HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 10/20/2011Page 1 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
“REVISED” (11/18/11-9:07am)
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
October 20, 2011
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 1:04 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau – all present.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina-AZA, Deb Kmetz - Office
Manager, and Krystal Hagstrom – Clerk. Mike Furtak-AZA, absent - arrived at 1:15pm.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the September 26th and
September 29th 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.
5. Public Hearing:
A. Plum Creek Timbers, Inc, Owner and Richard Forsythe, Mathy Construction Co,
agent (Barnes) – Reclamation Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-004-2-44-09-21-1-04-000-
10000), described as SE ¼ of the NE ¼ , Section 21, Township 44 North, Range 9 West,
Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
John Humburg spoke in support on behave of Rick Forsythe, saying they would like to
keep the gravel pit in operation to provide gravel for local communities.
Gordon Lund spoke in opposition stating having been involved with this since 2006 he
was aware of the plan that the statute requirements were for a $8,000 dollar proposal.
Lund lives downwind from the pit and he thinks $8,000 is not enough to restore the
damage that is done to the property. He hopes that the new plan will take into account
the size of this project.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there is a memo from Ben Dufford, the Bayfield County
Conservationist, stating the reclamation plan was approved on October 13, 2011 and
contingent upon financial insurance. Kastrosky also stated that the Zoning office
requires x amount of dollars per acre for bond insurance. Also on an annual basis the
applicant pays a fee on every unclaimed acre, more of the pit that stays unclaimed the
more it costs.
Discussion ended.
B. Plum Creek Timbers, Inc, Owner and Richard Forsythe, Mathy Construction Co,
agent (Barnes) – Non-metallic Mine [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-004-2-44-09-21-1-04-000-
10000), described as SE ¼ of the NE ¼ , Section 21, Township 44 North, Range 9 West,
Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Page 2 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
John Humburg spoke in support; on behalf of Rick Forsythe stating there has been a
lot of work done at the site and asks that the board renew the permit. Berms were
constructed and the floor of the quarry was lowered. Water retention ponds were
constructed for no water runoff. Jardine asked what length of time they want the permit
for, Humburg answered 5 years, with re-evaluation after 5 years.
Gordon Lund spoke in opposition, reading a letter he wrote to the Committee, as one of
the petitioners that spoke in 2006 to the BOA for reconsideration of the issuance of the
gravel permit. He lives directly downwind from the gravel pit and has suffered from air
pollution, he has been awakened at five am in the morning with lengthy operations, and
he thinks that property value has declined since the pit has opened. He also thinks that
there is pollution to the lakes. Lund asks for shorter hours of operation and 5 days a
week or termination of the permit. Miller asked where his house was in relation to the pit.
Lund is a few hundred yards away from the area that requires notification and he did not
know this was coming. He is about a mile from the pit.
Andy Knutsen, spoke in opposition, he lives in Barnes and is a half mile from the pit.
The Conditional Use Permit that was issued in 2006, stated that Mathy Construction
needed gravel for the resurfacing of Highway 27, that project is complete now. Second,
there was a lack of opposition in 2006 from this committee and most of the towns’ people
do not live in notification distance and found out about the pit only when there was a road
constructed to the pit and signs were displayed. Third, there is dust in houses now that
was never there before, and people are woken up early with the blasting and crushing.
Lastly, having a gravel pit in an area, where there is no other industry is damaging.
Properties are devalued, and it is ruining the beautiful area. Jardine asked where
Knutsen lived in relation to the pit and showed him a map. Knutsen answered that he is
2 sections away and Miller stated that is 2 miles away. Knutsen again stated that there
is dust in his house which was never there before, the smell of asphalt burns your lungs,
and he has to close windows in his house and can still hear the noise from the pit.
Jardine explained that crushing usually only lasts two weeks then they are done. There
are also conditions that could be placed on the permit. Knutsen responded that he didn’t
know conditions could be placed on the permit, and if that is an option, can the
committee limit the hours of operation.
