revisions thereof,
proposed in a subsequent petition dated March 27, 2006.)
1. The definition of “Lot” in Sec. 1314 (a) (35) is repealed and recreated to read as follows:
(35) Lot. A parcel of land occupied or capable of being occupied by structures and/or uses
consistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the Bayfield County Subdivision Control
Ordinance. Adjoining lands of common ownership shall be considered a contiguous parcel even
if divided by public or private roads, easements, or navigable rivers or streams.
(35) Lot. A parcel of land under common ownership. Except for lots and outlots established by
certified survey map or plat approved pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 1, contiguous lands under
common ownership shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter, and land under
common ownership but separated by a river, stream, nonfee title public road, private road or
easement shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter. Lands under common
ownership separated by fee title road, or public lake bed shall not constitute a single lot.
Effective _________ (date of amendment adoption).
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 12 of 24
2. Sec. 1314 (a) (35m) (to be inserted between Sec. 1314 (a) (35) and (36)) is created to read as
follows:
(35m) Lot Area. The horizontal projection of a lot, exclusive of any portion of public right of way or any
portion of a lot thirty (30) feet or less in width. Measurements are to be made by standard
surveying methods. Any portion of a lot covered by a private easement shall be included in the
lot area.
3. Sec. 1314 (a) (72) and (73) are repealed.
(72) Width. The width at any point on a lot shall be the shortest distance between the lot side lines
at that point.
(73) Zoning District. A geographical location dividing zones.
4. Sec. 13160 (a) is amended and 13160(f) is created as follows:
Sec. 13160 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.
(a) Subject to subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) below, Zoning District Dimensional Requirements for lots
shall be as follows (provided that for lots with lake frontage or adjoining or including rivers or streams,
any more restrictive applicable requirements in Sec. 13132 shall apply instead):
Minimum Side
& Rear Yards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Area
Minimum
Frontage
Minimum
Average
Width
(for non
shoreland lots
only)
Principal
Building
Accessory
Building
RRB, R1 30,000 sq.
ft.
150’ 150’ 10’ 10’
F1, R2, A1 4 ½ acres 300’ 300’ 75’ 30’
R3 2 acres 200’ 200’ 20’ 20’
F2, A2 35 acres 1,200’ 1,200’ 75’ 30’
I, C* 20,000 sq.
ft.
100’ 100’ 5’ 5’
R4
(a)
Sewer/water
10,000 sq.
ft.
75’ 75’ 10’ 10’
(b) Sewer only 15,000 sq.
ft.
75’ 75’ 10’ 10’
( c) Water only 20,000 sq.
ft.
100’ 100’ 10’ 10’
For Setback: Requirements See see Section 13122.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 13 of 24
Lots must have legal access from public roads and comply with Article C, Section 14140 Survey and
Recording Requirements.
* * *
(f) Compliance with the minimum average width requirement shall be determined whenever feasible as
demonstrated by the following example. In applying the example, the side of the rectangle equivalent to
the required minimum average width shall be aligned with the side of the lot fronting a road, or, if there is no
road frontage, with the side of the lot to which access is provided. If, due to a lot’s configuration, it is not
feasible to determine the minimum average width as demonstrated by the example, such determination
shall be made as reasonably determined by the zoning and planning administrator.
[Insert diagram]
Nonshoreland lot minimum average width example:
This calculation example will work in most cases to calculate average width on irregular shaped lots;
(example case requires a 200 ft average width).
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 14 of 24
5. Sec. 1415 (f) is amended as follows:
(f) Lot. A parcel of land under common ownership. (Except for lots and outlots established by
certified survey map or plat approved pursuant to this chapter), contiguous lands under common
ownership shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter and land under common
ownership but separated by a river, stream, county highway, town nonfee title public road,
private road or easement shall constitute a single lot for purposes of this chapter. Lands under
common ownership separated by fee title public road, a state or federal highway or public lake
bed shall not constitute a single lot. Effective _________ (date of amendment adoption).
