HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 12/15/2011
Page 1 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
REVISED [2/2/2012 – 12:53 pm]
REVISED [5/11/2012 – 8:44 am]
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2011
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 1:02pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau – all present.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Deb Kmetz-Office Manager and Krystal
Hagstrom-Secretary. Mike Furtak-AZA – absent, arrived at 1:08pm.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the December 1 and
December 8, 2011 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. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an amendment to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to create section 13-1-22(l) regarding setbacks
on properties subject to adverse possession.
Sec. 13-1-22 Setbacks.
(l) Easement Setbacks. In situations where adverse possession
applies, setback requirements may be met or complied with by
obtaining an easement from the adjacent property owner. Said
easement shall specifically describe the easement parcel with a
map of survey attached. The easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department
and shall be recorded in the Bayfield County Register of Deeds
Office.
Kastrosky explained the reasoning for this petition is to create easements for buildings
that are found to be on the adjourning property. With the sophisticated mapping that the
county has, more of these parcels of land are being found. The only way to remedy this
is to buy more land from the neighbor or file an adverse claim which goes through the
courts. If both parties agree to an easement, and that easement was recorded, then it
would relieve the burden of being on someone else’s property. Kastrosky pointed out a
letter from Attorney Mike Fauerbach, and stated to the committee to take his
suggestions into consideration. Kastrosky asked the committee to look over the petition
and table it until the next meeting as a business item. A couple of questions that need to
Page 2 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
be answered before the next meeting; if the house burns down, does the easement go
away and the owner has to then build on their own land. Maki asked who takes care of
the taxes on that parcel and Kastrosky stated that is another good question that needs
to be figured out. Maki also asked if the property sells does the easement go with the
property and Kastrosky replied yes. If both land owners agree, this is an option for
them. Miller asked what Kastrosky’s intent is and he replied, he would like some public
input and have this issues come back as a business item next month.
Brenda Rowley spoke in support and stated her concerns. One being if a child of the
land owner were to get hurt who is liable. Rowley also stated that there should be some
case studies done.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there is nothing more in the file.
Discussion ended.
B. A petition by John A. Wichita, Chairman Town of Lincoln Planning Commission,
on behalf of the Town of Lincoln, requesting an amendment to the Bayfield County
Zoning Ordinance to create Section 13-1-68 regarding an overlay district for the
same minimum shoreline frontage for Multiple Unit Development and
Conservation Subdivisions as single unit residential development.
SEC. 13-1-68 Town of Lincoln Overlay District
(a) Applicability. The Town of Lincoln Overlay District shall apply to and
include all lands within the Town of Lincoln.
(b) Intent of the Town of Lincoln 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 development;
to protect property values and the property tax base; to encourage uses of
land, water and other natural resources that are consistent with the Town
of Lincoln Comprehensive Land Use Plan; to maintain water clarity and
quality in lakes, rivers and streams; to protect soil and preserve wetlands;
to protect groundwater and surface water; to protect the beauties and
amenities of landscape and man-made developments; and to provide
healthy surroundings for recreation, tourism and family life.
(c) Definitions. All terms used herein shall be as defined in Sec. 13-1-4.
(d) Shoreline Frontage Requirements for Multiple Unit Developments
and Conservation Subdivisions in the Town of Lincoln. Part of the
purpose and intent of the Town of Lincoln Overlay District shall be
achieved by applying minimum shoreline frontage requirements for both
Multiple Unit Developments and Conservation Subdivisions which equal
to the minimum shoreline frontage requirements for single unit dwellings
as provided in Sec. 13-1-32(b)(1). All Multiple Unit Developments and
Conservation Subdivisions providing access to navigable waters in the
Town of Lincoln shall be subject to the following minimum shoreline
frontage requirements: Class 1 Lakes, 150 feet per unit, 600 feet
minimum; Class 2 Lakes, 200 feet per unit, 800 feet minimum; Class 3
Lakes, Rivers and Streams, 300 feet per unit, 1200 feet minimum. All
Page 3 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
other minimum dimensional requirements for Multiple Unit Developments
and Conservation Subdivisions which provide access to navigable waters
in the Town of Lincoln shall be as stated in, respectively, Sec. 13-1-
32(e)(1) and Sec. 13-1-32(em)(1).
