HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 7/21/2011Page 1 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
MINUTES (REVISED” #2 - 10/20/11)
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
July 21, 2011
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at
4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine - present, Miller - present, and Rondeau – present. Maki and Rantala –
Absent.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina-AZA, Mike Furtak-AZA.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the July 21, 2011 affidavit of
publication and the certified mailing receipts; he also noted that there is no verification that
Keystone did not pick up their mailing.
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.
5. Public Hearing:
A. Petition to Create Title 13-1-34 Petition to Create Title 13-1-34 - AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-20, 13-1-22, 13-1-32, and13-1-102 AND CREATING
SECTION 13-1-34, CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND
REGARDING LAKE SUPERIOR SHORELAND LOT DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONING
CODE
Section 1. Subdivisions a. through s. of Paragraph (4) of Subsection (c) [Maps.] of Section 13-1-20
[General Zoning Requirements.] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13
[Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin are hereby repealed.
Section 2. Paragraph (5) of Subsection (c) [Maps.] of Section 13-1-20 [General Zoning Requirements.] of
Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances,
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows. The Official Bayfield County Lake
Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A and is incorporated
herein.
Sec. 13-1-20 General Zoning Requirements.
(c) Maps. The maps designated below are hereby adopted and made part of this Chapter. They are
on file at the Bayfield County Zoning Department.
(5) Official Bayfield County Lake Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map.
Section 3. Section 13-1-34 [Lake Superior Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.] of Article B
[General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance, which is
marked as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein.
Section 4. Paragraph (1) [Setbacks.] of Subsection (a) [Shoreline Setbacks] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks
and Height Restrictions.] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning]
of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with
Page 2 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out
feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-22 Setbacks and Height Restrictions.
(a) Shoreline Setbacks.
(1) [Setbacks.] Shoreline Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, setbacks
for structures on Lake Superior shoreland lots shall be as provided in Sec. 13-1-34, and
setbacks for structures on other shoreland lots shall be as provided in Sec.tion 13-1-32.
Section 5. Subsection (c) [Lake Superior Lot Requirements.] of Section 13-1-32 [Inland Lake
Classification and Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.] of Article B [General Provisions] of
Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is
hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions)
and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-32 Inland Lake Classification and Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.
(c) Lake Superior Lot Requirements. Lots having frontage on Lake Superior and any improvements
thereon shall be subject to the requirements applicable to lots on Class 1 lakes, except that if a lot
has a bank or a bluff fronting the lake, the top of which is discernible due to evidence of erosion,
(including but not limited to exposed rock), the required shoreline setback shall be 75 feet back
from the top edge of the bank or bluff, and if a lot is located in an area of active or potential
erosion designated on a map entitled Erosion Hazard Areas—Bayfield County, a greater setback
may be required as determined by the Zoning Committee or its duly designated agent, based on
projected shoreland recession rates.with respect to setback requirements, the provisions of Sec.
13-1-34 shall apply instead, and the site planning requirements of Sec. 13-1-34(d) shall also
apply.
Section 6. Paragraph (4) of Subsection (e) [Board Powers.] of Section 13-1-102 [Board of Adjustment.] of
Article F [Administration and Enforcement.] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of
Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted
by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-102 Board of Adjustment.
(e) Board Powers. The Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties:
(4) The Board may grant special exemptions exceptions for the reduction of minimum side and
rear yard setbacks (other than shoreline and public road setbacks) and; for minimum private
road setbacks as provided in Section 13122(j); and for reduced setbacks for certain lots with
frontage on Lake Superior as provided in Sec. 13-1-34(c)(2). The provisions of Section 13141
shall govern such special exceptions in the same manner as they govern conditional uses,
except that the granting authority shall be the Board of Adjustment rather than the Zoning
Committee.
Sec. 13-1-34 is created to read as follows:
Sec. 13-1-34 Lake Superior Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.
Introduction. Much of Bayfield County’s Lake Superior shoreline is bordered by steep bluffs with or
without an adjacent beach, and is very susceptible to erosion. Rock slopes erode very slowly, but
catastrophically when undercut by waves. Clay slopes may be stable for years then erode or slump very
quickly. Stormwater is also a significant factor in shoreline recession and erosion. The Official Bayfield
County Lake Superior Shoreline Segment Map—incorporated into this ordinance by Sec. 13-1-20(c)(5)—
establishes numbered segments of the Lake Superior shoreline, which are subject to the setback
Page 3 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
requirements set forth below. The setback requirements in subsection (a) are based on historical and
scientific calculations specific to each shoreline segment. If the Department determines by on-site
inspection of a lot that the applicable setback listed in subsection (a) is inconsistent with the pertinent
characteristics of the lot’s shoreline, the Department shall calculate the setback for the lot based on the
observed characteristics, using the same formula and criteria used to calculate setback distances for the
Lake Superior Safe Setback line.
(a) Lake Superior Shoreline Setback Table. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
required setbacks from the ordinary high water mark for principal structures or any accessory
structures greater than (>) 500 sq. ft. on lots with frontage on Lake Superior are shown for each
point of the shoreline on the Bayfield County Lake Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map.
Representative setbacks for each shore segment are shown in the table below. Segments with
an NA in the setback distance column shall by calculated by the Department on a lot-by-lot basis
within the segment, using the same formula and criteria used to calculate setback distances for
other segments in the table.
Representative Lake Superior Shoreline Setbacks
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
1 282 40 NA 79 129 118 162
2 184 41 163 80 151 119 164
3 NA 42 242 81 142 120 113
4 260 43 149 82 175 121 160
5 205 44 269 83 260 122 181
6 NA 45 282 84 298 123 86
7 195 46 226 85 331 124 156
8 NA 47 233 86 NA 125 132
9 228 48 174 87 217 126 189
10 200 49 148 88 250 127 202
11 NA 50 169 89 178 128 170
12 140 51 191 90 164 129 NA
13 150 52 175 91 NA 130 152
14 130 53 402 92 170 131 142
15 148 54 353 93 242 132 160
16 200 55 216 94 206 133 100
17 140 56 129 95 132 134 NA
18 133 57 132 96 160 135 138
19 130 58 125 97 125 136 153
20 171 59 142 98 193 137 85
21 80 60 121 99 337 138 NA
22 116 61 180 100 82 139 NA
23 240 62 210 101 125 140 133
24 NA 63 198 102 214 141 NA
25 210 64 79 103 209 142 145
26 NA 65 80 104 154 143 NA
27 286 66 80 105 183 144 82
28 NA 67 312 106 180 NA 174
29 253 68 203 107 160 NA 140
30 NA 69 212 108 194 147 160
31 340 70 161 109 161 148 151
32 NA 71 155 110 178 149 116
Page 4 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
33 328 72 200 111 113 150 127
34 354 73 195 112 147 151 193
35 NA 74 79 113 184 152 85
36 420 75 80 114 193 153 100
37 NA 76 80 115 80 154 83
38 547 77 159 116 160
39 341 78 200 117 170
NA = Contact Planning & Zoning Department for on-site determination.
Note: These are representative numbers. Consult the Shoreline Safe Setback map for site specific setback distances.
(b) Other Setbacks and Height Restrictions. The provisions of Section 13-1-22, pertaining to
setbacks and height restrictions, shall apply to lots with frontage on Lake Superior except for
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)a, b, and c thereof.