Carol LeBreck spoke in opposition stating she is speaking in behalf of the process, and
the Towns’ process, and the amount of deliberation that went on leading up to the
recommendations that have come to the committee. She is speaking with appreciation
for the Towns deliberation and desires of this request.
Jeanne Riese spoke about two concerns she had, one being she owns a lot on Upper
Eau Claire Lake. Her late husband bought the property, but if he would have known a
gravel pit was going in close to the property, he never would have purchased it. She also
stated that if there are additional rules that can be placed on this operation, she would
have liked to know when crushing was going to occur, her husband was very sick and
could not tolerate such noises, so they would have had to move.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there is a memo from Gordy Lund speaking in
opposition. There is an email from Robert Maley speaking in opposition and another
from Weesa Hild, and Stephen Wilbers. The Town approved this and stated it was
compatible with the Town’s plan, and asked that Forsythe take into consideration that
the hours of operation will be from 6:30 to 6:30, 5 days a week, and a 5 year limit. As far
as the asphalt plant, that is a BOA case, we as a Zoning Committee do not have the
Page 3 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
authority to grant that. Maki asked John Humburg and Eric Bry (with Mathy
Construction) how many days in the last 5 years have they been in there crushing and
they both responded with twice. They crushed for the highway project which took a little
longer than normal. The asphalt plant was there for 2 months and moved out after
Highway 27 was complete. Maki also asked if there is blasting going on there. Humburg
stated yes to open up the quarry they have to blast. They try to control the vibration with
the amount of dynamite and configuration of the holes drilled. They are blasting rock.
This is a good site; it has sand, gravel, and rock all in one place. This last year the whole
site has been dormant. Initionaly in 2006 there was a lot of blasting to get the quarry
started, now at the moment there is not much activity there. Maki asked what the coming
year will look like for them. Humburg stated not much activity unless County Highway N
needs to be done or a section of Highway 27 on the North end towards Brule. Jardine
asked if they follow the reclamation plan as they go and the response was yes. Miller
asked if the intent is to put the black top plant at the pit. Humburg stated they would like
the option. As far as the employees he does not think any are from Barnes, but most are
from Iron River, Superior area. Maki asked if they could go in earlier in the year to crush
if need be and Bry responded this depends on the biding of the project. Humburg stated
that when they go into to crush, they crush enough material to last 3 years. Stock piles
are put up and there is still on there at the moment that has not been used.
Discussion ended.
C. Nancy Kelley (LE), Merlena Kelly Amy, owners and Robert Jewell, Kraemer
Company, LLC, agent (Cable) – Reclamation Plan [39–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-
08-25-3-01-000-10000), described as NE ¼ of the SW ¼ in V.1025 P.478 , Section 25,
Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Robert Jewell spoke in support, stating he is from Kraemer Co. and is the one that put
together the reclamation plan. Ben Dufford, Bayfield County Conservationist reviewed
that plan and stated to Jewell that it met all the requirements. There was one change to
map #9. The slopes were 3:1 and are now 2:1 slopes, and then there will be an
engineering analysis done to ensure they are stable. This plan is based on how many
open acres there are and for each active acre it is $1,388/acre and out of the 39 acres
they can mine 34 so the total amount of the bond for this plan would be $48,000.
File Report: Kastrosky asked that when the mine is exhausted what will they see.
Jewell explained the end result would be to reforest the land. That means planting
spruce trees. Furtak asked what the plan is for the top soil that is currently there. Jewell
stated that top soil may have to be used for the binder in the gravel. They feel that they
can re-vegetate and plant trees even if it is on a more sandy soil than what was originally
there. Kastrosky also stated, that in the file, is approval from Ben Dufford, County
Conservationist, on October 3, 2011. Miller asked where the pit is located. Furtak
responded it is one, forty off the Highway. Jewell stated it is in section 25 and it is 1,320
feet, which is the width of a forty, off of Highway 63.
Discussion ended.
