HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 8/19/2010
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 1 of 7
MINUTES
BAYFIELD OCUNTY PLANNING / ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING / MEETING
Thursday, August 19, 2010 – 4:00 PM
Board Room - County Courthouse, Washburn, WI 54891
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: By Chairman Rondeau at 4:00 PM. [Notice by KLK: Item B will not
be heard; possibly will be on Sept. agenda.]
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Rondeau – present; Miller, Rantala, absent / excused. Others present:
Planning/Zoning Dept. – Karl Kastrosky, Travis Tulowitzky, Deb Kmetz, Marilyn Jaeger.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Presented by Director Kastrosky.
4. Review of Meeting Format: By Chairman Rondeau.
5. Public Hearing:
A. Gregory / Erin Munson Rezone Request (from F-1 to R-1) (shoreland-wetland zone): on 2.889-
acre parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-34-4-05-001-05000) in Lot 2, CSM 750, Section 34, Township 44
North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond.
Gregory Munson addressed the Committee; surrounding property is R-1 or R-RB and they are
the only ones left w/ F-1 zoning. Request is consistent w/ current / future land use map of town.
No one spoke in support / opposition. File Report: Kastrosky noted the Town approved / it‘s
compatible w/ their land use plan; no other correspondence received.
B. Robert / Linda Plucinak Conditional Use Request – 35’ Height Restriction (exceed by 7 ft.)
(shoreland zone): on 1.64-acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-04-22-4-00-257-02000), Lot 1 CSM 1692,
Section 22, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield.
Item B was withdrawn from this agenda.
C. Wm. / Jayne Ammend Conditional Use Request - Bar / Tavern / Food Service (in existing
lodge at Deer Trail Lodge: on .610-acre parcel (ID# 04-016-2-46-07-07-2-00-609-11000) Unit 11,
Deer Trail Lodge Expandable Condominium, in the N ½ and SW ¼ of NW ¼, Section 7, Township
46 North, Range 7 West, Town of Delta.
Wm. Ammend said they have applied for a beer/wine and food service licenses; this was operated
as a lodge since the 1980s; feel this is an opportunity to bring in additional employment
opportunities, increase taxes for Delta / County. He said they have been responsible resort owners
and intend to continue; venture would be mostly for guest‘s use but intention is also to include area
residents; this lodge had food service years ago. Ammend noted since 2002 the condo
association has rented their cabins, he has overseen bookings for the group for about five years--
prior to that it was under control of one property owner who ran the resort. The food service / bar
would be in the ‗common area‘ which is attached to private residence; will be open to the public
year ‗round.
Support: Brian Fehr of Delta would like to see another business in their area.
No one else spoke in favor.
Opposition:
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 2 of 7
Tracy Veillette (Delta) owns private residence adjacent to Deer Trail Lodge/Condo. Strongly
opposed to liquor license being granted; said there are six already in the area which creates ratio
of 39 residences per liquor license in Delta compared in the State of WI of one per every 172
residences. His concerns include traffic, snowmobiles / ATVs on roads, insufficient patron parking;
interrupts peace/quiet; his family now cleans up debris in the area and believes it will increase
when alcohol is added. He noted when guest ‗boat‘ in, they must walk through the playground to
get to and from the lodge which is not a wise or safe situation.
Sheree Bye (12-yr. resident of Delta) was opposed to original Deer Trail Lodge conversion from a
resort; she did not believe the EIA was correct for it. She said neighbors on Delta Lake Road and
other surrounding lakes are opposed, [they were not in attendance at this meeting, however]. Bye
said this isn‘t what was promised when originally approved, they were led to believe there would
be no future conditional use permits. She isn‘t opposed to a sit-down type restaurant with a liquor
license, but believes this is a bad location with safety / liability considerations; hard to take away
liquor license once granted.
Jardine and Maki were concerned that one person was reporting that a large group of people are
opposed to this yet they were not in attendance nor was a list of signatures presented when the
public hearing was properly noticed.
Roger Dreher (Drummond) is opposed; he asked if the rental of units complied with the current
ordinance requirements and if not, suggested this petition be refused until that is remedied.