(c) Alternative Setback Requirements
(1) Reduced Roadway, Rear Yard, and Shoreline Setbacks for Platted Lots.
a. Shoreland Setback Adjustment. If a platted lot is not deep enough to
accommodate required roadway or rear yard and shoreline setbacks and a thirty-
foot deep building site, the roadway or rear yard setback may be reduced until a
thirty foot (30) deep building site is established, provided that the resulting
setback is not less than one-half the distance of the required setback. If the road
or rear yard setback reduction does not provide a thirty foot (30) deep building
site, the shoreline setback may then be reduced until a thirty foot (30) deep
building site is established, provided that the resulting shoreline setback is not
less than two-thirds of the distance of the required setback under subsection (a)
and is at least 60 feet back from the edge of any discernible bluff.
b. Mitigation. A property owner shall comply with the mitigation requirements of
Section 13-1-40(c)(5) in order to qualify for the setback reductions of this
provision.
c. Shore Protection Practices. Shore protection practices under paragraph (2)b of
this subsection may also be required to qualify for the setback reductions of this
provision.
(2) Special Exceptions. For lots that cannot meet the reduced setbacks provided above in
paragraph (c)(1) but have at least ninety (90) feet from the top of the discernible bluff to
the rear of the lot, the owner may apply to the Bayfield County Board of Adjustment for a
special exception under Section 13-1-102(e)(4) authorizing a further reduced shoreline
setback for a moveable structure meeting the requirements of subparagraph a. below.
Shoreline protection practices subject to subparagraph b. below and/or shoreline
protection structures subject to subparagraph c. below may also be required.
a. Moveable Structure Requirements.
1. The property owner shall submit a report from a professional building
moving contractor certifying that the structure can be feasibly moved at a
cost not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the equalized value of the
structure.
2. The property owner must certify that the structure will be moved before
any part of the structure is within fifty (50) feet of the receding edge of the
bluff. The certification must be recorded with the Register of Deeds for
Page 5 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
Bayfield County. The certification must also state that the last owner of
record, as shown of the latest assessment roll, is responsible for
removing the structure, its foundation, and all costs associated with the
move.
b. Shore Protection Practices. Shore protection practices include, but are not
limited to natural coastline restoration by nourishing beaches; restoring and
constructing dunes and beach ridges; creating or restoring coastal wetlands;
shore armoring with riprap, seawalls, and groins. Any structures need to be
designed and built by a trained professional familiar with the Great Lakes erosion
processes.
Shore protection plans that include structures shall contain the following:
1. A site investigation of slope stability and coastal erosion.
2. A site investigation of near shore lakebed erosion.
3. Consideration for impact on neighboring or down current properties.
4. Access to site and structure for monitoring and maintenance.
c. Shore Protection Structures. The following requirements apply to the
construction, modification or restoration of shore protection structures:
1. All necessary permits must have been received and/or reviewed by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Bayfield County Land Conservation Department.
2. The structure must not be likely to cause a measurable increase in
erosion, including lakebed erosion, at the development site or at other
locations.
3. The structure must minimize and prevent adverse effects upon natural
protective features, existing erosion-protection structures and natural
resources, such as significant wildlife habitats. This includes the
impact of the structure on the movement of sand along the shore.
4. All shore protection structures must be designed and constructed
according to generally accepted engineering principles. The design and
construction shall be certified by a professional engineer as having a
reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at
least thirty (30) years.
5. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of
withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of
storm conditions for a minimum of thirty (30) years. Individual
component materials may have a working life of less than thirty (30)
years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be
regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required
thirty (30) years of erosion protection.
6. A long-term maintenance program must be included. The maintenance
programs must include specifications for normal maintenance of
degradable materials including repairs necessary to maintain the integrity
of the shore protection structure. To assure compliance with the
Page 6 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
proposed maintenance programs, a bond or other financial security may
be required.
7. There must be a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the shore
protection structure to any permanent structure. If the bluff or dune is
unstable due to height, slope, wind, erosion, or groundwater seepage, a
greater setback may be required. There shall be sufficient access to
permit the maintenance and repair of the shore protection structure.
8. Excavating, grading, mining, or dredging which diminishes the erosion
protection afforded by near shore area is prohibited, except construction
or maintenance of navigation channels, bypassing sand around natural
and man-made obstructions and artificial beach nourishment in
accordance with the permit requirements of the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
9. Before approval by the Department of any shore protection structure, the
applicant shall obtain a Class B special use permit from the county.
Notice shall be sent to all riparian owners within three hundred (300) feet
of the proposed shore protection structure.
(3) Variances. If none of the above setback requirements can be met, then development of
the subject parcel may only be permitted by a variance granted by the Bayfield County
Board of Adjustment.
(d) Site Planning.
(1) Site Plan Approval Standards. Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection,
any lot on Lake Superior for which new development is proposed shall require a
development site plan that meets the following standards, subject to the review by the
County Planning & Zoning Department:
a. The site plan must minimize disturbance natural habitat;
b. The site plan must demonstrate that erosion and sedimentation shall be
minimized,
c. The site plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 13-1-23 (Shoreland-
Upland Screening, Fencing, and Vegetative Management)
(2) Site Plan Components and Site Plan Content.
a. Individual site plans must incorporate setbacks, bluff stability, past recession
rates, and drainage patterns on a property.
b. Plans must be prepared to scale or dimensions and include the following:
1. All lake shorelines, streams, wetlands, groundwater seeps, springs, soil
types, soil strata and groundwater table at the site; and all existing roads,
driveways, structures, culverts, and other pertinent features on the site or
within one hundred (100) feet of the area of site disturbance.
2. Existing ground contour lines and proposed ground contour lines at five
(5) foot intervals encompassing the area of site disturbance and in the
immediate area of influence of the disturbed areas, e.g. within fifteen (15)
feet.
3. Structural dimensions and onsite materials used
Page 7 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
4. Location of the ordinary high water mark
5. Bluff height and stability
6. Rates of erosion and recession
7. Shoreline erosion control plan or structures
8. A grading or fill plan
9. Potential building relocation plans
10. Location of nearby natural resources such as wetlands, bluffs, dunes
11. On-site wastewater treatment facilities
12. Stormwater management plan
13. Plans for lake access
(3) Expansion of Existing Structures. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply
if the only proposed development is the expansion of an existing structure, except for the
requirement of a storm water management plan
(e) Substandard Lots. Section 13-1-26, pertaining to substandard lots of record, applies to
substandard lots with frontage on Lake Superior.
(f) Nonconforming Structures and Uses.
(1) Structures and/or uses on lots with frontage on Lake Superior that were nonconforming
prior to the adoption of this section on July 26, 2011 are subject to the provisions of
Article I pertaining to nonconforming uses and structures, provided that in addition to
meeting the requirements of that article, an owner applying for a permitted expansion of a
structure that is nonconforming with respect to shoreline setback must submit a shore
protection plan to the Department, including shore protection practices and/or shore
protection structures, that the Department determines to be adequate to protect the
structure from damage due to shoreline erosion for a period of 30 years, based on the
composition of the shoreline, its estimated rate of recession, and other relevant factors.
(2) Structures on lots with frontage on Lake Superior that were conforming prior to the
adoption of this section but do not meet the shoreline setback requirements of this section
are not subject to the provisions of Article I, but an owner applying for an expansion of
such a structure shall be required to submit and implement a storm water management
plan incorporating best management practices and may be required by the Department to
submit a shore protection plan that the Department determines to be adequate to protect
the structure from damage due to shoreline erosion for at least 30 years, if there is a
reasonable probability that the structure would be damaged by shoreline erosion within
such time period without the implementation of a shore protection plan.
(g) Revision of Lake Superior Shoreline Segments and Setbacks. Lake Superior shoreline
segments and setbacks may be revised by amendment of the Lake Superior Shoreline Setback
Table in 13-1-34 (a) pursuant to this provision and in accordance with Section 59.69(5)(e) Wis.
