HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 6/16/2011Page 1 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JUNE 16, 2011
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at
4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine-absent, Maki-absent, Miller-present, Rantala-present, and Rondeau-
present.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina-AZA, and Mike Furtak-AZA.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the Thursday, June 16, 2011
4:00pm as noticed in Thursday, May 26th and Thursday, June 2nd edition of the County
Journal affidavit of publication and the certified mailing receipts.
4. Review of Meeting Format – Chairman Rondeau explained the procedure of the meeting.
He asked everyone who wished to speak to fill out a form; and stated they will be asked to
come forward and speak into the microphone. Public hearing goes as follows; people will be
asked if they are for or against proposal and then meeting will be adorned. It will then be
moved into the business portion of the meeting and discussions will take place.
5. Public Hearing:
A. Town of Clover, owner and Jane Bucy, Town Chairman (Clover) – conditional use
permit to relocate and establish a transfer station (solid waste) site [2.29-acre
parcel ID (# 04-014-2-50-07-08-1-00-322-03000), described as Lot 3, Robert Bartlett Jr
2nd Addition to Orchard City, less V. 107 P. 409 and V. 608 P. 193, Section 8, Township
50N, Range 7 W, Town of Clover, Bayfield County, WI]
Jane Bucy explained she was the Town Chairman of Clover and that all committee
members should have received an updated packet that was sent to them. There is an
issue where the town would like to move the transfer station from its current location to
where the town garage is located now. One of the issues with the station is the way that
the waste management truck travels on the Cemetery Road is detrimental to the
pavement. When fully loaded the truck can weigh 70,000 to 93,000 pounds and the road
was not build for the weight of this type of vehicle even though the road was resurfaced
at the expense of $20,000 to extend its life an additional 10 years the bed is still not
strong enough to support this. Laying gravel on Lake Ave which is leading to the new
location would cost about $600 and is already in the budget. Cemetery Rd is steep and
has many curves which cause people to slip off of it in the winter. Clover is a retirement
community. Bucy referenced 2 letters. First letter from Sally Bowers a long time
resident of Herbster explains that, the argument is the new station would smell, leak, or
bears would get into the garbage containers, which are sealed and locked containers,
they do not leak, nor do bears get into them at the present location. With the cuts in
funding the cost to fix the present location would be rather spendy. She believes the
town would be in trouble with OSHA’s standards and by moving to the town’s new
proposed site, they would meet these specifications. No one has taken into consideration
that the population of Herbster is getting older and the space by the garage would be
easier and safer for most of them to use, and that includes me. Change is sometimes
Page 2 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
necessary and good. Bucy went on to explain the other letter was from their attendant at
the transfer station and he explains that he has voiced his concerns about the older
population and the drive to the transfer station is not only a problem in the winter, but a
moment of inattentive driving would have you off the side of the road before you could
recover. Also consider people with health issues that won’t allow them to lift garbage
from a car to the dumpsters, if they were to fall there is no phone to call for help. There is
a lot of opposition regarding the moving of the transfer station, some people have been
told they would lose their job if it were moved others were told garbage would be thrown
all over and harmful chemicals would be used to kill flies, none of these things are true.
He is very much in favor of this move. Bucy goes on to explain that the existing shelter
falling apart it is going to cost about $3,000 to repair it, adding a propane heat source will
cost about $980. There are no toilets at the current location and it would cost about
$1,000 to add these. The state of Wisconsin is considering reducing the recycling grant.
They currently get $2,300 and could be reduced by half or all. It is simply less money to
maintain one facility rather than two, i.e. a transfer station and a garage. In 2010 the
station lost a little over $2,000, and by raising our fees in 2011 the town hopes to break
even by year end, but if not, raising recycling fees might be a consideration. Issues with
bear, flies, orders, and leakage at our existing site do not exist. Trash dumpsters have
locks on them and are emptied on a weekly basis. Flies are controlled by granules that
have no health hazards; this is also used at the campground and is very effective. (A
sample was brought in). This eliminates contamination to a nearby dry stream. Currently
there are two restaurants in town that empty there dumpsters every two weeks, one
struggle with bears because the container in not bear proof. The other dumpster sits at a
very low spot next to the Cranberry River. No one has complained about either of these
two dumpsters. The suggestion of fencing around the new station would cost about $200
and Bucy is amendable to that. Right now the transfer station fully complies with the
Wisconsin Administration Code 502.07 exemptions per Mr. Robert Germer and Ms.