Kastrosky stated the health status is up to code and that was acknowledged by a ‗nod‘ of the
applicant. He said the Planning Commission needs to look at this; he has attended Delta meetings
and they should have their process in place to consider issues, then give to the Zoning Committee,
but that did not happen, thus it becomes unfortunate for the Board, for citizens, and the applicants.
Kastrosky noted this is a public hearing, the Committee can choose how to handle it; there was
ample notice as public hearing notices are on the web three weeks prior to meetings. He said it is
appropriate to send it back for the town to give guidance, but they need to act in a timely manner.
File Report: Kastrosky noted an email on file from Roger and Sally Gustafson of Delta as
opposed; there was no other correspondence received.
D. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Director, on behalf of the Bayfield
County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting amendments to the Bayfield County Zoning
Ordinance, including the following:
1. Amendment of Sec. 13-1-4(a)(4x)&(56m) (Definitions); revising “Bunkhouse/Guest Quarters” and adding
the definition of “Residence”
2. Amendment to Sec. 13-1-21(b)(6) (Land Use Permits); change “ shall” to “may” and remove wording
pertaining to the direction of Land and Water Conservation Dept.
3. Amendment to Sec. 13-1-21(e)(cc)(2) (Fees) (Miscellaneous); pertaining to doubling of fee waiver.
4. Amendment Sec. 13-1-29(b)(7) (Multiple Unit Developments); adding two new subsections related to
minimum acreage requirements; and adding rezone requirement.
5. Amendment Sec. 13-1-29A(b)(9) (Conservation Subdivisions); change “units” to “lots”; and adding a
rezone requirement.
6. Amendment of Sec. 13-1-40(4) b. & c. (Non-conforming Uses and Structures); allowing an addition to be
horizontally (provided they meet building setback requirements) and vertically (with written verification).
7. Amendment of Sec. 13-1-62(b) (Classification of Uses); deleting the [*Note ] portion.
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 3 of 7
8. Amendment of Sec. 14-1-42(b) (Fees); requiring a Class B special use permit for subdivision plats
9. Amendments to Sec. 15-1-18(a)-(d) (Maintenance Program); adding a new subsection (a) requiring
maintenance agreements be recorded at Reg. of Deeds; and re-lettering subsection (b)-(d).
10. Other technical clarifications and corrections.
Kastrosky reviewed the proposed changes.
Roger Dreher (Drummond) was appreciative of Zoning‘s efforts to clarity the ordinance, however
he asked for delay on amendments to resubmit w/ some changes and/or clarifications. Suggested
using a consistent set of terms for all areas, such as not having another definition for ‗dwelling unit‘;
as it isn‘t clear how that differs from ‗residence‘. Suggested it is easy to make almost anything into
a bunkhouse / another residence; there should only be one principal residence on a lot. Suggested
more specific language for multi-unit developments; Section 13-1-40 needs work; sub-paragraph ‗c‘
opens the door for much more generous allowance than prior. Is pleased with Section 15-1-18
(sanitary systems) and hopes there will continue to be funds in the budget to continue, and to make
POWTS self-sustaining.
Other Support / Opposition: None
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Motion by Jardine / Maki to adjourn at 4:52 PM. Carried 3 yes / 0
no.
7. Call to Order of Planning / Zoning Committee Meeting: Called to order at 4:53 PM.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Rondeau – present; Miller, Rantala, absent / excused.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): July 15, 2010: Jardine / Maki – motion to approve; carried 3 yes /
0 no. July 15, 2010 Special Meeting: Recommendation made by Jardine / Maki to approve & send
on to the Land Conservation Committee for consideration at their meeting Aug. 20, 2010. Carried 3
yes / 0 no.
10. Business:
A. Gregory / Erin Munson Rezone Request (from F-1 to R-1) (shoreland-wetland zone): on 2.889-
acre parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-34-4-05-001-05000) in Lot 2, CSM 750, Section 34, Township 44
North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond. Motion by Maki / Jardine to approve rezoning
property to R-1 from F-1; no further discussion; motion carried 3 yes / 0 no.