D. Nancy Kelley (LE), Merlena Kelly Amy, owners and Robert Jewell, Kraemer
Company, LLC, agent (Cable) – Non-metallic Mine [39–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-
08-25-3-01-000-10000), described as NE ¼ of the SW ¼ in V.1025 P.478 , Section 25,
Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Page 4 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Robert Jewell spoke in support, stating he is seeking approval for a sand and gravel pit.
This area is a glacially deposited sand and gravel site. Access will be off of Highway 63,
there is a driveway that already exists, but they would improve it to a type C driveway
which allows larger radius for bigger trucks. This gravel pit will be internally draining so
there should be no water running off from the site. They also have air quality permits for
the site. There will be spray bars on the crushers to try and eliminate the dust. Maki
asked if there will be an asphalt plant in there and Jewell stated that if it came to that,
they would come back for a permit. Kastrosky said that if the asphalt plant is not stated
in the original application then yes, they would have to come back for another permit.
Jewell went on to say the Town Board approved this pit with conditions, a 10 year limit,
and 30 day notification requests if to operate on a Saturday, hours of operation from 6 to
7 Monday through Friday.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the Town Board approved this request with conditions.
Duration was not noted from the Town Board.
Discussion ended.
E. A petition by James Krueger, Supervisor Town of Namakagon (Namakagon) –
Request a text amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 13-1-67 Town of Namakagon Overlay District
(a) Applicability. 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.
(d) Part of the Purpose and Intent of the Town of Namakagon Overlay shall be
achieved by restricting all mobile homes to mobile home parks in the Town of
Namakagon. Mobile homes in the Town of Namakagon shall also be subject to
the following requirements:
(1) Limiting mobile homes to licensed mobile home parks.
(2) All licensed mobile home parks must be a minimum of 6 acres.
All other county ordinance rules regarding mobile homes will be enforced.
File Report: Kastrosky explained Town of Namakagon has developed an overlay
district to identify specific issues that are important to the Town. They want to add to the
overlay stating that mobile homes cannot be placed on properties that are not in a
licensed mobile home park. There was a permit that was issued to place a mobile home
not in a mobile home park, not knowing there was an ordinance in place. To avoid
Page 5 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
confusion in the future for any land owner, that wants to place a mobile home on a
property not in a mobile home park, this request will not be allowed. Miller asked if
Kastrosky would define mobile home. Kastrosky answered, a self contained unit
exceeding 45 feet in length that is designed to be transported on wheels and is used for
seasonal or permanent occupancy. Bill Bussey stated that this is pretty restrictive and
asked if there was any legal input in this issue. Kastrosky stated that he suggested that,
before Namakagon proceeded. Furtak stated the information that was relayed to him
was, initially Namakagon only wanted this applied to shoreland zones and they were
advised not to do that, it should be Town wide. Kastrosky stated that in a village overlay
like Iron River, you are not permitted to have a mobile home anywhere but in a mobile
home park. Rantala asked if there is an available mobile home parks in Namakagon and
Kastrosky answered yes. Furtak corrected him saying that there is but it may not have
any openings. Maki said under item #3 it states all other county rules regarding mobile
homes will be enforced, and then asked, well if you can’t put a mobile home there where
can you put one. How restrictive are we going to be and where are we going with this?
Not everyone can build a $200,000 dollar house.
Discussion ended.
F. Pamela Barningham (Bayfield) – Condition Use Permit, Mobile home as a second
residence on a parcel that cannot be subdivided [5–acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-04-
15-2-02-000-30000), described as S 5 acres of the W ½ of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ ,
Section 15, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Casina explained this is a parcel less than 5 acres that is zoned Ag-1 and it cannot be
subdivided. The owner would like to put a mobile home and have 2 residences on one
parcel. There were 2 residences there at one point in time. There are two septic systems
that have been inspected. Miller asked what the purpose for the second residence is,
Casina stated for family members and there is Town Board approval. Rantala asked
how long do the permits last, say the home burns down, can they rebuild. Kastrosky
stated that it could be replaced if burnt down unless there is a condition placed on the
permit.
