HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 1/19/2012
Page 1 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JANUARY 19, 2012
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 1:00pm.
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-Secretary. Mike Furtak – AZA arrived at 1:20 pm.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the January 5th and January
12th 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 is requesting an amendment to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend the table listed in Section 13-1-62(a)
regarding classification of uses to add a row for the permissible use of a trailhead and to
include a definition of a trailhead in the definitions listed under Section 13-1-4(a)
regarding definitions.
Section 1. The table listed under Section 13-1-62(a) [Classification of Uses] of Article
D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the
Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to
include the following:
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Trail Head SB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Section 1. The definitions listed under Section 13-1-4(a) [Definitions] of Article A
[Introduction and Definitions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13
[Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
amended to include the following:
(67a) Trailhead. An access point to recreational trails which may
include parking areas, restrooms, warming buildings or shelters,
concessions, and storage buildings. The access point is for the
purpose of recreational activities such as cross-country skiing, dog
sledding, riding of all-terrain vehicles, riding of snowmobiles,
bicycling, hiking and walking.
Page 2 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this petition.
Kastrosky spoke in favor stating the department has petitioned to add in entry into the
classification list with the definition of a trail head. The reasoning is that there are
trailheads requested to be located within the county. Restrooms and warming buildings
are being built so for clarity reasons the department wants some input on this.
Ned Zeulsdorff, executive director of the American Birkebeiner Ski Foundation, spoke in
favor stating that the process he went through with the Zoning Committee, regarding a
wayside rest, led to this proposal. Clarification of trail heads will ease the process in the
future. It is important to realize that recreational trailheads provide terrific economic
benefit to the county. He stated the past Sunday at the Birke trailhead there were 80 cars
parked there using the trails. A suggestion related to the definition of the trailhead
activities is to add the word “skijoring”, the combination of dogsledding and cross country
skiing. It is a growing sport.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there is no file report, no comments from anyone.
B. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee is requesting an amendment to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 13-1-102A(h)(2) regarding
reopenings and rehearings of Board of Adjustment cases
Section 1. Subsection (h)(2) of Section 13-1-102A [Board of Adjustment Rules and
Procedure] of Article F [Administration and Enforcement] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Reopenings and Rehearings Limited. The Board, on its
own motion, may not reopen any case upon which a
previous hearing has been held, except in the following
circumstances:
a. To correct a manifest error or when there is some
ambiguity or missing element in the decision that
makes it impossible for the Planning and Zoning
Department to apply the decision(s). In such a
situation, the Board may reopen a case at its next
scheduled meeting.
b. The Board, at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Department, may also reopen a case
without regard to time limits if an interpretation of a
prior decision is necessary, or if interpretation,
modification or enforcement of conditions of a
board decision is necessary. Nothing in this section
c. should be interpreted as allowing a complete
reopening of the case, nor require or presume that
the Board of Adjustment should make any
substantial change in their decision. There shall be
Page 3 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
a $100.00 filing fee assessed if the applicant is the
party seeking a partial reopening under this section
c. for purposes of deleting or substantially
modifying a condition placed on a Board of
Adjustment decision. There shall be no filing fee if
the request for reopening is solely at the request of
the Planning and Zoning Department. In any
rehearing or reopening of a Board of Adjustment
decision, the criteria for decision shall be the same
legal criteria as for the original decision.
Kastrosky explained the department is building a database of conditions placed on
variances from the Board of Adjustments. Sometimes the board may not have had a
mitigation plan prior to placing these conditions. The department has run into issues
dealing with compliance. Example being a condition placed that there has to be a buffer
zone to be restored at 35 feet from the lake when the actual structure is only 20 feet from
the lake. This petition will allow the department to reopen this case and deal with the
conditions. This is not a new hearing but to be able to make corrections or adjustments.
No one spoke in support.
Mark Wendling, spoke in opposition. Wendling explained this petition seems to be a
solution to a problem. The current language provides ample opportunity to re-file based
on the discovery of new evidence. It also allows a case to be reopened to correct a
“manifest error” and “where there is some ambiguity or missing of an element in a
decision that makes it impossible for the Zoning Department to enforce a decision”. To
re-open a case one has to do it within 30 days of the decision, this is plenty of time to do
so. Currently the language provides closure to the cases. The change would not provide
closure and endless reopening of cases in attempt to modify decisions.
Discussion ended.
C. Brian Capps / Nyasha Spears (Bayfield) – private cemetery on a [43.73–acre parcel
(ID# 04-006-2-51-05-30-2-02-000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section
30, Township 51 North, Range 5 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this issue.