(e) Nonconforming Parcels. Notwithstanding Sec. 13-1-26(d), any parcel of
land with dimensions not conforming to the zoning district dimensions of
this section that was created by a county-approved certified survey map
or plat prior to the adoption of this section on the (date of adoption ) shall
not be subject to the dimensional requirements of this section. Further
division of such parcels shall be governed by this section.
(f) Pre existing Multiple Unit Developments and Conservation
Subdivisions. All Multiple Unit Developments and Conservation
Subdivisions which are not defined as described in (d) that were created
prior to (date of adoption) of this section shall not be subject to the
dimensional requirements of this section. Further division of such parcels
shall be governed by this section.
(g) Expansion of Multiple Unit Developments and Conservation
Subdivisions. The dimensional requirements of this section shall apply
to all contiguous parcels added to Multiple Unit Developments and
Conservation Subdivisions defined in (d) or (e)on or after (date of
adoption) and to those created after (date of adoption). An additional unit
may be constructed for each parcel or portion of parcel which meets the
per unit dimensional requirements of this section. The additional unit may
be located on the existing Multiple Unit Development or Conservation
Subdivision parcel or on the added parcel in conformance with the
dimensional requirements of this section. Structures on the added parcel
which are non conforming to the Multiple Unit Development or
Conservation Subdivision dimensional requirements shall be removed
and the vegetated shoreline buffer restored.
Jack Wichita, Chair of the Planning Commission for the Town of Lincoln spoke in
support explaining this change would bring the shore line requirements for Multiple Unit
Developments (MUD) into line with the requirements for individual land owners. Currently
the ordinance states Class 1 lakes and waterways MUD need 50 feet per unit and
individuals need 150 feet. Class 2 lakes and waterway it is 100 feet for MUD and 200 for
individuals. For class 3 it is 300 feet for individuals and 200 feet for MUD. There are a
number of consequences for these MUD requirements, one being a substantial increase
in shoreline user traffic, resulting in a negative water quality. More aquatic invasive
species could be brought in with the increase in traffic. There could be a drop in property
value and finally it is in direct conflict with the key values expressed in the Town of
Lincoln public survey conducted in 2008. This is not an anti development zoning change
but to insure fairness. The Town’s water ways and lakes are small and fragile, Marengo
Lake being the largest at only 99 acres. This is fully consistent with the wishes of the
Town. The Town also engaged in a 30 day review and comment period which these and
other aspects were discussed and approved unanimously. Then this petition went on to
the Town Board and was approved and passed unanimously as well. Miller asked about
Items E. F. and G. and why were they needed and Wichita explained that the Town just
wanted to cover every aspect.
Page 4 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
Mark Dryer Clerk for the Town of Lincoln spoke in favor representing the Town Board.
Dryer explained the Town fully supports this change and would like the Committee to
pass this ordinance.
Mary Wichita spoke in favor of this proposal pointing out that this gives the Town(s) an
avenue to the County and to be able to reflect their values and desires. Also this is a
good partnership since the County approved the Comp Plan. This change has huge
support from the Town’s people. Jardine asked how many people were at the meeting
and if all were in support of exactly what is being proposed and Wichita answered about
12 people and all supported it. The people asked questions then the Town Board went
into deliberation and it was approved unanimously.
Roland Wolff spoke in support and emphasized what Wichita already stated.