Cheryl Otto from the DNR who are Waste Management Specialist and warned the town
of potential problems mentioned above and the possibility of people just leaving trash.
The new site would have more supervision than the existing one and the purchase of a
game camera will help with assistance in securing this area at minimal expense to the
town. According to the attendant there is no problem at existing site and there should not
be at this new site. Conversations with Anne Marie Coy’s, Bayfield County
Environmential Sanitarian inspection of the new site proposed no potential problems
with drainage into a dry stream near the building. She also suggests that vegetation
surrounding the building be left alone and not mowed. The town does not collect tires,
furniture, or contaminated goods of any kind. There is no compaction of garbage by
equipment of any kind and no plans to do so. Residents are concerned that the new site
would ruin the aesthetics of down town Herbster, there are 4 businesses that have their
dumpsters on Highway 13 and no one complains about them. Residents are concerned
about property values dropping. There are no issues at current site and don’t know why
there would be issues at new site. It has been suggested that radios be installed for
emergency purposes and a phone line. Ondossagan’s collection station be used as a
reference; it is located next to Whittlesy Creek Wildlife Refuge and there is no
contamination issues with this collection station and there are residents closer to this
station than there would be at the Herbster station. Lastly this proposed move will
continue to achieve the towns’ goals and objectives and comprehensive plan.
Rondeau asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this proposal, no one
spoke. He then asked if anyone was in opposition.
Page 3 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
Cecil Kavajecz spoke in opposition, stating that he lives in the downtown area of
Herbster that is a small community with a beautiful swimming area and campsite with
stream and what we do not want is a garbage collection site and would be detrimental to
the community. He also stated that there are several people that are in opposition and
asked them to stand (17 people stood) also had a letter with 87 people who opposed the
move. Jack Smith spoke in opposition and submitted a letter and map of the stream.
Supervisor Rantala asked how many signatures the petition had and Smith stated 90.
Smith owns the Stove Works in Hayward and has a dumpster located 400 feet from the
house and has had spillage from garbage trucks, leakage, and has had bear problems
right in the city of Hayward. Rats moved into his warehouse within 20 feet of the
dumpster, and problems with odor. He and his wife retired in Herbster, the proposed site
is approximately 450 feet from his property and dumpsters would be less than 100 feet
from an intermittent stream which flows through a culvert and within 30 feet of his house
and then flows into the Cranberry River and wetland slough. Smith called Bob Bremer
DNR waste materials specialist as he had concerns about the compaction of garbage.
When Smith described the site and soil types to Doug Casina he stated he could get an
EIA waived onsite. Pathogens and toxins could be spread by spillage and a
contaminated backhoe bucket and possibly was into the stream. Merv Shaefer spoke in
opposition and has been a property owner in Herbster. When the town garage was built
it was built large enough to store everything inside. His concern is that the town is not
taking care of the surrounding grounds now so how can they take care of it with a dump
being there and not housed. There is a current problem with vacationers now who throw
their garbage over the fence. As far as the road up to the dump Shaefer feels even
though he has slipped on that road it is graveled very well and is not a problem in the
winter. His concern is that it is not being maintained and is an eyesore. Wes Wiggins
spoke in opposition stating he is a resident of Herbster and he is some distance away
from the proposed site and does not want to see it moved. The road to the current site
was built specifically for the site. Moving a transfer station from a place where there is
little population and no complaints, to a place where there are closer neighbors, it seems
logical to leave it where it is. There are other ways to solve the problems. There are 90
people that would like to keep the transfer station where it is. Mary Agostine spoke in
opposition of the proposal. She lives in Herbster across from the proposed site. She
feels it is odd that the town wants to move the transfer station into town while others are
moving theirs out of town. Agostine stated that with Casina being on the board and
working for zoning he should not be able to vote on this matter. Rondeau stated that he
is not voting on this matter. Ann Fallberg spoke in opposition of the matter and stated
that there are situations where people have to take into consideration the environment
and the community impacts, over financial impacts. Miller asked if all the people on the
petition talked about the extra expense of having the site outside of town versed in town,
and are they willing to pay more per bag to keep the station outside of town. Shaefer
stated that the price was increased from $2 to $3 a bag and does not know why it would
cost more to leave the building where it is versus if it were moved and would probably be
willing to pay more. Fallberg stated that there was discussion about contracting with
Cornucopia and the people were willing to do that. Gene Lines is concerned about the
zoning ordinances and that if it is specified that the containers be proofed that there
might not be water pollution but there most certainty be odor problems. He occasionally
gets to transfer stations around the state for his line of work and does see damage done
by bears not that it could be prevented with adequate fencing that would have to be
specified. Other concern is about compaction and how they propose to do that.
