HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 4/15/2010ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 1
Minutes
Public Hearing / Meeting
Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee
April 15, 2010 – 4:00 PM
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: By Chairman Beeksma at 4:02 PM.
2. Roll Call: Beeksma, Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rondeau – all present.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Presented by Director Kastrosky.
4. Review of Meeting Format: By Chairman Jardine.
5. Public Hearing:
A. James Crandall, Clerk (Town of Drummond) Text Amendment to Title 13
James Crandall said the intent is to restrict building to ten acre lots in Ag-1 / F-1 zoning; promoting home
building rather than many small lots with hunting shacks, etc. AZA Mike Furtak noted this doesn‘t restrict
building of homes, but creation of lots.
Speaking in Support / Opposition: none
File Report: Director Kastrosky read into the record the definition of nonconforming parcels and how it
applies. The Town of Drummond overlay district applicability statement states their request applies to and
includes all lands within the Town of Drummond. The Intent of the Town of Drummond Overlay
District (as presented) regarding nonconforming parcels follows: When a land division occurs in Ag-1
and F-1 zoning districts, the minimum parcel size that may be created with the intent for development is
10 acres. No development of any kind may be permitted on land divisions of less than 10 acres in Ag-1
and F-1 zoning districts created after the adopted date of this amendment [after County Board approval].
B. Ken Abernathy Jr. Rezone Request: F-1, R-1, R-4 to all R-4, 20 acres (#04-021-2-45-06-22-3-04-000-
60000) located in the S ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 22, Township 45N, Range 6 W, Town of
Grand View.
This request was made to facilitate subdivision and development of the property. Ken Abernathy
explained his situation: out of the 20 acres, 3.6-acres were zoned R-4 adjacent to existing sanitary sewer
line and manholes. The rest was zoned R-1, single family, unsewered. He developed a preliminary plat
based on that fact, broke the rest in to 12 lots, later found it was entirely w/in Grand View sanitary district
#1. He requested exclusion of that parcel, it qualified for conventional septic, but they didn‘t want to
amend the district because of others in the past who were required to connect to the district. An R-1
piece in a mandatory sewered district should go to R-4 single family sewered. Abernathy noted he has a
plan but it doesn‘t work any longer because of additional sewer development costs; he needs to go back
to ‗drawing board‘ but needs approval here first. He said the lots will decrease in size; plans were for an
acre+; he believes he can still meet the 15,000 sq. ft. goal. He said this was approved unanimously by
the Town w/ no objections.
Speaking in Support: None
Opposition:
John Lenz has 40 acres across from subject property; is concerned about value & types of homes
placed there which might devalue his home and upset the serene/quiet location; has concerns about
roadways, dust, taxes, trash. Margaret Lenz: expressed additional concern if there might be smoke
from burning garbage or furnaces; fearful they would have to move due to health issues; fearful homes
might become rentals.
Rebuttal: Abernathy said he will do his best to set up covenants / restrictions; would be doing a County
plat, go before the Town and [Bayfield County] Zoning Committee again, would know the number /
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 2
configuration of lots at that time bringing in a draft of the lots. Kastrosky reminded the Committee /
audience that this is only dealing w/ the rezone now.
File Report: Kastrosky read an opposition letter from adjoining property owner Willard Johnson of
Washburn who has a small storage building on the Grand View property, stating opposition for personal
reasons. Other fie correspondence: Town Board recommended approval (review for compatibility w/
land use plan was not checked yes or no on Town form). He then asked Mr. David Reichert (Plan.
Commission member) if they reviewed it and he noted it was not brought to their committee, however,
they approved of his first plan of 12 lots in the past. Kastrosky stated that in the future it does need to
be considered and the information checked on the Town Board recommendation form.
After discussion, Kastrosky noted that when/if this comes back as a subdivision plat, a condition could
be placed that lots never be further subdivided. Abernathy stated he would be willing to do that.
C. Todd / Nina Bucher Rezone Request – from F-1 to R-RB, in shoreland-wetland zone; an 8-acre
parcel (#04-016-2-46-07-17-4-02-000-20000) in part of the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 17, Township 46
N, Range 7 W, lying North and West of the River in the Town of Delta.
Susan Davis (Agent) said Buchers were approached by the DNR to sell approximately 2.9 acres of river
frontage desiring to get it into public domain; their house on 4.5 acre parcel (across the road), the sale
would not produce enough to warrant a survey; they are committed to placing the 2.9-acres in public
domain as they believe in what the DNR is doing w/ White River. A concern they have is that the parcel
their house is on is not as surrounding land (most of the non-R-RB property is either DNR or forestry
property, not private homes). She said the Planning Commission approved this as compatible w/ their
future land use plan; Town is yet to hear this request (meeting is April 20).