Carol LeBreck spoke expressing a concern that there has to be some type of
consistency with second residences on a parcel that cannot be subdivided. She would
like the committee to look at the wording in section 13-1-33 multiple structures. There is
no consistency in the way these issues are dealt with. If there is a shoreland lot that is
175 feet and someone is asking to put a second residence on that lot there is no need to
get a Conditional Use Permit and she is suggesting there be some type of consistency in
the way this is written. Furtak stated that the issue is whether or not the lot can be
subdivided and this lot cannot be subdivided, so they need a Conditional Use Permit. In
other cases one could subdivide the lot if need be, but only one of the lots would have
shoreland frontage.
No one spoke in support or opposition.
File Report: Kastrosky stated this is not for a mobile home this is for a second
residence on a parcel and this can only be done by a Conditional Use Permit. Town
Board approved this request and that is compatible with the Town Comprehensive Plan,
but stated that they discourage two residences on a parcel but this issue is ok since it
had an existing use.
Page 6 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Discussion ended.
G. Petition to Repeal and Recreate Floodplain Ordinance (Title 13-2) (See Exhibit A)
Kastrosky explained that Dave Cook from the DNR in Green Bay helped our
department with the new flood plain map. Our existing maps were done in 1977. There is
new imagery with two foot contours from LIDAR. The Zoning department, FEMA, and the
DNR have created new flood plain maps. They are much more accurate. This should
clear up issues if people are in a flood plain. The old maps show there are 804 buildings
in the flood plain, the new maps indicate there are 622 buildings that were taken out of
the flood plain. There are still 299 buildings in the flood plain and 117 are in the new
flood plain. Bussey asked that only the people that are refinancing or buying only need
flood insurance. Kastrosky stated yes. Bayfield County has to comply with the
ordinance amendment and adopt the new map by December 16th. Furtak stated in
addition to the new maps and the new floodplain ordinance the County also has to adopt
the new dam study and wave run up studies. Kastrosky stated they are already in the
new ordinance. Miller asked if all the home owners are notified and Kastrosky stated
no, the department does not have the time or the resources to notify everyone. Maki
asked if all the new buildings in the flood plain, have they been notified and if not can
they be notified. Again Kastrosky stated they have not been notified. Miller and Maki
feel as though they should be notified. Scott Galetka stated that this map is available to
the public online. Miller made a point that the department can send out a card about
septic tanks but not a card notifying these people are not in the flood plain anymore.
Galetka stated that on some of these buildings the flood plain just touches the corner of
the building so would they be considered in or out of the flood plain. Rondeau stated this
issue about notifying people can be discussed in the business part of the meeting.
File Report: Kastrosky stated that there are some strike outs and red lettering on the
ordinance. Everything with a line through it is taken out. The red text is an addition.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Miller made a motion to adjourn, Rantala seconded. Motion carried 4/0.
Adjourned at 2:30 pm.
Maki called for recess at 2:30 pm. Reconvened at 2:38 pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 2:38 pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau –all present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA, Deb
Kmetz – Office Manager, and Krystal Hagstrom - Clerk.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated there are corrections to the minutes
from the July meeting.
Jardine motioned to approve the additions and corrections, Rantala seconded.
No further discussion. Motion carried.
Page 7 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Rondeau then stated the second set of minutes is corrections from the August meeting.
Miller motioned to approve with additions and corrections. Rantala seconded.
No further discussion. Motion carried.
Rondeau stated the minutes are from the September 15, 2011 meeting.
Jardine motioned to approve, Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
10. Business:
A. Plum Creek Timbers, Inc, Owner and Richard Forsythe, Mathy Construction Co,
agent (Barnes) – Reclamation Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-004-2-44-09-21-1-04-000-
10000), described as SE ¼ of the NE ¼ , Section 21, Township 44 North, Range 9 West,
Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Kastrosky stated that in the ordinance under the conditional use permit there is 11
points of decision making factors for the committee to consider and please consider
these 11 points in the decision making process.