Rondeau asked if there was anyone else in opposition. No one came forward to speak.
He then asked Kastrosky to see the file. File Report: Kastrosky stated to clarify that
Page 4 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
Casina, Furtak, and himself do not have a vote on this matter. Rondeau stated that the
Committee has all the information that is up to date on this matter. Kastrosky went on to
state that the town board recommended approval of this plan and reviewed it for
compatibility with the comprehensive plan. There is a letter from the Murphy’s and Jack
Smith in opposition as well as petitions. Miller asked how many people are in the village
of Herbster and Kastrosky explains there is no line separating the village from the town.
There is a letter from Smith and Agostine talking about the issues. Correspondence
from Bob Bermer and attached is a pdf with regulations. Exhibit A is a staff report
addressing those issues.
Discussion ended.
B. A petition by James Krueger, Supervisor for the Town of Namakagon, is
requesting a text amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, in the form
of adding Section 13-1-67 for permissible uses only located in the town therefore
creating an Overlay District. Section 13-1-67 specific to the town to allow for more
restrictive permitting standards and requirements than those currently utilized
under the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 13-1-67 Town of Namakagon Overlay District.
(a) General Provision. The Town of Namakagon Overlay District shall apply to and
include all lands within the Town of Namakagon.
(b) Intent of the Town of Namakagon Overlay District. The intent of this overlay
district is to promote the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare:
to encourage planned and orderly land use developments: to protect property
values and the property tax base: to encourage uses of land, water, and other
natural resources which are consistent with the Town of Namakagon
Comprehensive Land Use Plan: to maintain water clarity in lakes, rivers, and
streams: to protect the beauty and amenities of landscape and man-made
developments: and to provide healthy surroundings for recreation, tourism, and
family life.
(c) Part of the purpose and intent of the Town of Namakagon overlay shall be
achieved by restricting all new off-premise signs except as listed as exempt in the
Bayfield County Sign Ordinance. Permanent off-premise signs in the Town of
Namakagon shall also be subject to the following requirements:
(1) All existing off premise signs may be maintained but must be brought into
compliance with the County ordinance pertaining to size and setback by
July 1, 2016.
(2) If the owner of the off-premise sign sells the business; the sign is
considered property of the business.
(3) Existing off-premise signs may not be rented to any other business.
(4) All other County ordinances regarding signs will be enforced.
James Krueger explained the issue with the signs is that there were a couple billboards
put up that created controversy and the town would like to be a little more restrictive in
Page 5 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
the wording on the signs and is requesting a county overlay district be created. It is
mainly off premise signs that are they are concerned with. The intent of the overlay
district is to promote public health and safety and general welfare, encourage planned
and orderly land use, and protect property values, which is consistent with the town
comprehensive plan. There was a unanimous vote by the town board to support this
plan. Rondeau asked if these signs are located on Highway D and Krueger explains
yes, they are right as you turn off of M onto D. They are the first two billboards that were
created in town, and they started an uproar, and the town would just like to be more
restrictive on the wording of signage. Rondeau asked if this plan is just for the signs and
nothing else, Krueger stated that they are working on another plan for the future but it is
not ready.