RE discussion on surveying this land, Mike Furtak and Travis Tulowitzky stated it had to be surveyed
because of a shoreland zone and being less than five acres. Kastrosky said it is possible to convey a
portion to an adjoiner without doing a CSM as long as the remnant parcel meets the standards in the
zoning district and noted they are not creating a parcel, they are severing part of the parcel. Maki said if it
needs to be surveyed they should let the DNR do it. Kastrosky reminded the Committee this was about
the rezone; there are built in mechanisms to deal with division / conveyance of land.
Shawn Miller said he didn‘t think they were in a position to make a decision. Ms. Davis asked what else
was needed. Miller said ‗a survey‘ as they didn‘t even know the acreage. Doug Casina reminded him
the acreage is in the file. Kastrosky said his opinion is it can be rezoned without a survey, the request is
to rezone to an area that requires 30,000 sq. ft. and even with the conveyance to the DNR there is still
approximately five acres left and it shouldn‘t be an issue. Davis stated it is R-RB all around the property.
Kastrosky was concerned that the Town had not yet had a chance to review this. Davis asked if it
could be passed contingent on if the Town approves it. Jardine said it has been done before.
Kastrosky reminded them the Town has veto power over the County on rezones. Casina pointed out
the map indicating six surrounding 40‘s are zoned R-RB.
Opposition: None
File Report: Kastrosky said nothing else was on file.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Motion by Rondeau / Jardine to adjourn at 4:59 PM.
7. Call to Order of Planning / Zoning Committee Meeting: by Chairman Beeksma at 4:59 PM.
8. Roll Call: Beeksma, Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rondeau – all present.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Motion by Rondeau / Jardine to approve the 03/18/2010 minutes as
prepared; carried 5 yes / 0 no.
A. James Crandall, Clerk Town of Drummond Text Amendment to Title 13: Motion by Maki / Rondeau
to approve / accept the petition for text amendment for the overlay; carried 5 yes / 0 no.
B. Ken Abernathy Jr. Rezone Request: F-1, and R-1, to all R-4, 20 acres (#04-021-2-45-06-22- 3-04-
000-60000) located in the S ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 22, Township 45N, Range 6 W,
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 3
Town of Grand View. Jardine / Rondeau motioned to approve this rezone request of F-1, R-1, to
all R-4.; no further discussion; carried. 5 yes / 0 no.
C. Todd / Nina Bucher Rezone Request – from F-1 to R-RB, in shoreland-wetland zone; an 8-acre
parcel (#04-016-2-46-07-17-4-02-000-20000) in part of the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 17, Township
46 N, Range 7 W, lying North and West of the River in the Town of Delta. Rondeau made a motion to
table / bring back to the Zoning Committee meeting in May in the business portion, not public
hearing format. Second by Maki. Discussion: motion amended / seconded to add ‗subject to the
recommendation of the Town of Delta‘ and carried 5 yes / 0 no.
D. Bayfield County Forestry (Town of Bayfield) Reclamation Plan (tabled on 03/18/2010):
Director Kastrosky reminded the Committee this was tabled last month, as well as the conditional use for
this site, and noted there is an approved reclamation plan from Bayfield County Land Conservation Dept.;
that the Zoning Dept. has authority to make determination RE navigability; the Dept. determined it was
non-navigable. AZA Doug Casina reported he met with DNR representative John Spangberg that day on
another site and he said he wants to address the Committee next month, also stating that Spangberg said
he did not have time to provide anything in writing for this meeting. Casina also reported he was on this
site several more times, he has joined Spangberg on site as well, both determining it is not navigable.
Motion by Miller / Maki to approve the reclamation plan. Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
E. Bayfield County Forestry (Town of Bayfield) Gravel Pit (tabled on 03/18/2010):
Motion by Rondeau / Miller to approve the gravel pit. Following discussion, Rondeau / Miller
amended / restated the motion to approve this conditional use permit for a gravel pit with the
understanding and agreement that it has been determined there is no shoreland, and no navigable
water on the mining site. Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
F. Bayfield County Forestry Reclamation Plan (Town of Bayfield) (tabled on 03/18/2010):
Motion by Rondeau / Jardine to approve the reclamation plan as presented and approved by the
Land Conservation Dept. Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
G. Bayfield County Gravel Pit (Town of Bayfield) (tabled on 03/18/2010):
Motion by Miller / Maki to approve this conditional use permit; Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
H. Barbara Anich (Town of Iron River) Conditional Use (tabled 03/18/2010):
Kastrosky reported in review of this last month it was noted the Town approved this request, however,
did not check whether it was reviewed as compatible with their comp plan, and to this date, still have not.