Maki motioned to approve the reclamation plan. Rantala seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
B. Plum Creek Timbers, Inc, Owner and Richard Forsythe, Mathy Construction Co,
agent (Barnes) – Non-metallic Mine [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-004-2-44-09-21-1-04-000-
10000), described as SE ¼ of the NE ¼ , Section 21, Township 44 North, Range 9 West,
Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine stated the Town Board approved this Conditional Use and has gone through the
plan, and the board wants to limit the time to Monday through Friday 6:30 am – 6:30 pm
for 5 years without a new permit to be used, just for the sand and gravel pit. Rondeau
stated that if a hot mix asphalt plant were to be added they would have to come back for
another permit. Kastrosky stated asphalt plants are not allowed in Forestry-2 districts.
The applicant appealed to the Board of Adjustments for a use variance and it was
granted. If the asphalt plant is to go back in, this request has to go back to the Board of
Adjustments. Miller said that the hours of operation should be more restrictive. Jardine
opposed and stated that the applicant would like to get it done within two weeks, get it
over with. Kastrosky asked if the applicant have any concerns or issues with the Towns
recommendations. Bry agreed with Jardine that there are long hours of operation and
when they do go in to crush they would like to crush all at once instead of having to
come in a second time. Longer hours to allow them to get projects done in a shorter time
frame, from a calendar perspective, the more you restrict our hours, the longer we will be
there. Miller understands but states they pit is located in a more residential type area
and does not think it would be inappropriate to restrict the hours a little. Kastrosky
asked if 5 days a week would be a problem and Bry stated they would like to have the
option to ask permission to run on a Saturday if need be, but would be ok with it either
way.
Jardine motioned to approve the gravel pit with, operations from 6:30 am to 6:30
pm, Monday through Friday, for 5 years. Rantala seconded.
Page 8 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Miller stated he was not trying to restrict the hours of operation but merely trying to
restrict the hours of crushing. Rantala agrees. Rondeau asked Bry how long they plan
on crushing in a summer, and Bry explained it depends on the size of the project but
from experiences in the past, typically one time per season.
Rondeau stated there is a motion on the floor, Approved – 1, Jardine. Opposed
– 3, Rantala, Miller, and Maki. Motion Failed.
Miller stated to the applicant if they go in and crush for two weeks, do they then
move to another pit. It is not a big urgency to get in and get out. Hours on crushing need
to be limited for the people along the lake.
Miller motioned to approve the gravel pit with original conditions but limit
crushing from 7 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Maki seconded. No further
discussion. Approved – 3, Miller, Maki, and Rantala, opposed – 1, Jardine. Motion
carried.
C. Nancy Kelley (LE), Merlena Kelly Amy, owners and Robert Jewell, Kraemer
Company, LLC, agent (Cable) – Reclamation Plan [39–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-
08-25-3-01-000-10000), described as NE ¼ of the SW ¼ in V.1025 P.478 , Section 25,
Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Rantala motioned to approve the reclamation plan. Miller seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
D. Nancy Kelley (LE), Merlena Kelly Amy, owners and Robert Jewell, Kraemer
Company, LLC, agent (Cable) – Non-metallic Mine [39–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-
08-25-3-01-000-10000), described as NE ¼ of the SW ¼ in V.1025 P.478 , Section 25,
Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Miller motioned to approve the gravel pit with the Town’s restrictions. Kastrosky
stated the restrictions are as follows; hours of operation are 6 am to 7 pm Monday
through Friday. Notification of occasional requests on Saturday that the applicant give a
30 day notice to the Town of Cable when crushing operation will be done and to include
the berming on the West and North West side of the mining site, and a 10 year duration.
Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
E. A petition by James Krueger, Supervisor Town of Namakagon (Namakagon) –
Request a text amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 13-1-67 Town of Namakagon Overlay District
(a) Applicability. 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
Page 9 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
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.
(d) Part of the Purpose and Intent of the Town of Namakagon Overlay shall be
achieved by restricting all mobile homes to mobile home parks in the Town of
Namakagon. Mobile homes in the Town of Namakagon shall also be subject to
the following requirements:
(1) Limiting mobile homes to licensed mobile home parks.