Gayle Gradilles spoke in favor representing the Marengo Lake Association. As a lake
association they are in favor of the proposed changes. Gradilles read a letter that spoke
in favor of the petition for reasons that were already mentioned by Wichita and the letter
was submitted to the Committee. Jardine asked about all the people that lived on the
lake presently if they have catch basins to prevent water runoff into the lake. The
response was yes most people do and they work as a unit and people within a mile of
the lake are also proactive. Gradilles explained this is not a means to stop development
along the lake but to protect the lake. Keep the frontage requirements the same for
everyone. For clarification, Furtak explained that in order to do a MUD on a class 2 lake
one has to dedicate 800 feet of frontage.
File Report: Kastrosky stated no letters of support or opposition. These issues may not
be good for the County as a whole since there are some areas that need MUD but as a
Committee it has to be decided if this is good for the Town of Lincoln. If this is passed,
the Committee needs to make sure that they don’t make someone’s property non
conforming. In the zoning code today, there is not a prohibition about MUD but there is
language to give the Committee the discretion on setting the density standards for MUD.
The number of units in a MUD may be restricted through the Conditional Use process to
fewer units that would be allowed. Basically if someone came in and wanted to build 10
units and the comp plan only suggests 6 then the Committee has the right to approve
only 6 units. A person can get 1 unit for every 50 feet of frontage but has to have the raw
land mass available behind it. It has to be built at 200 feet back. The viewing and access
corridor has to be in one area. On rivers you need 1,200 feet of frontage. If this is
adopted the frontage required for a MUD would be the same as an individual owner;
Class 1 lakes = 1 unit/ 150ft, Class 2 lakes = 1 unit/200ft, and Class 3 lakes = 1
unit/300ft. What the proposal states is that a MUD does not get any more density than an
individual lot whether it is made a MUD and everyone owns it or the parcel is cut into
individual lots it is the same. There is no incentive to cluster or move back 200 feet from
the water; it will be the same as a residential lot. Miller asked if this is targeted more to
people with river frontage or on smaller lakes the answer was no.
Discussion ended.
C. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Reclamation Plan [34.91–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-
2-46-05-28-1-01-000-10000) described as NE ¼ of the NE 1/4 less V 353 P. 98, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI]
Page 5 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
Brenda Rowley explained that the reclamation plan that was set up 5 years ago is for
the whole 100 acre parcel. This would stay exactly the same.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there is a memo from Ben Dufford indicating no
changes to the rec plan. A meeting and review was conducted November 16th with Josh
Rowley and the plan was approved contingent upon financial assurance.
Discussion ended.
D. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Non-metallic Mine [34.91–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-
2-46-05-28-1-01-000-10000) described as NE ¼ of the NE 1/4 less V 353 P. 98, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI]
Brenda Rowley explained she would like to extend the life of the existing pit.
File Report: Kastrosky stated they are expanding the size and extending the life of an
existing pit. Miller asked what the Town’s decision was and Kastrosky stated it is
approved with conditions of a route from Maple Ridge East and to the West to Roy
Anderson Road. Hours of operation 8 – 12 Saturday, closed Sunday, and 7am to 6 pm
Monday – Friday, also no more than 15 acres open including roads for the combined
total on both the 40 acre and the 34.9 acre.
Discussion ended.
E. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Reclamation Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-2-
46-05-28-1-02-000-10000) described as NW ¼ of the NE ¼ in V 937 P. 5, Section 28,
Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI.]
Chairman Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in support of this item.
Brenda Rowley was in support (refer to item C).
File Report: Kastrosky stated nothing in the file.
Discussion ended.
F. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Non-metallic Mine Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 040-
026-2-46-05-28-1-02-000-10000) described as NW ¼ of the NE ¼ in V 937 P. 5, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI.]
Chairman Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in support of this item.
Brenda Rowley was in support (refer to Item D).
File Report: Kastrosky stated the town reviewed it for compatibility with the comp plan.