6. Section 1415 (h) is repealed:
(h) Lot, Average Width. The average horizontal straight line measurement between the side lines
of a lot. A lot shall be judged to meet the minimum average width requirement for the district in
which it is located, if the district’s average width dimensions are maintained from the point(s) at
which the lot’s frontage width is determined to the point(s) at which the lot’s frontage width is
satisfied: no additional area of a particular lot in question need meet the minimum average width
requirement.
7. Section 1314(a)(4m) (to be inserted between 1314(a) 4 and 1314(a)5) is created as follows:
(4m) Buildable Core. That internal area of a lot which meets all applicable setbacks, has no
wetlands or other unbuildable areas, can accommodate the placement of a structure,
and is greater than twenty (20) feet in width.
8. Sec 13132 (b) is amended as follows:
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 15 of 24
(b) Inland Lake Lot Requirements.
(1) Except as provided in Section 13126, no land use permit shall be issued for a lot having frontage
on a classified lake unless the lot meets the following minimum lot requirements, and except as
provided in Section 13122 (a)(2), (5) and (6), Section 13140, and paragraphs (2) and (3) below,
any structure thereon shall meet the following minimum setback setback requirements for the class
in which the lake is included:
Lake Class Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Lot Size Area 30,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft.
Shoreline Frontage 150 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.
Lot Depth 200 ft. 300 ft. 400 ft.
Buildable Core 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq.ft.
Shoreline Setback 75 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft.
Shoreline Vegetation
Protection Area
50 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft.
Side Yard Setback 10' min/ 40' min total 20' min/ 50' min total 30' min/ 60' total
Rear Yard Setback 10 ft. 20 ft. 30 ft.
9. Sec. 13132 (d) is amended as follows:
(d) Lots on Rivers and Streams. Lots adjoining or including rivers or streams shall meet the
following or minimum requirements (provided that if an applicable zoning district dimensional
requirement in Sec 13160 is more restrictive, it shall apply instead):
Lot Size Area 120,000 square feet
Shoreline Frontage 300 feet
Shoreline Setback 100 feet
Lot Depth 400 feet
Buildable Core 3000 square feet
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet
Side Yard Setback 30 feet/60/feet total
Shoreline Vegetation Protection Area 75 feet
View Corridor 30 feet
10. Sec. 14140(d)7 is amended as follows:
7._____ (g) In cases where strict compliance with this subsection would be unduly difficult or
would not provide adequate monuments, the department county surveyor may make
other reasonable requirements. (Existing accepted and archival monuments should not
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 16 of 24
be removed or reset. They should be noted as existing or found and described by type,
material, diameter, and shape.)
11. Sec. 14140(d)11 is amended as follows:
11._____ It must be in nonfading black image or reproduced with
photographic silver haloid image on double matte polyester film of not less than 4 mil
thickness. created on survey map sheets (30 to 36 pound such as white Byron Weston
record linen ledger).
12 Sec. 14140(d)25 is amended as follows:
25._____ (g) The distances and bearings along all meander lines, and The distance to the ordinary
high water mark from the meander line corner on at each lot line (must be greater than
20’).
13. Sec. 14140(d)35 is amended as follows:
35._____ The monuments at the ends of the boundary line shall be described and the bearing and
distance between them shown and have recorded tie sheets on file. If the tie sheets are
not on file or changes have occurred, new ties sheets must be submitted with the
proposed CSM.
14. Sec. 14140(d)48 is amended as follows:
48._____ Access for lots to public or private road shown and described by metes and bounds?
15. The note at the end of Sec. 14140 is repealed.
Note: Sec. 14140 (a) of the Bayfield County Subdivision Control Code has been amended to include
all items on this checklist.
16. Sec. 14140(d)50 is repealed and recreated, and Sec. 14140(d)51 and 52 are created, to read as
follows:
50._____ Leave a mandatory 3x3 blank recording space in upper right corner of page 1 of CSM
and corner tie sheets.