(2) All licensed mobile home parks must be a minimum of 6 acres.
All other county ordinance rules regarding mobile homes will be enforced.
Miller motioned to deny the text amendment. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky
asked the reason for denial. Rantala stated that if someone owns property and can’t
afford to build an expensive home they should be allowed to put a mobile home on their
property whether it is Namakagon, Bell, or Tripp. Maki also stated if someone owns 40
acres they should be allowed to place whatever they want on the property. It is pretty
restrictive to who has the money and who does not. Miller also states the amendment is
too restrictive. No further discussion. Motion carried.
F. Pamela Barningham (Bayfield) – Condition Use Permit, Mobile home as a second
residence on a parcel that cannot be subdivided [5–acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-04-
15-2-02-000-30000), described as S 5 acres of the W ½ of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ ,
Section 15, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Maki motioned to approve, with the condition that this permit pertains to only the
property owner, if sold the new owner has to reapply for a permit. Jardine seconded. No
further discussion. Motion carried.
G. Petition to Repeal and Recreate Floodplain Ordinance (Title 13-2) (See Exhibit A)
Rondeau stated this would be the time to decide whether or not to notify people if they
are in or out of the flood plain. Bussey stated Galetka indicated that the determination of
who is in and who is out is not absolutely accurate. The department should be real
careful on the wording used to notify people. Miller stated a notification would state the
home owner may or may not be in or out of the flood plain and who to contact.
Miller motioned to approve with addition that Zoning notify people. Jardine
seconded. Kastosky asked Galetka to come up with an Excel spreadsheet of people
and addresses that may or may not be in the flood plain. Zoning would draft the post
card or letter. Any concerns would be forwarded to the Land Records Department. No
further discussion. Motion carried.
11. Previous Business:
H. Jean Louise Funk/Craig Manthey (Namakagon) – 3 unit short-term rentals (tabled
9/15/11) [2.8–acre parcel (ID# 04-034-2-43-06-14-3-05-001-10000), described as a parcel
in Gov't Lot 1, V. 907 P.441, Section 14, Township 43 North, Range 6 West, Town of
Page 10 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Namakagon, Bayfield County, WI]
Furtak stated this short term rental is at the Garmisch Resort. The Town tabled it since
they did not know where the rentals were going to be; the Town reheard this issue and
determined they can rent out half the house and 2 apartments. The Town approved it
this time around. There is a gentleman that lives in half the house and Jean Funk
granted him rights to live in that half the house for an undetermined amount of time.
Maki motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky stated the Zoning
Department is improving the working relations with the Health Department and
occupancy limits are going to be set on these short term rentals in the future. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
12. New Business:
Agenda Review and Alteration
I. Merlyn & Anne Marie Coy (Tripp) – dog kennel (up to 35 dogs) [10-acre parcel (ID#
04-048-2-48-08-11-2-04-000-10000) described as the SW of the SE ¼ of the NW 1/4 ,
Section 11, Township 48 North, Range 8 West, Town of Tripp, Bayfield County, WI].
Jardine motioned to table. Rantala seconded. Miller asked who requested to
table, the town, or the applicants and Jardine answered with, the Town. Rondeau then
stated there is a motion and a second on the floor to table and there is no discussion on a
table. Kastrosky stated the applicant is in the audience and asked the Committee if they
would like to hear from her, since he knew the Town tabled this item he indicated that it
could be pulled from the agenda or Coy could come to the meeting and hopefully give the
Committee some insight. Bussey stated the rules could be suspended and there could be
a discussion on the table, the Committee agreed. Rondeau stated they have to fail the
motion that is in the floor first. Approved – 1, Jardine, Opposed – 3, Miller, Rantala, and
Maki. Motion Failed.