B. Robert / Linda Plucinak Conditional Use Request – 35’ Height Restriction (exceed by 7 ft.)
(shoreland zone): on 1.64-acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-04-22-4-00-257-02000), Lot 1 CSM 1692,
Section 22, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield.
C. Wm. / Jayne Ammend Conditional Use Request - Bar / Tavern / Food Service (in existing
lodge at Deer Trail Lodge: on .610-acre parcel (ID# 04-016-2-46-07-07-2-00-609-11000) Unit 11,
Deer Trail Lodge Expandable Condominium, in the N ½ and SW ¼ of NW ¼, Section 7, Township
46 North, Range 7 West, Town of Delta. Motion by Jardine / Maki to table this Item; carried 3 yes
/ 0 no.
D. Petition to Amend Ordinance (Title 13, 14, 15): Motion by Jardine / Maki to amend as
presented and send to the County Board. Discussion: Kastrosky stated he has considered
the things Dreher brought it up and suggests the amendments go to Full Board; he doesn‘t believe
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 4 of 7
there are any major problems, therefore, there is time to clean up and/or clarify language, etc.
before the October meeting. No further discussion: carried 3 yes / 0 no.
Agenda Review / Alteration:
E. Clancy Ward / Sarah York Special Use Request – Non-Commercial Wind Generator (Electric):
on 20-acre parcel (ID# 04-036-2-49-09-14-2-03-000-10000) in the N ½ of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼,
Section 14, Township 49 North, Range 9 West, Town of Orienta.
Sarah York said because this is in Forestry-1 they needed to request this; it was erected it in
2008; they were not aware they needed a permit. Was approved by the Town. Jardine / Maki
moved to approve; no further discussion; carried 3 yes / 0 no.
F. John Flayton Special Use Request - 2nd Residence on Parcel: 14.1-acre parcel (#04-004-2-45-
09-21-2-05-003-50000), Lot 4 CSM 1037, Section 21, Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town of
Barnes.
John Flayton reported he previously had approval for a second residence, however, his job
changed and they moved away for several years, approval expired, now needs re-approval. He
received an approval letter in 2002 with subsequent approval for second residence; second home
is needed when family comes.
Kastrosky said this is a class 3 lake, they need 300‘ frontage per unit. Flayton: they have 900‘ of
frontage, nothing else is built on the lake, it is divided into 5 lots, they have cleared one end, have
built the first residence. When they wanted to build the second residence five years ago they found
they could not build on 300 ft. so had to come to the zoning committee to get approval. It was
approved, however, if ever sold it had to be sold as a 600 ft. parcel and nothing was to be built on
the 300 ft. parcel.
Kastrosky said the issue is due to buildable area although there is plenty of frontage; he stated
this was granted under the old rules, the ordinance has since changed; now the second residence
cannot be placed on a parcel that can‘t be divided except with a conditional use permit.
Flayton noted there is a sauna next to the residence; proposed residence would be approximately
50‘ away from the sauna. He said Mike Furtak told him there would be no problem with this and
didn‘t advise him of the changes and the Town approved it as well. Kastrosky suggested if in fact
it meets the new ordinance because of setbacks, creation of lots, etc. it could be approved,
however, if not, then parcel configuration or a conditional use permit would be required.
Flayton said because Mike [Furtak] filled out the application paperwork and said there was no
issue with it, he has people lined up to proceed as soon as he gets his permit. Rondeau asked if
they could approve, w/ Town approval, and consultation of the Zoning Dept. to make sure it applies
to the current ordinance; if it meets approval standards it would not have to come back as a
conditional use or reconfiguration of lot. Kastrosky suggested they could approve, assuming they
can apply the ordinance but if not, it would need to go to ―Plan B‖. He advised Mr. Flayton the
Dept. would deal with this first thing the next day and keep him apprised and apologized for
misinformation received.
Jardine / Maki moved to approve this request to place a second residence on the parcel
contingent upon it meeting the current ordinance and to be dealt with as soon as possible.
No further discussion; carried 3 yes / 0 no.