51._____ Where it is questionable that a buildable core or dry land access exists, this note must be
added to the CSM: “CAUTION: There may not be a buildable core on this lot nor dry
land access to it.”
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 17 of 24
52._____ It shall be the responsibility of the Owner/Agent to provide a street name compatible with
the Bayfield County Street Sign and Emergency Number Ordinance.
8. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Motion was made by Committee Member Rondeau to adjourn the public hearing at 1:18 pm, seconded by
Committee Member Jardine, motion carried.
9. Call To Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting:
Public Meeting was called to order by Chairman Beeksma
10.Roll Call:
Beeksma, Jardine, Maki, and Rondeau were all present. Miller was absent
11.Minutes of Previous Meeting(s):
Member Jardine made a motion to approve the March 16, 2006 minutes, seconded by Member Maki,
motion carried.
12.Business:
C. Wayne & Miroslava Nelson (Bayfield) – rezone property from RRB to R4 (tabled 3/16/06) on their
5.9acre parcel (ID #006103005001), located in Lot 1 of CSM 1225, Section 14, Township 50 North,
Range 4 W, Town of Bayfield.
Member Jardine stated this should be denied. Director Kastrosky reviewed the application with the
Committee, and reminded them that they had already given the applicant a second public hearing at no
charge to send back for review of the town and planning commission.
Motion was made by Member Jardine to deny, seconded by Member Rondeau. Member Maki wanted
to know if the Town was going to make the final decision. Director Kastrosky said the Town denied the
request, but he will be going back to the Town for a new request. Member Maki questioned if the Town
denies it a second time, will it come back? Response was yes. Member Maki questioned why we the
Committee would be dealing with this again, when the Committee doesn’t override the Towns. Member
Jardine stated at times it is necessary to do so. Member Maki disagreed and stated that if this is the
case it’s rarely. Director Kastrosky explained the Town’s overlay district to make this issue less
confusing. Member Jardine stated once again the Committee needs to deny these rezones, so the
owner can go back to the Town and readdress a new procedure. Member Maki again stated he did not
understand why the Town and County have different standards. There should not be two different
policies dictated. Chairman Beeksma stated a reminder; the final decisions are addressed by the
Zoning Committee, but the Town is asked for input. Director Kastrosky stated normally the Town’s are
asked to wait until they have mailings, but we are changing that process in order to have the town’s
aware of upcoming applications. We want the client to go and explain to the Town so they don’t have
go through this confusion. The towns will be able to address the issues at hand, but not act on them
until they have been notified by our office.
A motion stayed as previous motioned by Member Jardine to deny the rezone, seconded by Member
Rondeau, motion carried.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 18 of 24
D. Wayne Nelson (Bayfield) – rezone property from Ag1 to RRB (tabled 3/16/06) on his 15acre
parcel (ID #006103206004), located in Lot 4 of CSM 1379, Section 15, Township 50 North, Range 4
W, Town of Bayfield
There was no further discussion as this item D. was discussed with item C.
A motion was made by Member Jardine to deny, seconded by Member Rondeau, motion carried.
E. Petition to Amend Zoning Ordinance – (Section 13 & 14)
Member Jardine motioned to approve the ordinance amendments and move to the full board, seconded
by Member Rondeau. Member Maki stated the Committee just got them handed to them and he felt he
was not given enough time to review. Chairman Beeksma stated it’s what we received in the mail, and
Director Kastrosky assures us there were no changes only the language was changed. Director
Kastrosky stated these amendments were presented to you in January, but pulled off. He also
reminded the Committee that these amendments do not become ordinance until the end of May when
full board deals with it. A discussion followed regarding no lot depth on lake lots. Chairman Beeksma
questioned what happens when the property owner has a long narrow lot, Director Kastrosky stated if
they meet setback it’s not a problem, and he also reminded the Committee this is only for new
development.
Motion carried.