Stats., containing the statutory procedure for amending county zoning ordinances. The petitioner
should be prepared to demonstrate to the Zoning Committee and County Board that an error
does in fact exist with respect to the setback distances stated in the Lake Superior Shoreline
Setback Table.
(h) Coastal Setback Calculator. Calculator and explanatory materials used in determining Lake
Superior shoreline setbacks are available at the County Planning & Zoning Department office.
Page 8 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
Kastrosky explained setback requirement can be found on the Bayfield County website
and that this information is available to anyone. The reason for this amendment was to
identify highly erodible zones and in those areas there is the ability to require greater
setbacks based on subjective decision. This is problematic. The ordinance says that
setbacks need to be 75 feet from class 1 lakes except on lots that have a bank or bluff
and then structures need to be 75 feet from the top of the bluff. This approach was tried
in practical applications but the top of the bluff is really hard to determine it’s erratic, all
over, there are gullies, and ordinary case law in Wisconsin says from the ordinary high
water mark. We proposed the language in front of you to clean that up and to be able to
allow safe setbacks on Lake Superior based on science and based on past history. We
measured the erosion, etc. on annual basis and formulated that into a table. The table is
a 154 segments, the proposed setback in each segment is only representative of that
segment. Due to Scott we can take any point on Lake Superior and prescribe a formula
and determine setbacks. It is not on individual lot basis it is based on any portion of that
lot. Douglas County has a 100 foot setback based on an arbitrary line. We are willing to
share this information with any coastal community. The proposed language is very
flexible and even has the ability that if we arrive at the property and there are problems
we can reduce the setback. Some of the lines look excessive but they are from the high
water mark not the top of the bluff and in some instances that is 100 feet. This map is on
the website.
Scott Galetka showed the Committee a computer generated map that is interactive.
This map showed a 75 foot line that is the setback from the high water mark on Lake
Superior. Galetka explained that he took all of Kastrosky’s information including, soil
type, setbacks, elevation, high water line, etc. and incorporated it into a stable setback
line done with GIS and LIDAR. He explained that this is found on the web under the
zoning tab and is available to the public through map viewer. Kastrosky explained that
later on, his wish is to have a tab to make it easier to find map on the web.
Rantala entered at 4:06 pm.
Galetka explained that the map shows a green line which is the setback. This line varies
depending on where you are located on the map. Jardine questioned where the first
segment started and Kastrosky explained the county line. Miller asked how the green
lines work with the island, there is the green line with an island inside of it. Galetka
explained that those are gullies so it has less of a setback. Potentially you could build
there. Kastrosky said that these lines are based on accurate LIDAR two foot contour
lines, the little red dotes are existing houses. Miller asked what will happen with the non
conforming structures if owners wanted to do construction on the buildings. Kastrosky
explained they are like any other non conforming structure; you would have to do a storm
water management plan, and/or some shoreland protection. The approximate setback in
segment one is 282 but you can see how detailed that line is and in some places the
setback is going to be less than 282 because that line is drawn very accurately from high
water mark and slope so that line is not 282 consistently. Anybody past the green line is
going to be non conforming. Miller asked what will happen when someone would like to
do an addition, will they be able to. Kastrosky explained yes, they will need to do a
storm water plan, and make sure their coast line is not eroding to the point where the
house is going to fall over the edge. Casina and Kastrosky stated that is not the same
as a regular non conforming structure and can still expand unlimited but have to do a
storm water management plan. Miller stated that was his question, that it is not like an
inland lake where they are non conforming. Casina and Kastrosky stated no. Furtak
asked Kastrosky if this acts as a mechanism to put people on notice that if there is
Page 9 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
potential for peoples’ property to erode they could come back and say they were not
aware, this information is out there so people become aware that eventually the land is
going to erode past where their house is. Kastrosky explained that is true and there was
a house that we the County let them put a substantial addition on, we should not have
allowed it but it was legal at the time. Miller asked could they add on today, and
Kastrosky answered yes they could, and they could do shoreland stabilization to the
bank as well. Rondeau stated that basically the county is giving people a notice that they
are at a risk and you cannot hold Bayfield County reliable. Kastrosky said this is going
to really impact the vacant lots. Miller asked what the forecast is on this; you are not
going to go out a thousand years. Kastrosky stated that they met six years ago and
started this project and came up with that in 50 years the structure will still be 75 feet
from the high water mark. 50 years is not long for the life of a home. If there is 2 feet of
recession a year in 50 years that is 100 feet. Plus you need to be 75 feet that’s why
some of these setbacks are 175 feet, that’s the way the formula works out. The formula
is different based on soil type. Rondeau stated that it is a good precaution and it is
protecting the county. Kastrosky stated that this is the purpose, is that any land owner
can pull this map up and you can actually see the safe setback line you can detail that
with bushes or shrubs and it is safe for us because we can measure this electronically
and accurately. Rondeau again stated that this is a good idea and it is just forewarning
people. Casina stated that it takes or the arbitrary component when figuring out how far
to set people back, now we have some science. Jardine asked if Dave Mickelson is still
involved in this project. Kastrosky stated he is and figures were just applied to this map.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this petition.
Carol Labreck spoke in support and had a few comments. First of all she did
communicate with Mickelson in an effort to understand the language. She is excited to
see the use of some wonderful technology and put to good use founded in science.
Mickelson stated in a letter, that his only concern is that it be stressed that the table of
setbacks and segments and the number that is not the number that will be used and that,
that be made very clear when someone looked at the table and found a segment know
that’s the law and that’s my setback for that piece of property and the final calculation is
not that number. One of Labreck’s concerns is the issue with setback as they relate to
other buildings, on page one of the amendments it talks about setbacks for principal
structure or accessory structure greater than 500 square feet and that number is a
potential loop hole because, that is a big building, and it reads that someone could put a
building that is 500 square feet as close to the bluff as you want. When Labreck asked
Mickelson about this he explained in a note that he agrees that this is a big building to
not have a setback and someone could have summer living quarters and our limit on
bunkhouses is 500 sq ft so basically someone could put a bunk house at the edge of the
bluff. He also states that the 75 foot distance should be a minimum for anything except
for a small tool shed in other words not a 500 sq ft building. In existing title it states that
the maximum is 200 sq ft and it is hoped that the 500 sq ft be eliminated and go back to
the standard that exists and that any structure needs to be a minimum of 75 feet back.
Rondeau asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor. No one spoke in favor or
opposition.
Kastrosky stated he would like to answer some of the questions that were asked. At
The bottom of the table of segments lines note, these are representative numbers
consulting with the shoreland safe setback map for site specific setbacks. This should
address some of the concerns that were stated earlier. The 500 square foot building was
Page 10 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
created by the Zoning Department because the initial draft talked about principal
buildings, whether it is a house or a building, instead of arguing the fact, it was just
written up as 500 square feet. It could be written clear, that all buildings and structures
on Lake Superior under 500 sq ft would have to meet the setbacks of 75 feet. It needs to
be clear and concise on what is allowed and not allowed in front of or behind that line.
Discussion ended.
B. Petition to Amend Title 13 & 15 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-61
AND 13-1-60, CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND
REGARDING ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE ZONING CODE
Section 1. Subsection (km) of Section 13-1-61 [Zoning Districts.] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter
1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
created to read as follows:
Sec. 13-1-61 Zoning Districts.
(km) M Municipal and Institutional. This district is designed to encompass lands for libraries,
ballparks, housing authorities, buildings housing municipal units of government, schools, or
other uses that are principally of an institutional, educational, or governmental nature and that
serve a public need.
Section 2. Subsection (a) of Section 13-1-60 [Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.] of Article D
[Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double
underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-60 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.