Rondeau asked is anyone was in opposition. No one spoke. He then asked to see the
file. File Report: Kastrosky stated that it is in the town plan and interestingly there is
zero correspondence from anybody on the issue. The two signs that started this are not
from the area.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Miller made a motion to adjourn, Rondeau seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the meeting
to order.
8. Roll Call: Jardine-absent, Maki-absent, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau–all present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Kastrosky stated there are no minutes from previous
meeting. Rondeau stated they will be approved at the next meeting Miller agreed.
10. Business:
A. Town of Clover, owner and Jane Bucy, Town Chairman (Clover) – conditional use
permit to relocate and establish a transfer station (solid waste) site [2.29-acre
parcel ID (# 04-014-2-50-07-08-1-00-322-03000), described as Lot 3, Robert Bartlett Jr
2nd Addition to Orchard City, less V. 107 P. 409 and V. 608 P. 193, Section 8, Township
50N, Range 7 W, Town of Clover, Bayfield County, WI]
Miller asked Casina whose idea was it to move the transfer station when the entire town
is against this. Casina deferred the question to Bucy. Bucy explained that it came up as
a cost containment issue and with grants being cut this would be a good way to fix it.
Miller asked if the meeting was an open meeting with the town. Bucy explained that
there were 2 meetings. Miller asked if there was opposition at the town board meeting
and Bucy explained that there were 15 people at the meeting and the opposition has not
asked any questions of the town board. The petition came about after the fact. Kavajecz
explained that there were people in opposition before the meetings but not as many as
today. He was at the meeting but was ignored because they already made up their mind.
The town knew the petition was going around. Miller stated that it is a cost containment
factor and the residents that signed the petition you have to be willing to step up to the
Page 6 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
plate and pay the differences. Kavajecz stated that the cost will be greater if a new
building were built at the new location as compared to adding the little costs at current
location. Rondeau again asked if he sees any additional costs and Kavajecz stated no.
Rondeau explained that the committee would not like to make the rule or
recommendations for towns but rather the other way around as long as they follow our
ordinances and rules that they have. Every once in a while the committee will get one of
these that has a lot of issues. People don’t see how serious this is and the decision that
the committee will make. The committee puts a lot a weight into what the town board
recommends and takes it seriously; the committee feels that the people should go to the
town board meetings. As the chairman of this committee he wants to be fair to both
sides, he states he has heard both sides of the stories, and as a committee member
makes a recommendation to send it back to the town board, let them have another
meeting on this, residents who are opposed should attend, the town will listen to their
statements, arguments, and facts, then come back and make another recommendation
to this committee. He states that he does not have a ton of information but sees that the
people are passionate about their community, and in this situation to take the town
board’s approval would be inappropriate. Miller stated that in all the years on this board
he has not been in this situation and does not have a problem with sending it back to the
town board. Rondeau asked if the committee would like to make a ruling, send it back,
or make a recommendation.
Miller motioned to post pone. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
B. A petition by James Krueger, Supervisor for the Town of Namakagon, is
requesting a text amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, in the form
of adding Section 13-1-67 for permissible uses only located in the town therefore
creating an Overlay District. Section 13-1-67 specific to the town to allow for more
restrictive permitting standards and requirements than those currently utilized
under the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 13-1-67 Town of Namakagon Overlay District.
(a) General Provision. The Town of Namakagon Overlay District shall apply to and
include all lands within the Town of Namakagon.
(b) Intent of the Town of Namakagon Overlay District. The intent of this overlay
district is to promote the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare:
to encourage planned and orderly land use developments: to protect property
values and the property tax base: to encourage uses of land, water, and other
natural resources which are consistent with the Town of Namakagon
Comprehensive Land Use Plan: to maintain water clarity in lakes, rivers, and
streams: to protect the beauty and amenities of landscape and man-made
developments: and to provide healthy surroundings for recreation, tourism, and
family life.
(c) Part of the purpose and intent of the Town of Namakagon overlay shall be
achieved by restricting all new off-premise signs except as listed as exempt in the
Bayfield County Sign Ordinance. Permanent off-premise signs in the Town of
Namakagon shall also be subject to the following requirements:
Page 7 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
(1) All existing off premise signs may be maintained but must be brought into
compliance with the County ordinance pertaining to size and setback by
July 1, 2016.