Agenda Review and Alteration
F. Kenneth PetersPOA for Ethel Peters, John Hilla & Kathleen Gary (Barnes) – rezone R2 to R3.
(tabled 3/17/05) on their 5.78acre parcel (ID #012101309), in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 5,
Township 43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable.
Director Kastrosky asked AZA Furtak to speak on behalf of the rezone. He stated the lot was illegally
created; he described how the lot looked. He stated an adjacent property owner was in opposition, but
since the Committee dealt with this back in March of 2005 the adjacent property owner purchased the
lot. Now that the lot has been purchased; there is no need for the rezone. The Committee just needs
to clean up the motion that was placed. He reminded the Committee that the town denied it.
A note was written on a copy of the cover letter and sent to the Zoning Office from John Hilla stating the
property has been sold; so the rezone should be withdrawn. Director Kastrosky again reminded the
Committee they are responsible to address the motion that was previously placed back in March of
2005. It was suggested this item by denied.
A motion was made by Member Rondeau to deny, seconded by Member Maki, motion carried.
The Dept received letters of opposition from Charles and Cynthia Sedgwick, Keith and Mary Beaver,
and John Cantwell.
D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding EIA for Tamarack Point (Cable)
Mike Berg of Minneapolis spoke on behalf of the request. He introduced additional people who came
with him from the audience: Brook Oldre, Jean Garbeini and Doug Mensing. Mr. Berg stated he would
like to address any questions the Committee may have. Tamarack Point is a development on West
Cable Lake. We are not asking for any zoning changes. He stated they had a beautiful project, it’s
environmentally sensitive, and a fantastic product. The units are small they will be back over 200’ off
the shoreline; they are removing the old cottage and restoring the land with native trees and plants. He
didn’t think this was ever done before in the County they are trying to set a new standard for ecological
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 19 of 24
development. Selective cutting will be involved and controlling the land use. They are restricting
snowmobiles, ATV use, and jet skis at Tamarack Point. It’s designed for wilderness and privacy.
Member Jardine stated he had numerous phone calls. He asked AZA Furtak if they walked the
property. AZA Furtak stated him, Karl, John Spangberg of the DNR, and his assistant Krystal met out
on the site and walked it. Member Jardine questioned the cat tails that the person questioned over the
phone. AZA Furtak showed on a map the frontage on road, stated it was on a Class 3 lake, wetland is
present but is considered lakebed by DNR. Mr. Berg, Member Jardine and AZA Furtak had a short
discussion on the side. Mr. Berg told the Committee that on the back of the EIA is a concept drawing
with the setbacks. The concept drawing was done with setbacks in mind and also a requirement of the
County. Chairman Beeksma questioned how they will control the jet ski’s. Mr. Berg said there will be a
covenant controlling them. He stated he could not control other areas of the lake only the Tamarack
Point development. AZA Furtak stated in the last couple of week’s people have been reviewing the
EIA. He stated the soil maps were not accurate. He asked Director Kastrosky if Land Conservation
had responded on the EIA. Response was no. AZA Furtak questioned the road width, and stated a
letter from the sanitary district was received today. Director Kastrosky asked about a soil test. Mr. Berg
said he contacted a soil tester and talked to the sanitary district. Director Kastrosky stated the soil tests
came back for mounds. He discussed the sanitary district memo; stating they could not handle over
2,000 gallons per day of sludge or holding tank waste. Mr. Berg stated they wished to minimize cutting
in regards to the mounds. Director Kastrosky stated that this procedure is the last one of a kind; the
EIA’s will be accompanying the conditional use applications in the future. Director Kastrosky stated
there are a lot of unknowns regarding how it will be impacted. Mr. Berg again stated they want to
provide the most beautiful and thoughtfully designed area in Bayfield County.
Kenneth Bro asked if he could come forward to address an issue. He questioned the process of the
ordinance. The concept of the evaluation procedures is a step wise approach in the purpose section.