(a) Subject to subsections (b) through (h), Zoning District Dimensional Requirements for lots shall be
as follows (provided that for lots with lake frontage or adjoining or including river or streams, any
more restrictive applicable requirements in Sec. 13-1-32 shall apply instead):
Minimum
Average
Width for
Minimum Side
& Rear Yards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Area
Non-Shoreland
Lots Only
Principal
Building
Accessory
Building
R-RB, R-1 30,000 sq. ft. 150’ 10’ 10’
F-1, R-2, A-1 4 ½ acres 300’ 75’ 30’
R-3 2 acres 200’ 20’ 20’
F-2, A-2 35 acres 1,200’ 75’ 30’
I, C* 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 5’ 5’
M 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
R-4
(a) Sewer/water 10,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(b) Sewer only 15,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(c) Water only 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
For Setback Requirements see Section 13-1-22. Lots must have legal access from public roads
and comply with Article C, Section 14-1-40 Survey and Recording Requirements.
Page 11 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
Casina explained after being approached by a service provider, we have considered
implementing in our sanitary code the use of portable restrooms in conjunction with RV’s
or dwellings like hunting shacks etc., if they meet certain conditions, such as a portable
restrooms that have 200 gallons that can be used as a means of sanitation. Also
clarifying the need for a sanitary permit under certain conditions, those being temporary
use, campgrounds, parks, beaches etc., a servicing contract in that case would not be
required. We are allowing portable restrooms in conjunction with an RV, not included in
this; there was provision that allowed the use of a portable restroom on short term basis
without a permit. We are also proposing the use of camper containers, small little holding
tank units, to be used if they are a minimum 200 gallons, and if a sanitary permit is
issued by the county. They are approved by the state. We are essentially incorporating
camper transfer containers, and portable restroom in this revision.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this petition. No one spoke.
He opened the floor for opposition. No one spoke.
Discussion ended.
C. Petition to Amend Title 13 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-61 AND
13-1-60, CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND
REGARDING ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE ZONING CODE
Section 1. Subsection (km) of Section 13-1-61 [Zoning Districts.] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter
1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
created to read as follows:
Sec. 13-1-61 Zoning Districts.
(km) M Municipal and Institutional. This district is designed to encompass lands for libraries,
ballparks, housing authorities, buildings housing municipal units of government, schools, or
other uses that are principally of an institutional, educational, or governmental nature and that
serve a public need.
Section 2. Subsection (a) of Section 13-1-60 [Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.] of Article D
[Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double
underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-60 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.
(b) Subject to subsections (b) through (h), Zoning District Dimensional Requirements for lots shall be
as follows (provided that for lots with lake frontage or adjoining or including river or streams, any
more restrictive applicable requirements in Sec. 13-1-32 shall apply instead).
Page 12 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
Minimum Average
Width for
Minimum Side
& Rear Yards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Area
Non-Shoreland Lots
Only
Principal Building Accessory Building
R-RB, R-1 30,000 sq. ft. 150’ 10’ 10’
F-1, R-2, A-1 4 ½ acres 300’ 75’ 30’
R-3 2 acres 200’ 20’ 20’
F-2, A-2 35 acres 1,200’ 75’ 30’
I, C* 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 5’ 5’
M 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
R-4
(a) Sewer/water 10,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(b) Sewer only 15,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(c) Water only 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
For Setback Requirements see Section 13-1-22.
Lots must have legal access from public roads and comply with Article C, Section 14-1-40 Survey
and Recording Requirements
Kastrosky explained this is a municipal zoning district addition, the committee talked about
this once before but at that time there were no setbacks. The proposed setback for tonight’s
hearing is 10 feet in municipal zone with a 20,000 square foot area. The classification list
was also amended to allow schools, libraries, etc., either by permitted use or by special use
or conditional use in municipal zone. There are no municipal zones that exist today and they
would not be imposed that all municipal zones will need to rezone their existing land.
Rondeau thinks this is a great idea to have town garages, county garages etc. it’s a good
idea to have them designated and separated. Kastrosky stated that the power does come
from our comprehensive plan; many of the participating municipalities should have their town
land rezoned to municipal. There is a letter stating that the Town of Russell supports this as
proposed and so does the Town of Bayfield.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of petition. No one spoke in favor or
opposition.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Rantala seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at
4:34pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Kastrosky called the meeting
to order at 4:34pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine - present, Maki - absent, Miller - present, Rantala - present, and Rondeau
- present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated there are 2 sets of minutes and a
revision to the January 20, 2011 meeting. Kastrosky asked if there could be a discussion,
Rondeau approved, Kastrosky stated he was trying to draft the Wayne Nelson letter, we
listened to the tape and they didn’t coincide with what was written and if the highlighted
looks good I would like a motion to approve. Rondeau explained that Jardine and Miller
need to look at them, then they need to approve the minutes since it is a revision on what
Page 13 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
they said. Miller stated it looks pretty accurate, basically work it out or we will work it out for
you. Kastrosky states that the permit that was on the table was originally denied and had 90
days to figure it out, and he reapplied within a 90 day period, he is in compliance.
Rondeau asked to entertain a motion to amend the minutes from the January 20, 2011
meeting. Miller motioned to approve and Jardine seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
Minutes from the May 19, 2011 meeting. Jardine motioned to approve and Miller seconded.
No further discussion. Motion approved.
Minutes from June 16, 2011 meeting. Miller motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. No
further discussion. Motion approved.
Kastrosky stated that item F was withdrawn.
10. Business:
D. A. Petition to Create Title 13-1-34 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-20,
13-1-22, 13-1-32, and13-1-102 AND CREATING SECTION 13-1-34, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND REGARDING LAKE
SUPERIOR SHORELAND LOT DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONING CODE
Section 1. Subdivisions a. through s. of Paragraph (4) of Subsection (c) [Maps.] of Section 13-1-20
[General Zoning Requirements.] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13
[Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin are hereby repealed.
Section 2. Paragraph (5) of Subsection (c) [Maps.] of Section 13-1-20 [General Zoning Requirements.] of
Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances,
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows. The Official Bayfield County Lake
Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A and is incorporated
herein.
Sec. 13-1-20 General Zoning Requirements.
(c) Maps. The maps designated below are hereby adopted and made part of this Chapter. They are
on file at the Bayfield County Zoning Department.
(5) Official Bayfield County Lake Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map.
Section 3. Section 13-1-34 [Lake Superior Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.] of Article B
[General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as set forth in the attachment to this Ordinance, which is
marked as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein.
Section 4. Paragraph (1) [Setbacks.] of Subsection (a) [Shoreline Setbacks] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks
and Height Restrictions.] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning]
of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out
feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-22 Setbacks and Height Restrictions.
(b) Shoreline Setbacks.
Page 14 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
(2) [Setbacks.] Shoreline Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, setbacks
for structures on Lake Superior shoreland lots shall be as provided in Sec. 13-1-34, and
setbacks for structures on other shoreland lots shall be as provided in Sec.tion 13-1-32.
Section 5. Subsection (c) [Lake Superior Lot Requirements.] of Section 13-1-32 [Inland Lake
Classification and Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.] of Article B [General Provisions] of
Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is
hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions)
and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-32 Inland Lake Classification and Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.
(c) Lake Superior Lot Requirements. Lots having frontage on Lake Superior and any improvements
thereon shall be subject to the requirements applicable to lots on Class 1 lakes, except that if a lot
has a bank or a bluff fronting the lake, the top of which is discernible due to evidence of erosion,
(including but not limited to exposed rock), the required shoreline setback shall be 75 feet back
from the top edge of the bank or bluff, and if a lot is located in an area of active or potential
erosion designated on a map entitled Erosion Hazard Areas—Bayfield County, a greater setback
may be required as determined by the Zoning Committee or its duly designated agent, based on
projected shoreland recession rates.with respect to setback requirements, the provisions of Sec.