(2) If the owner of the off-premise sign sells the business; the sign is
considered property of the business.
(3) Existing off-premise signs may not be rented to any other business.
(4) All other County ordinances regarding signs will be enforced.
Miller motioned to approve the overlay district that is in conjunction with the town
comprehensive plan, Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
C. John & Julie Meline (Barnes) – special use (mobile home for storage) [15-acre
parcel (ID# 04-004-2-45-09-24-102-000-20000, located in W1/2 NW1/4 of NE 1/4,
Section 24, Township 45N, Range 9 W, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI. Less 5
acres parcel in NW corner in V.23, P.336]
Kastrosky explained the town has not met on this issue yet. The request is for a mobile
home to be used as storage, gut it out and use for storage. Furtak explained that the
mobile home was originally used for Mr. Meline’s son, he moved away, and now they
don’t want to move it or use as a rental and would like to use it as storage. Miller asked
if there were any problems with it. Furtak responded no and that it is a 20 acre parcel
and in good shape and the property is cleaned up. Barnes will meet next Thursday on
the issue.
Miller motioned to approve the special use (mobile home for storage) if the town
approves it and it goes along with the comprehensive plan. Kastrosky asked if Miller
wanted any conditions to be placed on it. Miller responded with any conditions that the
town will place on it. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding text amendment for allowing holding
tanks as a system of choice instead of mounds.
Bonnie King spoke in opposition and stated she owns property north of Bayfield on
County Highway J., wanted to use the land as a place for their RV and possibly build
after retirement. Upgrades including a new driveway and electric were added in 2009.
Her main goal is to maintain the land and impact the vegetation as little as possible. She
wants the land to be passed on to her children. The property is about 15 acres and does
not want to remove trees where the land is level that would impact the future use of this
land. Her husband is a veteran and removing the tank from the RV to dump the 60 gallon
tank is a burden therefore access to a holding tank is the most practical option. The
imposed early retirement has limited their options and a holding tank would be the most
cost effective since it would be for 2 people with one bathroom. She does not understand
the rule and is hoping for a waiver in her case.
Kastrosky questioned if there was any soil tests done and if they need a mound versus
a holding tank. King replied with there was no soil test done. Furtak explained that the
purpose if this amendment is to allow a holding tank instead of a mound which costs
$15,000 and a conventional system needs on site treatment and costs $7,000 or $8,000.
Miller asked if the vote is to amend this or to vote on a request from these people.
Page 8 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
Kastrosky explained they are not voting on anything it is just a discussion. King
explained that it is unclear as to what they want to do in the future with the land and if
they need to do something it might negate what they can do in the future. Furtak stated
that if just an RV is there a vaulted privy would work. Kastrosky said that his office
would need to meet with King to discuss options. He also explained that every year
there is a plumbers meeting and it is always asked why plumbers have to make people
put in mounds. At the time there was no maintenance or tracking system on holding
tanks and they were getting pumped at night, or when ever and no restrictions as to
where they were dumped. Now there is a good maintenance and tracking program in
place. If you would like we could prepare an ordinance amendment that says a holding
tank could be a system instead of a mound. Not instead of conventional system. The
owner would have to sign an agreement that it would be pumped regularly. If we allow
holding tanks instead of a mound it should be set up to be turn into a mound if need be.
Miller would like to see that if a new home was put in then they would have to follow the
rules. Furtak explained that an affidavit would have to be signed stating that if the land
was a seasonal use you can do this but if it is a permanent home you have to put the
mound system in. Miller stated that if they are not willing to sign this agreement then he
figures the property owners have plans of changing things in the future.
No further discussion.
E. Discussion and Possible Action on zoning district text and map amendments
regarding municipality zones.
Kastrosky is trying to clean up past ordinance amendments that have gotten tabled; this
is why this is on the agenda. This committee had issues with this, there were no
prescribed setbacks. After 6 months of review he was going to propose a 10 foot setback
and did not want to draft that until the committee agreed it was a good starting point.