He read that section. He stated the EIA is scoped in advance of the project. He suggested the soils
are wrong, the density is not going to meet ordinance standards; and reminded the Committee they
have not heard the land use plans for county or town. There is nothing in the report as to zoning
district(s), vegetation, bog and unique species. He stated everything should be considered 30 days
prior to the review. He suggests that today is an information meeting to review the general description
of the project. Now he informed the Committee is when they should be scoping the information.
Brook Oldre, Developer spoke on behalf of the request. He stated the EIA was submitted a month ago.
He stated within limits they would be willing to work with people and the issues.
Jean Garbeini stated the points raised were very good ones. She stated the soil maps were from a
reputable source. She asked the Committee to consider the booklet that was asked for by ordinance.
She stated they visited the site when there was 2 feet of snow on the ground. She asked the
Committee to consider at this time what was asked for in the original EIA. Member Jardine questioned
if AZA Furtak saw the booklet. AZA Furtak said yes and Land Conservation was sent a booklet also,
but has not responded back. AZA Furtak stated the things he brought up need to be addressed. We
could accept the EIA; however amendments need to be made to it.
Doug Mensing stated he was on sight again and seen items that could be added to the EIA. AZA
Furtak stated the concept and what was submitted; he felt was on the right track. He stated if this went
to the Town it would be ripped apart. He compared the NRCS and soils map; he considered the road
widths; the letter from the sanitary district, and Section (d)(2)(e). He felt they all needed to be
addressed. AZA Furtak stated he was bringing this up too smooth things over. He also stated
endangered species needs to be addressed because it’s going to come up in the future, and if you don’t
want road blocks to come up, it’s something you need to take care of.
Director Kastrosky commented that an email was received from Roger Dreher requesting that no action
be taken on the EIA until it has been thoroughly reviewed and reflects the details of the proposed
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 20 of 24
development as contained in the conditional use permit. Director Kastrosky stated the Committee
doesn’t know the placement of the buildings, they don’t know if these buildings are going to be on
slopes greater than 20% because of the density. If they are then DNR permit(s) will be needed. He
stated he has concerns regarding the density that was brought forward today. He would like the
conditional use be placed on for next months meeting. He stated right now we don’t know totally what
the project is going to be. Kenneth Bro said the key is a number of issues have not been addressed.
The EIA is a part of the conditional use process, and it is intended to see that the issues are addressed.
Henry Harmon, adjacent property owner to the South spoke stating it seems everyone wants this done
well. He also questioned the density, soils, etc. He would like to see the Committee have everything
they need before they approve this project to move forward. Member Jardine questioned Director
Kastrosky whether the Committee should be considering the email from Mr. Dreher and the staff
concerns which have been brought forward. Member Jardine stated that things have not been
exchanged. Director Kastrosky said the decision is up to the Committee; you have the option to table
the EIA and hold the conditional use or bring both on at the same time.
Bob Lang, Town Board member spoke regarding the driveway ordinance. He stated there is 24’ width
but there is also a 66’ width for private roads. He also questioned the Committee regarding the zoning
on west side of road being Forestry1 not requiring a zoning change. Director Kastrosky stated he has
had this under legal advisement. The classification list states it’s not permissible; however; statute
701.27 in the condominium law says we can not treat condominium ownership any differently than the
Committee would treat any other type of usage or property. He stressed the department again was not
able to talk to the applicant about the issue. Member Jardine stated this should be tabled. Member
Rondeau agreed and stated everyone is willing to work together. Chairman Beeksma stated he is also
in agreement and feels the applicant has the idea of what they need to do and what should come with
the conditional use application. Director Karl questioned whether the Committee wants the EIA alone
or with the conditional use next month. Member Jardine states both; Chairman Beeksma questioned
whether the Town would have a chance to deal with it prior to their meeting. Response was yes, he
stated then both should be submitted. Member Rondeau would like to see both come forward next
month. Mr. Bro spoke with concern from the audience. He states the real proposal should be
addressed. Director Kastrosky suggested that a more thorough EIA, density standards that meets the
ordinance and physical placement of the units should be available for the next meeting. Director
Kastrosky stated the deadline would be tomorrow because the notice had to be sent to the County
Journal Monday. Member Rondeau questioned whether Furtak’s concerns could be met by tomorrow’s
deadline.