13-1-34 shall apply instead, and the site planning requirements of Sec. 13-1-34(d) shall also
apply.
Section 6. Paragraph (4) of Subsection (e) [Board Powers.] of Section 13-1-102 [Board of Adjustment.] of
Article F [Administration and Enforcement.] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of
Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted
by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-102 Board of Adjustment.
(e) Board Powers. The Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties:
(4) The Board may grant special exemptions exceptions for the reduction of minimum side and
rear yard setbacks (other than shoreline and public road setbacks) and; for minimum private
road setbacks as provided in Section 13122(j); and for reduced setbacks for certain lots with
frontage on Lake Superior as provided in Sec. 13-1-34(c)(2). The provisions of Section 13141
shall govern such special exceptions in the same manner as they govern conditional uses,
except that the granting authority shall be the Board of Adjustment rather than the Zoning
Committee.
Sec. 13-1-34 is created to read as follows:
Sec. 13-1-34 Lake Superior Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.
Introduction. Much of Bayfield County’s Lake Superior shoreline is bordered by steep bluffs with or
without an adjacent beach, and is very susceptible to erosion. Rock slopes erode very slowly, but
catastrophically when undercut by waves. Clay slopes may be stable for years then erode or slump very
quickly. Stormwater is also a significant factor in shoreline recession and erosion. The Official Bayfield
County Lake Superior Shoreline Segment Map—incorporated into this ordinance by Sec. 13-1-20(c)(5)—
establishes numbered segments of the Lake Superior shoreline, which are subject to the setback
requirements set forth below. The setback requirements in subsection (a) are based on historical and
scientific calculations specific to each shoreline segment. If the Department determines by on-site
inspection of a lot that the applicable setback listed in subsection (a) is inconsistent with the pertinent
characteristics of the lot’s shoreline, the Department shall calculate the setback for the lot based on the
observed characteristics, using the same formula and criteria used to calculate setback distances for the
Lake Superior Safe Setback line.
Page 15 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
(b) Lake Superior Shoreline Setback Table. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
required setbacks from the ordinary high water mark for principal structures or any accessory
structures greater than (>) 500 sq. ft. on lots with frontage on Lake Superior are shown for each
point of the shoreline on the Bayfield County Lake Superior Shoreline Safe Setback Map.
Representative setbacks for each shore segment are shown in the table below. Segments with
an NA in the setback distance column shall by calculated by the Department on a lot-by-lot basis
within the segment, using the same formula and criteria used to calculate setback distances for
other segments in the table.
(c)
Representative Lake Superior Shoreline Setbacks
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
Segment
Number
Total Setback
in feet
1 282 40 NA 79 129 118 162
2 184 41 163 80 151 119 164
3 NA 42 242 81 142 120 113
4 260 43 149 82 175 121 160
5 205 44 269 83 260 122 181
6 NA 45 282 84 298 123 86
7 195 46 226 85 331 124 156
8 NA 47 233 86 NA 125 132
9 228 48 174 87 217 126 189
10 200 49 148 88 250 127 202
11 NA 50 169 89 178 128 170
12 140 51 191 90 164 129 NA
13 150 52 175 91 NA 130 152
14 130 53 402 92 170 131 142
15 148 54 353 93 242 132 160
16 200 55 216 94 206 133 100
17 140 56 129 95 132 134 NA
18 133 57 132 96 160 135 138
19 130 58 125 97 125 136 153
20 171 59 142 98 193 137 85
21 80 60 121 99 337 138 NA
22 116 61 180 100 82 139 NA
23 240 62 210 101 125 140 133
24 NA 63 198 102 214 141 NA
25 210 64 79 103 209 142 145
26 NA 65 80 104 154 143 NA
27 286 66 80 105 183 144 82
28 NA 67 312 106 180 NA 174
29 253 68 203 107 160 NA 140
30 NA 69 212 108 194 147 160
31 340 70 161 109 161 148 151
32 NA 71 155 110 178 149 116
33 328 72 200 111 113 150 127
34 354 73 195 112 147 151 193
35 NA 74 79 113 184 152 85
36 420 75 80 114 193 153 100
37 NA 76 80 115 80 154 83
38 547 77 159 116 160
39 341 78 200 117 170
Page 16 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
NA = Contact Planning & Zoning Department for on-site determination.
Note: These are representative numbers. Consult the Shoreline Safe Setback map for site specific setback distances.
(b) Other Setbacks and Height Restrictions. The provisions of Section 13-1-22, pertaining to
setbacks and height restrictions, shall apply to lots with frontage on Lake Superior except for
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)a, b, and c thereof.
(c) Alternative Setback Requirements
(1) Reduced Roadway, Rear Yard, and Shoreline Setbacks for Platted Lots.
a. Shoreland Setback Adjustment. If a platted lot is not deep enough to
accommodate required roadway or rear yard and shoreline setbacks and a thirty-
foot deep building site, the roadway or rear yard setback may be reduced until a
thirty foot (30) deep building site is established, provided that the resulting
setback is not less than one-half the distance of the required setback. If the road
or rear yard setback reduction does not provide a thirty foot (30) deep building
site, the shoreline setback may then be reduced until a thirty foot (30) deep
building site is established, provided that the resulting shoreline setback is not
less than two-thirds of the distance of the required setback under subsection (a)
and is at least 60 feet back from the edge of any discernible bluff.
b. Mitigation. A property owner shall comply with the mitigation requirements of
Section 13-1-40(c)(5) in order to qualify for the setback reductions of this
provision.
c. Shore Protection Practices. Shore protection practices under paragraph (2)b of
this subsection may also be required to qualify for the setback reductions of this
provision.
(2) Special Exceptions. For lots that cannot meet the reduced setbacks provided above in
paragraph (c)(1) but have at least ninety (90) feet from the top of the discernible bluff to
the rear of the lot, the owner may apply to the Bayfield County Board of Adjustment for a
special exception under Section 13-1-102(e)(4) authorizing a further reduced shoreline
setback for a moveable structure meeting the requirements of subparagraph a. below.
Shoreline protection practices subject to subparagraph b. below and/or shoreline
protection structures subject to subparagraph c. below may also be required.
a. Moveable Structure Requirements.
1. The property owner shall submit a report from a professional building
moving contractor certifying that the structure can be feasibly moved at a
cost not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the equalized value of the
structure.
2. The property owner must certify that the structure will be moved before
any part of the structure is within fifty (50) feet of the receding edge of the
bluff. The certification must be recorded with the Register of Deeds for
Bayfield County. The certification must also state that the last owner of
record, as shown of the latest assessment roll, is responsible for
removing the structure, its foundation, and all costs associated with the
move.
b. Shore Protection Practices. Shore protection practices include, but are not
limited to natural coastline restoration by nourishing beaches; restoring and
constructing dunes and beach ridges; creating or restoring coastal wetlands;
shore armoring with riprap, seawalls, and groins. Any structures need to be
Page 17 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
designed and built by a trained professional familiar with the Great Lakes erosion
processes.
Shore protection plans that include structures shall contain the following:
1. A site investigation of slope stability and coastal erosion.
2. A site investigation of near shore lakebed erosion.
3. Consideration for impact on neighboring or down current properties.
4. Access to site and structure for monitoring and maintenance.
c. Shore Protection Structures. The following requirements apply to the
construction, modification or restoration of shore protection structures:
1. All necessary permits must have been received and/or reviewed by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Bayfield County Land Conservation Department.