Rondeau and Miller think it is a good starting point.
No further discussion.
F. Review camping unit transfer container language.
Kastrosky asked if the committee seen the draft language. Committee stated yes.
Casina stated that they are proposing for portable restrooms for use in conjunction with
the residence, as well as the camping and transfer containers, they are 200 gallon units
that are buried in the ground and can be used in conjunction with an RV.
No further discussion.
G. Discussion and Possible Action regarding classification of use (warming building
on County land in an F-2 zoning district) – Public Use
Kastrosky explained the American Birkebeiner would like to put a warming station on
zoned Forestry 2 land. Based on ordinance the only thing that is allowed on an F-2
district is a wayside rest area. The birke is important but he is not comfortable in either
issuing or denying it. This issue needed to be consulted with the committee. The
Forestry Committee, in their meeting, approved the concept of the warming building but it
would need to be open to the public. Furtak stated that Forestry Committee approved
this and he doesn’t know if the county allows an organization to build structures on
county land. Miller stated that the Forestry Committee has been doing a lot of stuff on
Page 9 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
county land and made the motion to approve without knowing the zoning, and knowing
what he knows now he would like to make a motion to deny this.
Miller motioned to deny the warming building on county land zoned F-2, Rantala
seconded. Kastrosky asked for potential solutions, Bill Pierce might look for a rezone or
conditional use. Miller asked if the warming house that was issued 10 years ago was on
an F-1 zone Kastrosky stated that he did not have time to research the issue properly.
He would like some potential solutions. Rondeau explained that it would be the
foundations responsibility to come up with solutions. Furtak explained that it is
necessarily not allowed and it’s not addressed in the zoning. Kastrosky asked who
would own the building and answered with the Birke. Bill Pierce with the American
Birkebeiner Ski Foundation came forward and explained that he was manager with the
foundation and would like to address that the terminology that is used in the wayside rest
area is almost illegal and it is very old language. He would like a solution for the
foundation on their warming house. There are two buildings in Sawyer County, on
forestry land, that is owned by the foundation, and open to the public. Kastrosky would
like the information forwarded to him and Pierce agreed. Rondeau explained that these
issues will need to be looked at more and Pierce agreed that the foundation is not in any
rush to build and it is a 5 year plan. Kastrosky asked if this building would be almost on
Timber Trail and Bill stated yes.
Rondeau stated that there was a motion and a second on the floor to deny the
request at this time. No further discussion. Motion carried.
H. Discussion and Possible Action regarding NR 115
Kastrosky stated he finish guide book and it will go public.
I. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Comprehensive Plan
Kastrosky stated planning is complete and 8 townships still need to adopt the plan.
11. Monthly Report
Nothing mentioned.
12. Budget and Revenue
Discussion with the Town of Bell, Casina stated that the people from the Town of Bell
were here and would like to talk about the municipality district and give them some
insight on the proposed zoning district. Kastrosky stated he is not prepared to answer a
lot of the questions but there was a public hearing on it 6 months ago with definitions on
what a municipal district is and that it talks about any governments, schools, libraries,
playgrounds, town halls, EMS, county garage etc., these are scattered in Ag, Forestry,
and Residential zones. Because they pre-existed any land use planning and zoning
districts, the comprehensive plan expresses they need to have a municipal district so
people know there is municipal activities there. It has been problematic if the county
wanted to build a salt shed, there are under current regulations that they have to have a
special use permit and come to the committee and get permission. They are trying to set
some standards to alleviate the problems and expedite the process. There is a setback
of 10 feet in the commercial properties. The committee should work collectively to have
an overlay for the Town of Bell to reduce the commercial size. Lot sizes and commercial
Page 10 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 16, 2011
will stay the same unless petitioned for an overlay. Rondeau stated that the committee
needs to develop the standards if a commercial zone is to be created. Kastrosky
explained that they are creating a municipal zone that could be an option for the Town of
Bell.
No further discussion on budget and revenue.
13. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:30PM.
Prepared by kmh on 7/7/11
Approved by KLK on
Final Approval on
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2011/#6June