The committee needs to place a duration time on the permit. Kastrosky asked Rowley if
there was any idea on the time duration they would like for this mine and she stated she
does not know and that would have to be up the Committee when they would like to see
this item back on the agenda, every 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years. (There was a brief
discussion on the durations of other approved mines) Furtak explained that this area is a
sand deposit that will last quite awhile, stating they are going to mine sand for mound
systems. Rowley also agreed with this, and the intention of the pit is to not even leave a
Page 6 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
hole in the ground once they are done. There is a 2% slope from Roy Anderson Road to
Maple Ridge, about 8 million yards of sand, a long lived deposit. Maki wanted to know if
there are any rules on washing sand. Kastrosky stated washing and screening is part of
the application and there is a retention pond on site.
Discussion ended.
G. Town of Drummond, Owner and Shane Begley, Consultant agent on behalf of
Norvado Inc. (Drummond) – erect and operate a 195’ telecommunication tower
with 3 additional tenants [on a lease parcel of land containing 10,000 sq. ft (0.229
acres) (part of ID# 04-018-2-45-07-33-3-01-000-60000), located in part of the NE ¼ of
the SW ¼, in Section 33, Township 45N, Range 7W, Town of Drummond, Bayfield
County, WI.]
Shane Begley representing the Town of Drummond and Norvado explained this is a 195
foot tower located on a parcel of land owned by the Town of Drummond. The access
road was changed to the North, off of a dead end road. Maki asked about the elevation
of the land and with the tower being 195 feet does it require lights and the response was
no. Begley went on to say that this is a multi tenant tower so there are others like AT&T
that will be using this tower as well.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the Town Board of Drummond stated this construction to
be beneficial to the town in terms of economics, social, and educating. Furtak asked
Kastrosky if the Town amended their ordinance prohibiting any more towers and
Kastrosky stated they did. Begley also stated there are state stats that would over ride
them anyway.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 2:00pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 2:00pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau –all present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA, Deb Kmetz-Office
Manager and Krystal Hagstrom-Secretary.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the November
17, 2011 meeting.
Miller motioned to approve, Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
10. Business:
A. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an amendment to the
Page 7 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to create section 13-1-22(l) regarding setbacks
on properties subject to adverse possession.
Miller motioned to table and come back as a business item. Rantala seconded.
No further discussion. Motion carried.
B. A petition by John A. Wichita, Chairman Town of Lincoln Planning Commission,
on behalf of the Town of Lincoln, requesting an amendment to the Bayfield County
Zoning Ordinance to create Section 13-1-68 regarding an overlay district for the
same minimum shoreline frontage for Multiple Unit Development and
Conservation Subdivisions as single unit residential development.
Miller motioned to table. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Miller asked
why no more discussion on this item and Rondeau replied that when an item it tabled
there is no discussion and Miller asked if the rules can be suspended for that. Rondeau
is not sure. Kastrosky stated if no one is positive on this then to withdraw the motion.
Miller withdrew his motion and changed to postpone (to be able to discuss why he
motioned the way he did) to January. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky asked if the reason
to postpone is to get more information on the issue and see the outcome of the cable
meeting and if the committee is going to bring it back as a public hearing so it can be
discussed or a business item and Rondeau replied the committee needs to look at each
town individually. Jardine stated it needs to come back as a public hearing. Rondeau
stated the committee can take input at that time. Miller said that it does not need to
come back as a public hearing but postpone and add it to the business section of the
meeting and take public input. Rondeau agreed and said the committee can open it up
to the floor. Maki stated that it should be added to the motion that if it is brought back as
a business item then it can be discussed, Rondeau also stated that would be fine on this
issue and if it comes back into the business section and the committee decides to hear it
the rules can be suspended and the committee can hear from people in the audience.
Maki wanted it in the motion now so it is clear what to expect. Rondeau stated he
doesn’t want to put it in the motion now and Maki again stated that he wants it in the
motion so when the next meeting arrives the public can speak on it. Rondeau restated
the motion as to postpone to January and put it on as a business item and Miller stated
the committee can open discussion up to the public regardless if it is said in a motion or
not and Rondeau agreed with Miller. Discussion ended. Favor – Miller, Jardine, and
Rantala Opposed – Maki. Motion carried.
C. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Reclamation Plan [34.91–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-
2-46-05-28-1-01-000-10000) described as NE ¼ of the NE 1/4 less V 353 P. 98, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI]
Maki motioned to approve. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
D. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Non-metallic Mine [34.91–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-
2-46-05-28-1-01-000-10000) described as NE ¼ of the NE 1/4 less V 353 P. 98, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky stated this should
be based on the consistency of the town plan and Rondeau asked about the duration.
Kastrosky also asked if the Rowley’s sell the property, does the permit go with the land.
Page 8 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
Miller stated most permits are 10 years. Rondeau stated that if we are going to give
them 20 years then let’s just attach the permit to the current owner and if the land is sold
the new owner must come to the Committee with a new permit. Jardine approved,
Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Conditions for Items D and F
are as follows: [1.] Route – Maple Ridge E-W to Ray Anderson. [2.] Hours of operation 8
to noon Saturday, closed Sunday, 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. [3.] No more
than 15 acres open (including roads) combined total between 40 acres and 34.91 acre
parcels. [4.] 20 year duration, to present owner only. Any new owner must reapply.
E. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Reclamation Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 040-026-2-
46-05-28-1-02-000-10000) described as NW ¼ of the NE ¼ in V 937 P. 5, Section 28,
Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI.]
Rantala motioned to accept the reclamation plan. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
F. Josh & Brenda Rowley (Kelly) – Non-metallic Mine Plan [40–acre parcel (ID# 040-
026-2-46-05-28-1-02-000-10000) described as NW ¼ of the NE ¼ in V 937 P. 5, Section
28, Township 46 North, Range 5 West, Town of Kelly, Bayfield County, WI.]
Jardine motioned to approve with the same conditions as item D. Maki
seconded. Kastrosky stated that they did not capture the town’s conditions on hours of
operation. Jardine approved with same conditions as item D and with the Town’s
conditions and that these same conditions apply to item D. Conditions for Items D and F
are as follows: [1.] Route – Maple Ridge E-W to Ray Anderson. [2.] Hours of operation 8
to noon Saturday, closed Sunday, 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. [3.] No more
than 15 acres open (including roads) combined total between 40 acres and 34.91 acre
parcels. [4.] 20 year duration, to present owner only. Any new owner must reapply. Maki
seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
G. Town of Drummond, Owner and Shane Begley, Consultant agent on behalf of
Norvado Inc. (Drummond) – erect and operate a 195’ telecommunication tower
with 3 additional tenants [on a lease parcel of land containing 10,000 sq. ft (0.229
acres) (part of ID# 04-018-2-45-07-33-3-01-000-60000), located in part of the NE ¼ of
the SW ¼, in Section 33, Township 45N, Range 7W, Town of Drummond, Bayfield
County, WI.]
Miller motioned to approve with any Town stipulations and contingent on Town
approval also that it meets the Town plan. Rantala seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
11. Other Business
H. Discussion and Possible Action on NR115
Kastrosky noted still ongoing but the DNR is going to come out with a scoping
statement in March asking for the same revisions they asked for the past 5 years and
they are finally going to do it. The department wrote and received a $5000 grant to
rewrite the ordinances. Furtak asked for a two year extension and it was accepted so
the funds don’t have to be applied until 2014 to rewrite our ordinances to meet the new
regulations.
Page 9 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – December 15, 2011
I. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky stated Pilsen meets on the 20th. The County is ready to submit a report.
Kastrosky is concerned about consistency in the comp plans for all the Towns.
12. Monthly Report
Maki asked about the extra money needed to pay legal fees. Kastrosky answered that
is Board of Adjustment’s fees and the CFS case.
Miller motioned to approve. Maki seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
13. Budget and Revenue
Discussed above as 12.
14. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 2:25pm.
Prepared by kmh on 12/16/2011; ®2/2/2012 –12:53 pm
Approved by KLK on 1/5/2012; 1/19/2012
Final Approval on 1/19/2012; 5/17/2012
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2011/#12 December