Anne Marie Coy came forth to speak in support, stating at the moment her and her
husband have a few retired dogs and a litter of puppies. They would like to be able to
keep the puppies to be able to keep running dogs until the retired dogs pass on. Coy
changed her mind on the number of dogs stating it was just a number they decided on
incase they wanted to run the Iditarod one day, but would be ok with 20-25 at most. Miller
asked where the closest neighbor is and Coy responded about a quarter mile away, and
that neighbor came with her today to submit a letter to the committee. Behind that
neighbor’s property, there is a hunting property. These people only come up to hunt. On
the other side of her property is a vacant 30 acre parcel and Fish Hatchery land. Miller
asked how many acres she owns and Coy stated 10 acres. Maki asked if there is any
other opposition to the kennel and Coy stated there is a letter from the neighbors with the
hunting cabin (letter in packets for committee) Coy talked to him and his brother before
she even applied for the permit and they told her there was no problem, that is why the
letter was a shock to Coy. Miller asked Kastrosky what the threshold of dogs is and
Kastrosky responded with fewer than 12 excluding dogs under 5 months of age. Coy
explained the reason why she thinks the Town tabled this item is because the closest
neighbor was out of town at the time of the meeting. Miller asked if the Committee tabled
this issue would Coy have to pay a fee again, and if she has pups now, she will be in
violation shortly. Coy stated she applied for this in August. Rantala asked if there is a
Page 11 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
place the pups can go. Coy stated she would like to keep all the pups for future use and
the retired dogs she does not feel it appropriate to find homes for a 12 year old and a 14
year old dog that will pass on shortly. Kastrosky suggested putting the town on notice
that the committee will table and hear this issue again next month.
Miller motioned to postpone to next meeting. Rantala seconded. Mary
McFarland came forth and stated she is the closest neighbor to the Coy’s. She is a
quarter mile away. She was out of town at the time of the Town’s meeting. She approves
of the kennel, the Coy’s are responsible and the dogs are friendly and not loud.
McFarland submitted a letter to the Committee stating her approval. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
J. Jeanne Riese (Barnes) – home-based business (interior decorating/artisan
products & services, retail sales, photography, art classes, & related activities) on a
[.604-acre parcel (ID#04-004-2-44-09-03-3-05-004-11000), described as a Par In Govt.
Lot 4, Section 3, Township 44N, Range 9W, In V.949 P.810, Town of Barnes, Bayfield
County, WI.]
Jeanne Risese came forward and stated that she has in extensive knowledge in
business and a passion for art. In 2006 her and her late husband bought the property in
question. They replaced the septic system and started removing other eye sores on the
property. In 2007 the garage was built, with a Bayfield County Land Use Permit, and it
has a loft intended to use as an art studio. In 2008 she attended Savannah College of Art
and Design full time for interior design. Since her mother and husband died last year she
started making and created pieces of art work that evolved into retail sales. People have
asked her to teach classes and she has decided this would be a place to gather and to do
art work. There is a question about the property and the shared driveway. If the
application is approved, and she has to interact with customers at the property she will
apply for a sign permit and place a sign for directions on where to go and where to park.
She looks forward to continue to work and live in this area with her background in
business and passion for art.
Miller motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky stated it is
compatible with the Town’s plan, and there is a condition stating the board stipulates this
Special Use Permit be removed if land is sold. Miller stated that his motion includes the
Town Board’s conditions Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
K. Bayfield County (Cable) – wayside rest area (privy & warming / storage bldg) on a
[40-acre parcel (ID#04-012-2-43-07-32-4 01-000-1000), described as the SE ¼ , Section
32, Township 43N, Range 07W, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI.]
Ned came forth and stated the Town approved it and the plan commission approved it.
Jardine motioned to approve and that it be handicap accessible. Maki
seconded. Miller asked what falls into the classification of handicapped accessible. Ned
stated that one stall could be handicapped and concert pad be poured by the door for a
wheel chair. Approved – 1, Jardine, opposed – 3. Motion Failed.
Miller motioned to Approve. Maki Seconded. Kastrosky stated the Town of
Cable reviewed and approved based on compatibility with Town Comprehensive plan
and that it is consistent. No further discussion. Motion carried.