2. The structure must not be likely to cause a measurable increase in
erosion, including lakebed erosion, at the development site or at other
locations.
3. The structure must minimize and prevent adverse effects upon natural
protective features, existing erosion-protection structures and natural
resources, such as significant wildlife habitats. This includes the
impact of the structure on the movement of sand along the shore.
4. All shore protection structures must be designed and constructed
according to generally accepted engineering principles. The design and
construction shall be certified by a professional engineer as having a
reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at
least thirty (30) years.
5. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of
withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of
storm conditions for a minimum of thirty (30) years. Individual
component materials may have a working life of less than thirty (30)
years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be
regularly maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required
thirty (30) years of erosion protection.
6. A long-term maintenance program must be included. The maintenance
programs must include specifications for normal maintenance of
degradable materials including repairs necessary to maintain the integrity
of the shore protection structure. To assure compliance with the
proposed maintenance programs, a bond or other financial security may
be required.
7. There must be a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the shore
protection structure to any permanent structure. If the bluff or dune is
unstable due to height, slope, wind, erosion, or groundwater seepage, a
greater setback may be required. There shall be sufficient access to
permit the maintenance and repair of the shore protection structure.
Page 18 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
8. Excavating, grading, mining, or dredging which diminishes the erosion
protection afforded by near shore area is prohibited, except construction
or maintenance of navigation channels, bypassing sand around natural
and man-made obstructions and artificial beach nourishment in
accordance with the permit requirements of the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
9. Before approval by the Department of any shore protection structure, the
applicant shall obtain a Class B special use permit from the county.
Notice shall be sent to all riparian owners within three hundred (300) feet
of the proposed shore protection structure.
(3) Variances. If none of the above setback requirements can be met, then development of
the subject parcel may only be permitted by a variance granted by the Bayfield County
Board of Adjustment.
(d) Site Planning.
(1) Site Plan Approval Standards. Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection,
any lot on Lake Superior for which new development is proposed shall require a
development site plan that meets the following standards, subject to the review by the
County Planning & Zoning Department:
a. The site plan must minimize disturbance natural habitat;
b. The site plan must demonstrate that erosion and sedimentation shall be
minimized,
c. The site plan must demonstrate compliance with Section 13-1-23 (Shoreland-
Upland Screening, Fencing, and Vegetative Management)
(2) Site Plan Components and Site Plan Content.
a. Individual site plans must incorporate setbacks, bluff stability, past recession
rates, and drainage patterns on a property.
b. Plans must be prepared to scale or dimensions and include the following:
14. All lake shorelines, streams, wetlands, groundwater seeps, springs, soil
types, soil strata and groundwater table at the site; and all existing roads,
driveways, structures, culverts, and other pertinent features on the site or
within one hundred (100) feet of the area of site disturbance.
15. Existing ground contour lines and proposed ground contour lines at five
(5) foot intervals encompassing the area of site disturbance and in the
immediate area of influence of the disturbed areas, e.g. within fifteen (15)
feet.
16. Structural dimensions and onsite materials used
17. Location of the ordinary high water mark
18. Bluff height and stability
19. Rates of erosion and recession
20. Shoreline erosion control plan or structures
21. A grading or fill plan
22. Potential building relocation plans
Page 19 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
23. Location of nearby natural resources such as wetlands, bluffs, dunes
24. On-site wastewater treatment facilities
25. Stormwater management plan
26. Plans for lake access
(3) Expansion of Existing Structures. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply
if the only proposed development is the expansion of an existing structure, except for the
requirement of a storm water management plan
(e) Substandard Lots. Section 13-1-26, pertaining to substandard lots of record, applies to
substandard lots with frontage on Lake Superior.
(f) Nonconforming Structures and Uses.
(1) Structures and/or uses on lots with frontage on Lake Superior that were nonconforming
prior to the adoption of this section on July 26, 2011 are subject to the provisions of
Article I pertaining to nonconforming uses and structures, provided that in addition to
meeting the requirements of that article, an owner applying for a permitted expansion of a
structure that is nonconforming with respect to shoreline setback must submit a shore
protection plan to the Department, including shore protection practices and/or shore
protection structures, that the Department determines to be adequate to protect the
structure from damage due to shoreline erosion for a period of 30 years, based on the
composition of the shoreline, its estimated rate of recession, and other relevant factors.
(2) Structures on lots with frontage on Lake Superior that were conforming prior to the
adoption of this section but do not meet the shoreline setback requirements of this section
are not subject to the provisions of Article I, but an owner applying for an expansion of
such a structure shall be required to submit and implement a storm water management
plan incorporating best management practices and may be required by the Department to
submit a shore protection plan that the Department determines to be adequate to protect
the structure from damage due to shoreline erosion for at least 30 years, if there is a
reasonable probability that the structure would be damaged by shoreline erosion within
such time period without the implementation of a shore protection plan.
(g) Revision of Lake Superior Shoreline Segments and Setbacks. Lake Superior shoreline
segments and setbacks may be revised by amendment of the Lake Superior Shoreline Setback
Table in 13-1-34 (a) pursuant to this provision and in accordance with Section 59.69(5)(e) Wis.
Stats., containing the statutory procedure for amending county zoning ordinances. The petitioner
should be prepared to demonstrate to the Zoning Committee and County Board that an error
does in fact exist with respect to the setback distances stated in the Lake Superior Shoreline
Setback Table.
(h) Coastal Setback Calculator. Calculator and explanatory materials used in determining Lake
Superior shoreline setbacks are available at the County Planning & Zoning Department office.
Miller stated he had a question directed towards Kastrosky, is the 500 square foot
building considered a non occupancy building. Kastrosky stated that there was no
difference it was just 500 square feet or greater that has to meet the safe setback line.
Again that was an arbitrary number. Jardine asked no matter what the building is, it has
to meet the setback and Kastrosky stated that is correct. Furtak stated that structures
with 200 square feet or less maybe our gazebo law might allow them in that setback.
Kastrosky stated that there is another issue if we say 75 feet from the high water mark
and the bluff is 65 feet from the high water mark then there is a structure 10 feet from the
bluff. Rondeau states then you need to incorporate in there that from the green line you
Page 20 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
still need to meet the setbacks. Miller explained that there is a setback for a reason why
allow something with in that setback at all. Kastrosky stated he would like the 200
square foot idea. Furtak stated to say in the language, less than 200 square feet
because that does not require a permit. Jardine asked about the opposition by the town
of Bayfield and Kastrosky stated that Bayfield wanted to table or postpone this and
notify every shoreland owner in the town of Bayfield about this amendment. Jardine
stated this has been going on for 6 years. Kasrtosky explains that he understands but
there is so much flexibility in this plan that it will allow people to do what they would like.
Miller motioned to approve the petition to create the title with the change of the
building size from 500 square feet to 200 square feet or greater. Rantala seconded.
No further discussion. Motion carried.
E. B. Petition to Amend Title 15 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-21, 15-
1-6, AND 15-1-14, CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND
REGARDING COUNTY SANITARY PERMIT FEES IN THE ZONING CODE AND THE
REGULATION OF PRIVIES, PORTABLE RESTROOMS, AND CAMPING UNIT
TRANSFER CONTAINERS BY THE SANITARY AND PRIVATE SEWAGE CODE
Section 1. Section 15-1-14 [Privies and Portable Restrooms.] of Article C [Permits and Applications] of
Chapter 1 [Sanitary and Private Sewage Code] of Title 15 [Sanitary and Private Sewage Code] of the
Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions
highlighted by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature
(deletions):
Sec. 15-1-14 Privies and Portable Restrooms, and Camping Unit Transfer Containers.