Member Rondeau motioned to table this item, seconded by Member Maki. Chairman Beeksma stated
the applicant needs to come with the EIA and conditional use application. Director Kastrosky
questioned whether the conditional use is to be presented as proposed or amended. Response was
the amended version. Motion carried. Mr. Berg addressed the Committee to make sure the
Committee was aware his business is willing to work with everyone and they are also concerned with
the issues brought forward.
E. Harland Chambers (Lincoln) – dog kennel (1239 dogs) (17 dogs exist at this time) on his 4.72
acre property described as the SW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section 23, Township 45 N, Range 5 West, Town of
Lincoln.
Director Kastrosky stated a letter was received from Mr. Chambers asking that this item be tabled
until May due to medical reasons.
Member Rondeau made a motion to table until the May meeting, seconded by Member Jardine, motion
carried.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 21 of 24
The Dept. received letters of opposition from Barbara Robertson, Ron Stauske, Roland and Birgit Wolff,
Ralph and Elaine Hansen, and Hillary Pollack.
F. Philip S & Sheree Petersen (Bayfield) – second residence on a parcel described as a 5acre parcel
located in Lot 1 of CSM #1203, Section 11, Township 50 N, Range 4 W, Town of Bayfield.
Phil Peterson spoke on behalf of his request. He stated when he purchased the property; a 1960
mobile home was present at the time. It does not meet setback standards. He would like to tear it
down and replace it with a cottage. What he is asking for is a second residence on a parcel. Member
Maki questioned whether the Town approved. The town did approve.
Motion was made by Member Jardine to approve the second residence on a parcel, seconded by
Member Maki, motion carried.
G. Mitchel R McGee (Barnes) – homebased business (towing and small engine repair) on his 30
acre property described as the SW ¼ of the the NE ¼, Section 2, Township 44 N. Range 9 West, Town
of Barnes
Mitchel McGee spoke on behalf of his request. He stated he has a flat bed tow truck; he repairs small
engines, outboards and lawn mowers. He stated he would like a permit to do that legally. Mr. Lamar
Sorenson spoke as an adjacent property owner. He stated there were some irregularities; one being
the Town’s input. He wasn’t able to get their minutes because they were not done. He stated he was
not here to put Mr. McGee out of business, but felt some sort of rules should be handed out to Mr.
McGee regarding oil spills. He questioned whether this request is renewable yearly. He felt truck
hauling going up and down the road should be addressed, outside storage should be addressed even
though he knows Mr. McGee’s wife wouldn’t allow outside storage. He questioned if the property is
sold does it go with the property or does it stay with Mr. McGee. Member Jardine questioned whether
Mr. McGee is screened from Mr. Sorenson. It was stated you can see everything from the lake, but
only from one side of the Sorenson’s property is visible. Member Maki asked whether he tows and
hauls in cars. Mr. McGee stated for insurance purposes he does, but only for a week or so. Member
Maki questioned what the rules and regulations are regarding the ordinance. Director Kastrosky stated
this is a homebased business and explained the homebased business rules. He stated the timeline
can be set for the property or the previous owner. He further explained if it crosses the line of
junk/salvage yard it no longer would be considered homebased business. Chairman Beeksma
questioned AZA Furtak whether the Town put any conditions on it. Town Board sheet shows no
conditions. AZA Furtak asked how long Mr. McGee had been in business. Mr. McGee stated 2 years.
AZA Furtak stated he has no problem with junk vehicles or parts; the property is well kept up. AZA
Furtak reminded the Committee the County strongly wants to see homebased businesses. He did
however; agree to have it approved to only Mr. McGee.