G. Discussion / Possible Action RE Restoring Access to Lake for Larry Peterson:
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 5 of 7
Larry Peterson (Town of Barnes) presented history of his property/resort, frustrations w/ situation /
contact with Bayfield County Land Conservation recently as well as lack of help when sought it
from the County Board. He said he was told by Butch Lobermeier that if he didn‘t agree with his
plans [from BCLWCD] he could start litigation. He said he has taken care of his property; has met
with both Karl Kastrosky / Mike Furtak who subsequently talked w/ Lobermeier to see if they could
work a path in (to lake, which was an issue w/ Land Conservation); he has customers using the
path with a golf cart for their handicapped child.
Peterson stated that Lobermeier continued to threaten litigation; Kastrosky advised if the issue
came to court, Peterson could lose and would need to pay for it as this is a grant which places
limits on what can be done. Peterson asked for work to begin after Labor Day due to clients at the
resort but request was denied and crew/equipment arrived; owner was told to stay out of the way
which he states he complied with. Peterson reported they tore down a screen porch and told him
they could not replace that structure but could exchange it for gravel and black dirt. Business was
lost during this time with customers not wanting to stay due to the work being done.
Peterson reported contacting Bayfield County Administrator Mark Abelels-Allison; it took him four
months to answer. Answer was Peterson would have to take the County itself to court but after four
months he could not do so (statute regulation). Peterson said he was told by Judge Anderson to
get an attorney and then come back. Three times he reportedly asked to get on the County Board
agenda (contacted Supervisor Jim Crandall).
Maki reported that at the last county board meeting he attended it was noted this was to be put on
the executive board agenda, however the meeting came/went and neither he nor Peterson were
advised of the meeting. Rondeau stated that of the three [county board] members present today
none ever said they would not hear Mr. Peterson. Maki said he asked at the previously mentioned
meeting to put this on the full board agenda but they said it should be executive committee.
Jardine / Rondeau asked that this be put on full board agenda.
Kastrosky said there are legal issues and liabilities involved and we aren‘t a court, jury or judge;
we were asked to hear about the ‗path-situation‘ on Peterson‘s property, we need to stay out of the
legal issues of the case. Maki asked then what we can pass on to the full board. Kastrosky said
he is not sure what we will do; if the path existed in the 40s, 50s, 60s it would be grandfathered
and not illegal-- it would be pre-existing. He also said when meeting w/ Lobermeier, trying to
negotiate, they asked if everything else was done [that was recommended] would the path still
have to be eliminated; the answer was ―yes‖ and that the grant [for this project] scored high
because it had to meet and exceed zoning standards.
Peterson reported that the path continually washed out and a customer tripped on a tree root. He
asked Furtak if he could fill in w/ #2 rock; permission was granted. Peterson said he wants the
path put back in and the shed restored. Kastrosky noted the path was more than a four-wheeler
trail—it could be navigated w/ a golf cart. Peterson said the path present when they purchased
the resort in 1995. Rondeau said it needs to be determined how to handle this; Jardine noted it is
complicated for all those involved.
Pamela Toshner (DNR): Reported that Peterson got $30,000 of a grant and there was a plan for
the site; erosion was happening which could not be allowed to continue. She was concerned that if
the County allows changes, they will have to pay back the State grant. This is a problematic site
with the path slumping down the hillside; the burden will be on Peterson / County to determine if
the road is legal/illegal. Toshner stated she and zoning staff were on site during the project and
daily progress reports were shared with lake residents, WDNR and zoning. If there were problems
during the project, staff and/or the Petersons should have addressed it then.
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 6 of 7
Barb Romstad (Bony Lake Grant Oversight Committee) proposed a solution to place an electric
lift over the top of vegetation for handicap accessibility and to take motors, etc. up and down. She
said the grant oversight committee and zoning/county could perhaps work together to possibly help
pay for a lift.
Rondeau believes the Peterson‘s situation ―got pushed aside because of the Twin Bear issue‖.
Jardine said there are too many involved in this and asked where it should go from this point.
Kastrosky said he doesn‘t believe the decision is to be made here [w/ the Zoning Committee] and
noted the parties spoke but this is not court; we must be careful not to make any decisions; this
needs to be taken to legal counsel for advice. He could not testify under oath that road was not
grandfathered in/illegal. He wanted the Committee apprised of the path situation; they can possibly
look at the Federal Disabilities Act to see if their standards would work.