(a) Privies and portable restrooms shall be constructed and maintained in a clean condition so that
insects and rodents cannot enter the vault.
(b) Privies *, and portable restrooms, and camping unit transfer containers shall be located at a
minimum horizontal distance of:
- 15 feet from a dwelling(s) (where applicable)
- 5 feet from lot lines, except that where jurisdiction of the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance
is in effect, the setback shall be according to that of an accessory building as expressed
in Section 13-1-60 of that Ordinance
- 50 feet from the water supply wells
- 75 ** feet from a stream, lake or other water course
- 20 feet from the edge of a 20% slope
* Composting composting and incinerating toilets located within the dwelling
served are not required to meet these setbacks.
** Setback setback shall be 100 feet from Class 3 lakes, rivers, and navigable
streams. Class I, II, or III Trout Streams as indicated in the Department of Natural
Resources publication “Wisconsin Trout Streams.”
(c) Applicants wishing to construct a privy shall submit an affidavit stating that their building will be
served by a privy. Indoor plumbing; including water closets, sinks, bathtubs or showers, facilities,
or any other fixture or receptacle receiving domestic waste; shall not be installed until a sanitary
permit for a private sewage system is issued.
(d) Privies shall be kept clean and sanitary.
(e) Portable Restrooms
Page 21 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
(1) A County Sanitary Permit pursuant to Section 15-1-11 and fee will be required to place
portable restrooms.
(2) Portable restrooms may not be used for habitable buildings unless they have a 200 gallon
capacity holding tank.
(3) Portable restrooms may be used at construction sites but must be removed upon completion
of construction. A County Sanitary Permit is not required for portable restrooms located at
construction sites.
(4) Portable restrooms located on property intended to be used by the public in locations to which
the public has access (i.e. boat landings, parks, campgrounds, beaches, resorts, golf
courses, road waysides, scenic overlooks, etc.) may be placed on said property for an
unlimited period with no affidavit required.
(5) Portable restrooms may be used as a means of sanitation for a Recreational Vehicle (RV)
used as a temporary dwelling where no pressurized water is available to the RV. For any
such portable restroom, a servicing contract indicating that the service provider will report
maintenance activities to the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department shall be
submitted with an application for each County Sanitary Permit.
(6) Portable restrooms should meet all required setbacks. The Bayfield County Planning and
Zoning Department will make the final setback location determinations based upon the site
limitations.
(7) Portable restrooms must be pumped or inspected annually and such pumping or inspection is
to be reported to the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department within 30 calendar
days of the pumping or inspection.
(f) Camping Unit Transfer Containers (CUTCs)
(1) A County Sanitary Permit pursuant to Section 15-1-11 and fee will be required to place
CUTCs.
(2) Except in an approved campground or camping resort, CUTCs may be used as a means for
sanitation for a Recreational Vehicle (RV) used as a temporary dwelling where no pressurized
water is available to the RV. For any such CUTC, a servicing contract indicating that the
service provider will report maintenance activities to the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning
Department shall be submitted with an application for each County Sanitary Permit.
(3) CUTCs must be state approved, installed pursuant to product specifications, and shall have a
minimum 200 gallon capacity. Only one (1) CUTC shall be allowed with each RV and the
CUTC shall only serve one (1) RV.
(4) CUTCs must be installed under the RV and meet all required setbacks as described in
Section 15-1-14 (b) CUTCs shall be placed no more than twelve (12) inches horizontally from
the RV body and shall be recessed no more than four (4) inches into the finished grade.
Adequate anchoring to prevent floatation and adequate protection to prevent physical
damage to the CUTC is required. The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department will
make the final setback location determinations based upon the site limitations.
Section 2. Subsection (i) [Nonplumbing Sanitation System.] of Section 15-1-6 [Definitions.] of Article A
[Introduction] of Chapter 1 [Sanitary and Private Sewage Code] of Title 15 [Sanitary and Private Sewage
Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with
Page 22 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out
feature (deletions):
Sec. 15-1-6 Definitions.
The following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
(i) Nonplumbing Sanitation System. Sanitation systems and devices within the scope of Comm
91, Wis. Adm. Code, which are alternatives to water carried waste plumbing fixtures and drain
systems; including, but not limited to, incinerating toilets, composting toilets, and privies, and
camping unit transfer containers.
Section 3. Subsections (bm) [Camping Unit Transfer Container.] and (jm) [Portable Restroom.] of Section
15-1-6 [Definitions.] of Article A [Introduction] of Chapter 1 [Sanitary and Private Sewage Code] of Title 15
[Sanitary and Private Sewage Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin are hereby
created to read as follows:
Sec. 15-1-6 Definitions.
The following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
(bm) Camping Unit Transfer Container. A type of stationary holding tank used to collect and hold
wastewater discharges generated by an individual camping trailer or recreational vehicle that is
not served by water under pressure except in an approved campground or camping resort.
(jm) Portable Restroom. Self-contained portable unit that includes fixtures, incorporating holding
tank facilities, designed to receive human wastes.
Section 4. Subdivision s. [County Sanitary Permit] of Paragraph (1) [Fee Schedule.] of Subsection (e)
[Fees.] of Section 13-1-21 [General Land Use Requirements.] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter
1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions) and
deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-21 General Land Use Requirements.
(e) Fees.
(1) Fee Schedule. Unless otherwise noted, all fees are referenced to estimated Fair Market
Value (FMV) of the structure or land use and shall be interpreted to mean the best reasonable
estimate of the market value of the structure or land use (including labor and material costs)
when construction is completed or the use becomes fully operational. Market value shall not
be affected by virtue of any reduced or donated actual costs for labor or materials.
Municipalities are subject to all applicable fees. When a permit has been denied any portion
of a fee (other than an application fee) paid over Fifty Dollars ($50.00) shall be returned.
Required fees are as follows:
s. Privy Permit (not including required soil verification) $ 150.00
s. County Sanitary Permit* (not including required soil verification for a pit privy)
1 …………………………………………… $150.00
2-5 ………………………………………… $300.00
6-9 ………………………………………… $450.00
10+ ………………………………………… $600.00
Portable Restroom ………………………… $ 50.00
Page 23 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
(*Cost applies to the initial or first phase of development. Subsequent
phases must start over with fee schedule.)
Jardine motioned to approve the petition to amend title 13 & 15, Rantala
seconded. Casina asked that portable restrooms be used in short term, less than 10
days, without a permit. Rondeau asked if that was ok to add to the motion to approve.
Jardine & Rantala approved. No further discussion. Motion carried.
F. C. Petition to Amend Title 13 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-61
AND 13-1-60, CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN AND
REGARDING ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE ZONING CODE
Section 1. Subsection (km) of Section 13-1-61 [Zoning Districts.] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter
1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
created to read as follows:
Sec. 13-1-61 Zoning Districts.
(km) M Municipal and Institutional. This district is designed to encompass lands for libraries,
ballparks, housing authorities, buildings housing municipal units of government, schools, or
other uses that are principally of an institutional, educational, or governmental nature and that
serve a public need.
Section 2. Subsection (a) of Section 13-1-60 [Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.] of Article D
[Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double
underline feature (additions) and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions):
Sec. 13-1-60 Zoning District Dimensional Requirements.