The Town minutes were provided upon request but lacked acknowledgement of that approval as well.
Kastrosky said if approved today, the motion might state that we are of the understanding that the Town
planning commission did not review this request , however the Town Board approved it. He stated the
Town has liability to make decisions within their plan. Motion by Rondeau / Maki to approve this
request with understanding the Town planning commission did not review it. Discussion: It was
suggested the Dept. keep reminding towns it is necessary to provide input whether they reviewed
requests with their comp or land use plans, or the county will have to delay the process by sending the
form back for review. Kastrosky said if this was a high-profile situation it would have to go back to Iron
River. Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
I. Stan Stevenson Final Plat Approval – 7 lots:
Kastrosky reported that nothing changed from the preliminary plat except the addition of the
signature page; the Town board has not yet approved this, however, it was researched by Bill Bussey
and found it could be placed on the agenda; Town Chairman Tom Gordon was contacted; he said the
preliminary was approved and if there were no changes, the Town didn‘t have a problem with placing it on
this agenda. Motion by Maki / Rondeau to approve; carried 5 yes / 0 no.
[Chairman Beeksma called for a break at 5:21 PM.
Meeting reconvened at 5:29 PM.]
J. Town of Bayview – Municipal Building in an R-RB Zone:
Maki / Jardine made a motion to approve prior to discussion. Town Chairman Don Jenicek then was
asked if he had input. He said the improvements have been in works for a few years at Bayview Park,
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 4
they are in the process of putting in a pavilion, a toilet, possibly fire rings near the beach; they are applying
for a DNR grant to help w/ the project. Kastrosky noted that the deed has now been straightened out—
there was some confusion on the deed but it is now corrected; it has been reviewed w/ the Land Use Plan
and approved. Motion carried 5 yes / 0 no.
K. Discussion / Possible Action on behalf of Telemark Partners RE the 12 Resolutions
approved by the town Board of Cable and requested of the Bayfield County Planning / Zoning
Committee and/or the Bayfield County Board:
Richard Ahern of Telemark Partners LLC introduced Marc Putman and Gary Crandall. Gary Crandall
(president of Telemark Interval Owners Assoc.) represented 1500 members and 60+ employees, said
issues being dealt with are very important to their organization and to the land they own. Important
resolutions as presented to the Town of Cable and Comp. Planning Committee, and approved, are in
reference to the Telemark lands and not conditional on folks who were going to purchase the Telemark
lands. He noted a sale is a future possibility; it is important that entitlements are well researched and
applied to the lands so they would have a better opportunity to market the property as well as hold on to
dreams of Tony Wise of many years ago. He said this project will be far-reaching and beneficial for the
entire county.
Kastrosky asked Crandall to clarify from his letter regarding ownership / resolutions applicable to existing
owners and whether they were also applicable to any potential owners. Crandall said it is important that
the resolutions be applied to the land. In their attorney‘s opinion, the resolution refers to it as Telemark
holdings to be acquired by Telemark partners, talking about the same lands. Kastrosky then clarified that
the land is the same physical piece of property, and to set the foundation for the discussion, it pertains
to who owns it now and who might buy it in the future.
Planner / Architect Marc Putman (Putman Planning & Design) reviewed Telemark history, resolutions /
report document dated April 15, 2010, item-by-item. He said the resolutions were unanimously approved
by Cable‘s town board and planning commission.
Putman reviewed the following resolutions:
#1 ‗Steep’ slopes and issue of grading.
#2 The Town is asking the County to have the county documents made consistent / reflect the
Town’s actions / resolutions.
#3 Confirms the beginning point for Telemark Interval Owners’ property with the existing zoning
of 2007. Property was bought out of forestry to become a resort; it attends to the content of designations
of square footage for dwellings in R-RB, also under conservation development. This puts the basis for
value of land in the zoning that is present now. Attempt is to begin w/ the basis for the value of the
property, then after this is to attend to rezoning; it is not to attempt to ‗glue R-RB to the property forever
but to establish that as a baseline for value and density calculations‘.
Kastrosky said when the Town did their comp plan, prior to this potential conveyance, they were well-
intentioned volunteers who tried to make the best designation they could, it was not intentional to take
anyone‘s rights away; Telemark‘s inherent zoning rights were not compatible w/ the plan, they had R-RB
zoning designation and forestry for future land use. The Town held a public hearing; the planning
commission and town board approved reclassification to mixed village use which is now compatible with
the zoning. ‗That fix has taken place by the Town.‘
#4 Definition of Existing Land Uses: this was never addressed in the past but the absence is critical /
a foundational element.