Motion was made by Member Maki to approve with the condition that it is only for the present owner
nontransferable, seconded by Member Rondeau. Chairman Beeksma suggested that the inside
storage should be addressed as Mr. Sorenson questioned; a short discussion followed with no further
conditions.
Ms. Karen Sorenson spoke in regards too how much she loves area. It’s pristine. She stated signs
are a concern to her, would they be able to have signs/billboards in the future if not addressed now.
This is such a pristine lake and wants it to stay that way. Member Jardine assured her the Committee
does not want to see billboards either. Motion carried.
H. Richard Kinderman (Barnes) – hobby farm (2 horses & 1 pony) on his 40acre property described
as the S ½ of the S ½, of the SE ¼, Section 36, Township 45 N, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 22 of 24
Richard Kinderman spoke on behalf of his application. He stated he has 40acres, and he brought the
horse(s) and pony with him when he moved here. He stated they are 400 or 500 feet from road. AZA
Furtak explained to the Committee he just found out about it this winter, when a town official
complained because a previous adjacent owner had been denied. He stated there is no smell and the
animals are well cared for.
The Dept. received a letter of support was received from Lynn Johnson.
Motion was made by Member Jardine to allow the 2 horses and pony, seconded by Member Rondeau.
Motion carried.
I. Douglas Belanger (Washburn) – hobby farm (5 horses, 20 chickens, 5 cows, & 5 pigs) on his
14.75acre property described as part of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 29, Township 49 N. Range 5
West, Town of Washburn.
Doug Belanger spoke on behalf of his request. He stated when he applied for a pole building he found
out he needed a permit. He stated he has one horse right now, but doesn’t think he would have as
many in the future as stated on his application. Member Maki stated hobby farms are all over out by
them; does everyone have permits. Land Use Specialist Tulowitzky said no, some do not need permits
because they are zoned agricultural, which do not require a permit. LUS Tulowitzky stated he talked
with Mr. Belanger at the time of the inspection for the pole building; he was told by Mr. Belanger that
they wanted animals. LSU Tulowitzky told Mr. Belanger he would need a permit. Member Jardine
questioned LUS Tulowitzky if everything is in compliance. His response was no animals are on site
now, but the town has conditions of 4 strand fence, and the manure should be removed yearly if more
than 4 animals.
Motion was made by Member Rondeau to approve with the 5 horses, 20 chickens, 5 cows and 5 pigs
and the town’s conditions, seconded by Member Maki, motion carried.
J. Paul & Chris Rice (Washburn) – hobby farm (10 horses, 25+chickens, 12 rabbits, 5 cows, 5 pigs,
5 goats, 25+ turkeys and 10 ducks) on their 40acre property described as the NW ¼ of the NW ¼,
Section 28, Township 49 N, Range 5 West, Town of Washburn.
Chris Rice spoke on behalf on her application. She stated they would not have the number of animals
stated on the application, but was instructed to ask for any animals we may want and give numbers.
She stated her kids will be in 4H. Land Use Specialist (LSU) Tulowitzky told the Committee he came
up with this one also because of an application for a pole building. LUS Tulowitzky questioned Ms.
Rice if she was aware of the conditions the town placed. Her response was she was aware.
Motion was made by Member Maki to approve 6 horses, 25 chickens, 12 rabbits, 5 cows, 5 pigs, 5
goats, 10 turkeys and 10 ducks, and the town’s conditions of a 4 strand fence and if 4 or more
animals (cows, horses, etc) manure pile must be removed yearly, seconded by Rondeau, motion
carried.
K. Citizens Concerns and Input
Kenneth Bro spoke to the Committee regarding updating the EIA portion of the ordinance. He stated
more information is available now than when it was established in 1974. Definition of soils should be
included as well as the limitations. He discussed the NRCS website being available and what it shows.