Rondeau advised they have Corp Counsel look at this; Jardine agreed. Maki said he does not
want this ‗pushed under the table‘ because of the Twin Bear situation. Rondeau agreed stating
this needs to move forward. Kastrosky said this is bigger than a zoning issue, it‘s a County Board
legal issue, he said he can assist, but should not be in charge of this; he suggested as the Zoning
Committee this issue ―should be dropped‖. He said it might be possible to have some legal opinion
for the Executive Committee for Sept. 9th. Rondeau requested this be put on the Executive
Committee agenda and then the Full Board agenda.
Motion by Rondeau / Maki to forward this to Corp Counsel, then to the Executive Committee for
opinion, and on to the Full County Board; carried - 3 yes / 0 no.
H. Discussion / Possible Action RE solutions to July 15, 2010 Special Meeting:
Kastrosky noted work is being done to streamline the issues; he discussed an August 19, 2010
letter from Atty. Jack Carlson re enforcement / compliance. He read a portion of the last
paragraph of Carlson‘s letter: ―…the Department should consider setting up a procedure whereby
a violation settlement agreement is negotiated with the property owner, prior to either commencing
a full civil action pursuant to Chapter 801, a forfeiture action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
66 or a small claims action pursuant to the provisions of chapter 799, Wis. Statutes. …however
before implementing such a process, we would suggest obtaining input from both the County
Administrator and the Bayfield County Circuit Judge.‖
Kastrosky said when there is no follow-through with an agreement/contract made with the County,
we have the right to pursue it, however, negotiation would be pursued first prior to lawsuits or
citations, which should eliminate a lot of problems. He said he wants to talk w/ Administrator
Abeles-Allison, and move on from there to talk w/ the Judge.
Kastrosky said as Land Conservation is being reorganized, Travis Tulowitzky is willing to work on
mitigation plans (from the Zoning office) to help get caught up, check plans for accuracy, etc.
Expectation is to scan mitigation plans into a database, look for compliance, and stay apprised of
violations. He noted this is on Abeles-Allison‘s desk; hope is to have situation worked out by
February 2011. He, Tulowitzky, and Ben Dufford of Land Conservation met to discuss ‗land
disturbance‘; Dufford has been appointed Interim County Conservationist. Tulowitzky and the
Zoning Dept. are willing to help the County but it will cause an adjustment of workload, however,
because of the time of year [winter slow-down] the Dept. can probably get through until February
and it is the ‗best fix for now‘
I. Discussion / Possible Action RE Open House (Flood Risk Info.): Kastrosky presented new
DNR and FEMA floodplain maps; prior maps were from 1977; there is less floodplain; it‘s based on
science / elevations; is a positive move for citizens. Eventually will need approval from the Zoning
Committee.
Minutes 08/19/2010 Bayfield County Planning/Zoning P.H. / Mtg. - Page 7 of 7
J. Discussion / Possible Action – Comprehensive Planning: Kastrosky said the approved maps
are in for printing and should be ready this month.
11. Monthly Report: We are down $2500, land use permits are down by 44, sanitary up by 5. RE
sanitary compliance Kastrosky said we are trying to educate, all have gone through the system one
time now; postcards are to be changed and citizens will be given notice that they ‗coming due‘ for
pumping. With 9000 systems, about 52 citations were written and many pumped prior and were
dismissed; about 25 paid citations; 42 were in default who plead guilty or didn‘t show up but still
haven‘t done anything and we‘re trying to find out how to handle those. Maki / Jardine made motion
to approve the report. Carried 3 yes / 0 no.
12. Budget and Revenue: Kastrosky said he hasn‘t done anything yet as he didn‘t know what was
happening w/ the Land Conservation situation/budget; the 0% increase will cause him to submit
figures as last year.
13. Adjournment: At 6:31 PM.
Karl L. Kastrosky, Director
Bayfield County Planning / Zoning Department
Prepared by mjj 09/07/2010
Approved by KLK 9/9/2010
Approved by ZC 09/16/2010
Cc: ZC; Full Board; County Admin. / Clerk; DNR. K/ZC/Minutes/2010/#8August