Page 12 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
13. Other Business:
L. Discussion regarding rezone of Craig Gilbaugh and timeline on Tom Gordon’s
permit for deck addition
Maki stated he had this item put on the agenda, since he received calls from both these
people. Gilbaugh paid for his permits and decided not to build his house the same year
he applied for the permits. Are fees going to be charged if people cannot build because
of economics, Maki explained Gordon’s permit took 30 days to be issued? Kastrosky
stated there are no refunds after one year upon issued permits and no refunds on
special requests after agenda deadlines. Applicants seeking refunds for fees for unused
permits shall submit a request to the zoning administrated within one year, nothing from
Gilbaugh was received. Once the permit is issued there is no refund. If the permit is
denied applicants get everything back but $50. His permit came in, in May 2007. It was
issued in June of 2007, he never built. Gilbaugh reapplied in September of 2011, 4 years
later, there is no refund. On September 22, 2011 the applicant called the office and
asked the permit to be put on hold, possibly till 2012. Fees were receipted prior to
calling. Maki asked when he first applied he paid for a land use permit and built a
garage. Now he is being charged again. Kastrosky stated yes it is another permit. Maki
asked about Gordon’s permit for a deck that took 30 days to issue. Kastrosky stated the
application was received on August 8th went to the inspector on the 9th, inspection was
done August 29th, and the permit was issued on the 30th. In between there Casina was
on vacation for 10 days and 80 permits were to be issued prior to Gordon’s. Maki stated
this is for a deck; it took too long to issue. Kastrosky states we take them in the order
they come.
No further discussion.
M. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Classification List for Municipal Zoning
Districts (sent back by Board of Supervisors) (See Exhibit B)
Bussey stated there is a handout in the Committee packets that shows modifications
that were appropriate, a lot of the private uses do not fit in the Municipal Zone. Miller
asked why an airport cannot be in a municipal zone. Bussey replied with, a private air
port not a public one. Airports now are properly zones. The reason for creating this
district is that there are some buildings like town halls that are on small parcels that may
be nonconforming; this may make it difficult to add on. Put these buildings in a municipal
zone with reduced setbacks and if they need to expand town operations, they can do
this. Airports and golf courses are in compliance now with zoning regulations. Multiple
unit development and concrete plants should be eliminated since they are already
permitted with temporary permits. Rantala asked if the ones highlighted in yellow on the
list are not allowed, even without a conditional use permit. Bussey stated that is right,
not in the Municipal district but allowed in other districts. Rondeau again stated this is for
the good of the community. To loop in private buildings is not right. Rantala asked about
the private schools, and clinics. Bussey stated they are permitted with a Special Use.
Kastrosky went on to explain that if the town wanted to lease something that is in the
municipal district, it wouldn’t be a problem. Bussey agreed and stated that if the town
wanted to lease a golf course it would not want to be zoned municipal. Rondeau agrees
with Bussey and anything that is private does not belong in the municipal district.
Kastrosky suggested that Deb KMetz go through the list, one by one, and note all the
changes, for clarity. (At this point in the meeting Deb Kmetz read through all the
changes that were made to the classification list).
Page 13 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – October 20, 2011
Rondeau made the motion to accept the changes and present to full board for
approval. Maki seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
N. Discussion and Possible Action on NR 115 (Meeting date: 9/15 & 16)
Kastrosky stated there is an extension on deadline date to two years out. He stated he
would like the committee to start thinking about how they are going to amend the
ordinance to reflect on NR 115. What he would like to do is to try and draft an ordinance
based on the new rule.
Discussion ended.
O. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky stated there are two towns left to adopt the plan, Bell and Pilsen. In
December there will be a plan review.
Discussion ended.
14. Monthly Report
Rondeau stated there are two months of reports, the first from August.
Jardine motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
Rondeau stated the next report is from September.
Maki motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
15. Budget and Revenue
No discussion.
16. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 3:55 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 10/25/11/ ®11/18/11
Approved by KLK on 11/2/11
Final Approval on 11/17/11; ®1/19/12
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2011/#10 October