He stated it should be included in what the ordinance asks for. Local land use plans should be included
in the EIA policies. He handed out an outline of what should be considered. He recommends
interested parties are notified of the EIA scoping meeting. With all of these considered, the developer
will have an idea of what is required. This however; doesn’t mean these things won’t be controversial.
The point is to avoid appeals.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 23 of 24
AZA Furtak stated most areas are going to be controversial. He wants to see LCD, DNR and other
agencies review the EIA’s. Director Kastrosky said the ordinance was changed to allow the Committee
to have the EIA’s reviewed if they chose too. Member Maki asked how big is this going to grow, as
Zoning we have people come to us and we send this here and there. He stated the Committee gets
scrutinized, but if the property owner goes to LCD or DNR they don’t. We are getting bogged down in
these cases. AZA Furtak stated to Member Maki that the Tamarack is a $1520 million dollar project.
It’s not just an ordinary guy asking for a small scale business; the County is going to have the liability on
it, so the County needs to be prepared and make a good decision. Member Jardine spoke in regards to
Bony Lake project. Member Maki states we all have standards, DNR has standards and LCD has
standards. Director Kastrosky stated that is because the DNR is water, we are land and LCD is one
that sets guidance. Member Jardine used the example of the Great Lakes Visitor Center, and stated so
much for the good ‘ol boy mentality.
L. Discussion and Possible Action on NR115 rewrite update
Director Kastrosky stated they are opening NR115 back up. Impervious surface is one item that will be
dealt with and in May we should see it going to public hearing.
M. Other Items that may come before the Committee (Discussion Only)
Ø Member Maki questioned the afternoon meetings. He stated the people are not being
justified especially the workers. Time and money is involved with him and other people. We
need to make it convenient to the public. Member Jardine stated he had no phone calls. He
stated they need to think about the staff that starts at 8:00 am and then end up at an evening
meeting, especially in the winter. Another concern Member Maki’s had was when people see it
in the paper but can’t get off work. Member Jardine stated to Member Maki that Mark Abeles
Allison is encouraging this time also. Director Karl asked if this is to be put on agenda. Maki
stated yes.
Ø Director Kastrosky told the Committee the Town of Cable and Town of Russell got citations for
missing reclamation plans. A question came forward regarding Rocky Tribovich. Director
Kastrosky stated he called, left a message and said we need to talk but he has not called back.
Ø Director Kastrosky brought up the situation of a new phone system; he stated that it has been
brought up several times. Office Manager Kmetz explained the way the office would like to set
up the phone system. Member Jardine suggested we try it. Chairman Beeksma stated he was
not against it; but he does not want it as complicated as Tourism, make it simple and brief,
but he would like to hear the prompt before we put it in place. The final consensus was go
ahead.
Ø AZA Furtak asked when Rob will be starting. Response was May 1 st .
Ø Member Maki stated he got a phone call complaining about the building that was permitted for
Tourism. He stressed that there are three (3) members on this Committee, and the same three
(3) are on the Tourism Committee and when this item came to Zoning Committee they acted as
if they didn’t know about it. Member Jardine stated he was aware of it, but it was less than 200
sq. ft and he never gave it a second thought. Member Maki stressed that was inexcusable and
he is bringing this up because it appears he is the only one that is getting calls on it. Member
Maki said he was unhappy that it went by, but stated he wouldn’t bring it up again. Member
Maki stated he brought this up because he is getting reamed about it, and because he is the
only one that will speak up.
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2006
Page 24 of 24
13. Monthly Report
The March monthly report was handed out to Committee Members prior to the meeting with the
correspondence packets.
Motion was made by Rondeau to approve the March monthly report, seconded by Jardine, motion carried.
14. Adjournment
Motion was made by Member Rondeau to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Maki, motion carried. The
meeting adjourned at 3:24 PM.
Karl L. Kastrosky, Director
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department
K/ZC/Minutes/2006/March
Prepared by dak on 5/4/06 Approved by KLK on 5806
cc: Admin., Bussey, Clerk, Committee, DNR, Supervisors