#5 Past mapping of 2002-03 there were things that mis-stated the facts, this corrects the record.
#6 Language / Criteria of “Village Mixed Use” attends to page 115 / County Comp Plan.
#7 Existing Land Uses & Mapping Made Accurate-- brings mapping up to speed given the
definitions / criteria.
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 5
Shawn Miller asked if the changes of the county comp plan will only be specific to the Telemark Holdings.
Kastrosky said the Town of Cable amended their plan and some of the 12 resolutions were for the town
to accomplish. He believes / recommends that these changes only apply to the Town of Cable and
Telemark lands; they are not changing definitions of village mixed use for the entire county. Miller asked
about the change of slopes and Kastrosky said that change applies to the entire county since being
adopted in Dec. 2009; the 12 resolutions, legal opinion, requests / changes, came from the Town of
Cable. If anything is changed over / above the Town of Cable, the county has to have a public hearing.
He said there may eventually be an overlay but this applies only to the Town of Cable.
Putman stated they learned they should have used the word ‗petition‘ rather than ‗resolution‘ in this
request. Kastrosky said that within this discussion is the question whether the Zoning Committee and
County Board wants to apply the ―re-created mixed village use‖ throughout the county. He added that the
Town of Cable has an independent, full comprehensive land use plan; they held a public hearing to
amend it. The County has met its obligations to amend the county plan specific to Cable; if anything else
is changed, not specific to Town of Cable, another public hearing has to be held and the county doesn‘t
desire to do that every time a town changes something in their plans.
Miller asked if the Town‘s plan is exclusive to Telemark. Kastrosky said he doesn‘t believe it is but
rather specific to the Town of Cable with mixed village use being for the Town, not just specific to
Telemark. But Kastrosky said some of the resolutions apply to Bayfield County; some resolutions are
ones the County has to take action on (i.e. the overlay wouldn‘t apply to the Town of Cable, it would apply
to Telemark Land Holdings).
James Bolen (of Cable Comp Plan Committee / Director Chamber of Commerce) reported that
discussion was held regarding the Town comp plan, specifics to Telemark land and/or the Town of Cable;
they didn‘t always understand all implications regarding all issues. They came to an understanding that
there are some county issues involved as well but the result is the Town presenting its wishes for approval
today. Jardine asked if they wanted to have 1-8A acted on today. The answer was ―yes those portions
specific to the Town of Cable and their comp plan‖.
Miller asked again if this is just for Telemark and Kastrosky said that‘s what they were trying to sift out--
specifics to Telemark, specifics to Town of Cable. Rondeau agreed with Kastrosky about the specifics
and added that the Town made their recommendation, passing the resolutions on to the Zoning
Committee.
#8 Proposed Land Uses & Mapping: Change area labels, ‘Industrial’, ‘Private Forest’, ‘R1’, ‘Rural
Moderate Residential’, and areas on existing 2007 county zoning map as R-RB to land use
designation ‘Village Mixed Use’.
Kastrosky said his opinion is that changing these designations applies to the Town of Cable only; he also
said map corrections are reviewed / implemented as the Cable map changes, it automatically changes the
county‘s as the county maps are a composite of all town maps. Miller was concerned regarding
references in the document of changing the county comp plan. Kastrosky stated that the county comp
plan will only change subject to Cable‘s wishes, which are specific to Cable, but will be reflected at county
level; the county is responsible to do that.
Rondeau explained that the Cable plan affects the county plan but most of the resolutions being
considered are basic / simple and directed to Cable‘s comp plan already approved / accepted by Cable;
the Committee doesn‘t have to do anything with those, they aren‘t changing the county plan at all.
Kastrosky said the county just has to make sure they are incorporated.
#8b Change of zoning designations on properties owned by Telemark (TIOA) to village mixed use.
Kastrosky said changing this may take some time, and may be a bigger issue than they are ready for at
this time as there isn‘t a category of village mixed use… they have to create one (create narrative, text
amendment, who it applies to, etc.). Mike Furtak said the main thing will be creating a table of allowable
uses and the process to enact that which is very time-consuming. Kastrosky suggested there is a
possibility of an overlay district for Telemark land holdings and would apply the village mixed use criteria
to that overlay. Putman said they pursued the amendment to the land use plan, attempting to put in
consistent zoning designation consistent w/ the land use designation of village mixed use for the specific
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 6
purpose of not having to put together an overlay district or planned residential district, etc. He said to
prepare a master plan for 1000 acres in this marketplace requires a complete redesign of every
imaginable product that would go in there and the proper basic zoning must be in place first.