(c) Subject to subsections (b) through (h), Zoning District Dimensional Requirements for lots shall be
as follows (provided that for lots with lake frontage or adjoining or including river or streams, any
more restrictive applicable requirements in Sec. 13-1-32 shall apply instead):
Minimum
Average
Width for
Minimum Side
& Rear Yards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Area
Non-Shoreland
Lots Only
Principal
Building
Accessory
Building
R-RB, R-1 30,000 sq. ft. 150’ 10’ 10’
F-1, R-2, A-1 4 ½ acres 300’ 75’ 30’
R-3 2 acres 200’ 20’ 20’
F-2, A-2 35 acres 1,200’ 75’ 30’
I, C* 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 5’ 5’
M 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
R-4
(a) Sewer/water 10,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(b) Sewer only 15,000 sq. ft. 75’ 10’ 10’
(c) Water only 20,000 sq. ft. 100’ 10’ 10’
For Setback Requirements see Section 13-1-22.
Page 24 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
Lots must have legal access from public roads and comply with Article C, Section 14-1-40 Survey
and Recording Requirements.
Rantala motioned to approve. Miller Seconded. Kastrosky stated that this is time
sensitive and if approved with no changes tonight it can go on county boards agenda for
next Tuesday. No further discussion. Motion approved.
G. D. Michael Milward (Hughes) – electric wind generator (40’ to 60’) [18 acre parcel ID
# 04-022-2-47-09-19-203-000-20000 described as SW ¼ of NW 1/4 S of DSS & A PR IN
V. 411 P. 393 448 Township 47N, Range 9W, Town of Hughes, Bayfield County,
Wisconsin]
Michael Milward came forward to speak in favor and stated that he wants to put up a
wind generated and the blades won’t be more than 40 or 50 feet high. Miller asked if
there was a collapse radius around that. Kastrosky stated not on a private wind facility.
Furtak stated this is in the Town of Hughes and that question was asked at the meeting
and Milwards cabin is in the middle of a parcel on a dead end road. Milward stated this
is correct and there is no other structure within a half mile or more. Miller asked if this
shows that the tower will be within 50 feet of the lot line. Milward stated it is within 50
feet of the road. Casina said that it only has to be 63 feet from the center of the road and
30 feet from the lot line because it is an accessory structure. This property is surrounded
by Bayfield County forest. Brule state forest across the road so there are no developed
parcels within the area 2,500 radial feet. Kastrosky asked Milward if it would be a big
deal if he had to move it 13 feet more away from the road and Milward stated no. That
way the fall zone would be on his property.
Jardine motioned to approve the wind tower with the addition that it is moved 63
feet away from the road right of way, plus 33 feet from property line for a total of 96 feet
from the center of the road. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
H. E. Jack Smith/Mary Agostine (Clover) – home based business (curio/souvenir
shop) [.06 acre parcel ID# 04-014-2-50-07-08-100-322-08000 described as NW ¼ of NE
¼ Section 8, Township 50N, Range 7W, Town of Clover, Govt. lot 3 subdivision Robert
Bartlett Jr 2nd ADD to orchard city part of lot 3 W of Lenawee Rd in V. 929 P. 903,
Bayfield County, Wisconsin]
Mary Agostine came forward to speak in favor and stated that she would like the
permission to open small studio on her property. It would be located in a little building
that they moved to property and used as storage.
Miller motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky stated that the town
board has not met on this issue and the planned commission has not met either. Miller
amended motion that it is contingent on Town Board approval and it meets the
comprehensive plan. Rondeau asked Rantala if that was ok with her second and she
stated yes. Jardine asked about the opposition letter from Jim Sislo. Jack Smith came
forward to address the opposition from Jim Sislo he stated that Sislo wrote a letter
stating that he was not in favor because he felt he owned that property. Smith met with
Sislo and measured property lines. Smith also came to the court house and went
through deeds for the property. Smith owns lot 3 where the studio is located. He wrote
Sislo a letter stating that he owns lot 3. Smith and Sislo went and measured the stakes
Page 25 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
from when the surveys where at the property and they line up with what the deed states.
Casina stated that there is a permit for the structure but it has not been approved yet
since it was originally used as storage and is waiting on approval from the special use
permit. Kastrosky stated that the building needs to meet setbacks to be approved.
Smith stated the stakes are there for measurement. Kastrosky stated that there is also
a sign that goes with the permit. Miller asked how big the sign is and Smith states it is
approximately 2 feet by 32 inches. Rondeau asked if there is any other discussion on
the motion. No further discussion. Motion carried.
REVISED MOTION (9/15/2011 ZC Meeting)
Maki motioned to re-approve with the Town Board’s condition(s). Rantala
seconded. No further discussion. Motion Carried. 4/0
I. F. Clark Olson (Barksdale) – home based business (gunsmithing – sale of firearm
& ammunition sales) [32 acre parcel ID# 04-050-2-48-05-08-202-000-10000 described
as NW ¼ of NW ¼ of section 8, township 48N, range 5W, town of Barksdale V. 738 P.
221 Bayfield County, Wisconsin]
Withdrawn
J. G. Discussion of Possible Action regarding NR 115
Kastrosky stated as of last week there are notices going out that there is a public
hearing meeting in Minocqua pertaining to NR 115.
No further discussion.
K. H. Discussion and Possible Action on comprehensive planning
Kastrosky stated that the books are printed and there are 8 towns that need to still
adopt the plan. Letters and plans went out Monday and received one call from Oulu.
No further discussion.
L. I. Discussion and Possible Action regarding structures in an F-2 zoning district
Kastrosky does not know where this is going to go. The board needs to come up with a
policy on buildings in F-2 zone. There was a request for a warming shack in an F-2 zone.
This Committee denied it and they came back with a rezone. Instead of sending people
down the wrong path it would be nice to have a clear direction whether it be an
ordinance amendment or some guidance for us on how to proceed. Rondeau
remembers that a while back hunting shacks were allowed but then they were phased
out. Furtak stated that a month ago he looked through the ordinance and it doesn’t
address buildings for recreational use on F-2 zoning. Committee does not want to allow
buildings. The next move was to come to zoning to rezone and then these buildings
would be allowed within that rezone area. Miller asked how much land they want to
rezone, the whole 40 acres. Furtak stated no just a few acres but he needs minutes from
the committee stating that Ned Zouwlsdorf can act as an agent to rezone a piece of
County land. The County needs something from the Forestry Committee saying he is
authorized. Kastrosky states that a way side rest is allowed in forestry zone. Furtak
states that this amendment was adopted in the 70’s and since then, county land has
Page 26 of 26 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 20, 2010 July 21, 2011
been shifted to recreational use. Now they are applying for a rezone and the Forestry
Committee needs to authorize him to act as an agent. That is the problem we have now.
There is wording that no one can have a habitable structure in an F-2 zone. Miller states
he cannot rezone this property because he does not own it. If he is authorized he can
apply to rezone. Rondeau states that this needs to be withheld from the next meeting.
No further discussion.
M. J. Discussion and Possible Action regarding county policy(s) on permitting
Kastrosky said based on new case that zoning does not want to be issuing permit
where they are not supposed too. Furtak states that the county board needs to discuss it
some more for a defined period of time on any building on a railroad right of way until the
issue is settled. Rondeau stated they are going to pass a resolution.
No further discussion.
N. K. Report on compliance issues
Kastrosky noted he didn’t have a chance to put together a report but the database is put
together and the compliance is better than anticipated.
No further discussion.
11. Monthly Report
Kastrosky stated that they are $500 short from last year. Miller motioned to receive and
place on file the monthly report. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
No further discussion.
12. Budget and Revenue
Kastrosky commented next month.
13. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:30pm.
Prepared by KMH on July 25, 2011
Approved by KLK on July 28, 2011
Final Approval on August 24, 2011
2nd Final Approval on September 15, 2011
Revised Approval on October 20, 2011
k/zc/minutes/2011/#7July