A short discussion followed regarding village mixed use versus R-RB; conditional uses versus entitlement
issues.
#8b, c, d:
Putman said these items are connected in some way to #9 (Overlay District) which is a subject for a
future meeting. He said it would be helpful to know if the Zoning Committee would look favorably on an
overlay district. Kastrosky said this is unique development, there is only one Telemark, so he is hesitant
to open this up for the entire county but agrees that Telemark should have some relief and flexibility to
continue and expand but wants to be sure to keep this consistent, be safe, and isolate it as relating to
Telemark and Cable.
Putman asked if it would be appropriate at that time to pursue approval of numbers 1 through 8a at that
time. Jardine and Rondeau agreed it would be appropriate. Putman asked Kastrosky if he planned to
also include #11 and #12 (housekeeping items). Kastrosky said they were fairly simple / minor items and
noted Bill Bussey‘s letter, and the twelve resolutions, he and Bussey saw six resolutions specific to
Telemark land holdings, and #7, #8a, #11, the first part of #12, as fairly easily understood and
implemented, and probably could be supported by the Committee but it was their decision. Kastrosky
said they then saw #8 (b.,c.,d.), #9, and #10, as separate items needing more work / discussion. He
suggested they take the easy items off the table and then focus on the tough issues.
After a question by Rondeau about the proper way to proceed, Kastrosky recommended approval and
implementation of of Resolutions #1 through #7, #8a, and #11 and then at a later date, address
Resolution #8 (b., c., d.), #9 and #10.
Motion by Rondeau accept and approve Resolutions #1 through #8a, plus #11 and #12. Jardine
seconded the motion.
Discussion: Putman clarified that #12 appears to have a second part to it, regarding a question at the
town level the regarding trail the system, however, it isn‘t actually part of #12 and shouldn‘t be in there.
Rondeau said it was something important to Telemark owners that the trails be maintained / preserved so
it that was agreed upon by both parties, however, it isn‘t part of #12.
Kastrosky said it is important that the motion state that the resolutions are specific to the Town of Cable
and/or the Telemark land holdings; because that foundation is needed to proceed. Then Rondeau
amended his motion stating approval is for the Town of Cable, Telemark properties, or any future
acquisitions that might be acquired in the Town of Cable. Jardine seconded the motion. Motion
carried 4 yes / 1 no (Maki).
Kastrosky asked if the Committee wished to deal with the items left and Rondeau asked if the remaining
ones had to be public hearing items. Kastrosky said yes as they were petitions to amend maps / text
amendments. He was not certain how #10 regarding entitlement would work procedurally as it is a county
board issue. He also said when petitioning for zoning district of village mixed use, there would be a public
hearing here, in the Town, and eventually the full board.
Bolen asked if the items not passed today had to be procedurally tabled. Rondeau didn‘t believe so, they
would just be considered as no action taken.
10. CITIZENS’ CONCERNS / INPUT: None
11. COMP PLAN DISCUSSION: Kastrosky said hopefully it would be complete the end of this month.
12. OTHER ITEMS:
RE NR115: Kastrosky said the State passed a more restrictive plan and we have until Feb. 2010
to amend the ordinance to meet state requirements. (Furtak said he is involved in writing a
ZC Planning / Zoning Public Hearing / Meeting – April 15, 2010 Page 7
$5000 grant for updating the ordinance; correction was made that the resolution incorrectly states
it is from Butch Lobermeier.)
Kastrosky said some ‗easy fixes‘ of ordinance amendments will come up next month: 1)
changing classification list to allow campgrounds in Ag zones (riding / camping / horse
campground); 2) discussion of a large fish farm in Eileen, which is in the classification list, but they
also want to process fish on site which is not allowed currently.
Jardine asked if anything was done to change the tower heights yet. Answer was ‗no‘.
Maki was upset with more rules / regulations, grants, stating we have rules than we need; said we
have to start saying ‗no‘.
Miller: Asked if technically the County has to be under the Uniform Dwelling Code program.
Kastrosky said the program was put on the counties (for residences) by the State, is run by the
State, there are a lot of problems: the State appointed inspectors, then changed, dropped the
inspectors, took it over, now with the budget crunch, aren‘t doing the job, or are behind.
13. Monthly Report: Motion by Jardine / Rondeau to approve; carried 5 yes / 0 no.
14. Adjournment: Motion by Rondeau / Jardine; adjourned at 7:22 PM.
Karl L. Kastrosky, Director
Bayfield County Zoning Department
Prepared by mjj on 5/5/10
Approved by KLK on 5/6/10
K/zc/minutes/2010/#4April