Nyasha Spears spoke in support, stating she has elderly parents who are planning for
their death and want to be buried on private land. Rondeau asked if the cemetery is for
the parents of Spears and if later on, she and family would be buried there as well.
Spears responded yes, this is for her parents and she herself would like to be buried
there as well but that can be dealt with at that time. Jardine asked if she went through
the town of Bayfield on this issue and Spears responded yes, she went to the meeting
and they are waiting for information from their attorney so there was no decision made
on the issues at that time. It was tabled until March. Rantala asked about bodies and
caskets or ashes and the answer was not ashes. Maki asked where the property is
located. Spears said she owns 170 acres across from Meyers Beach road and the site
will be 34 acres away from the road. Maki also asked if the land is in Managed Forest
Land and Spears stated yes and she will leave it in MFL. There is nothing in the rules of
the MFL about not being able to have a cemetery. Miller stated that the Spear’s
Page 4 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
probably would have to ask the DNR about a site on lands that are enrolled in the MFL.
Maki said that the land would probably have to be taken out or MFL and then it is none
of their business. Spears stated they do not want to take the land out but will ask the
DNR, and if need be they will take the property out of MFL.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the Town Board request that this matter be tabled until a
later date. The Town’s attorney is gathering more information. it is difficult to cancel a
public hearing once it is noticed so the applicant came to this meeting. The Town is
concerned if the land is turned over to them due to delinquent taxes what will be done
with the burial site.
Discussion ended.
D. Wayne Nelson (Russell) – reclamation plan on a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-046-2-51-
04-22-1-04-000-20000), described as the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 22, Township 51
North, Range 4 West, Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this issue.
Tyler Wickman, attorney representing Mr. Nelson, spoke in support stating the
reclamation plan has been reviewed and approved and would ask the Committee to
approve it as well.
Kathy Wendling spoke in opposition explaining that the Town Board nor the Town Plan
Commission did not have the opportunity to look at the reclamation plan but stated the
County would look at it and make appropriate changes. The owner plans to use the land
for agricultural uses after the permit expires and the slopes would be graded to a 4:1
slope and the base will be rough graded and two inches of top soil will be added. It looks
like they want to take this 2 acre pit and fill it with 2 inches of soil and seed it. That leaves
a 2 acre borrow pit on a piece of land that has previously come before the town as an
alternative development site. It appears that there will be a 2 acre hole for the open
space for development. Rantala stated that the town had no opportunity to look at the
plan but asked Wendling if she stated previously that town said the county would look at
it. Wendling stated that the Town Clerk said not to worry about it the county would look
at the plan.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the plan was developed in 2008 and approved then and
there was an addendum revised and submitted January 12, 2012 it was approved by
Land Conservation on January 13, 2012. The Land Conservation Department is in
charge of reviewing, revising, approving, or denying all reclamation plans for non-metallic
mines in the County of Bayfield.
Discussion ended.
E. Wayne Nelson (Russell) – extension on non-metallic mine / temporary asphalt and
concrete plant on a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-046-2-51-04-22-1-04-000-20000),
described as the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 22, Township 51 North, Range 4 West,
Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this issue.
Page 5 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
Tyler Wickman, attorney, spoke in support stating this is an extension of the permit
issued in 2008 with modifications. One being they want to dig deeper and to have a hot
mix plant. The request is also for a redi-mix concrete plant to be allowed but Mr. Nelson
would like to withdraw this request as the town approved all other request except the
concrete plant. Wickman asks the Committee to approve with the town’s conditions.
This request fits with the Towns comprehensive plan. It is a temporary use. The current
permit is approved to June of 2013, the request is to extent through December 31, 2014.
The purpose to dig deeper and adding a hot mix plant is to get the sand needed for
some of the highway projects slotted for this summer. It is unknown at this time whether
the hot mix plant will go in this pit or the pit down the road owned by the County, but this
gives the owner an option to have one and to do it economically and with less damage to
the roads from hauling. The hot mix plant is temporary and will leave when the
construction on the roads is completed. The neighbors directly around the pit have
submitted letters of support (in Committee packets) and also neighbors that are nearby
have written letters of support as long as the current conditions apply. Wickman asks
that this permit be approved with the conditions from the Town Board.
Steven Nesheim spoke in support stating the highway project slated for the summer of
2012 will need a hot mix plant and trucks will have to haul, having a pit right there will
economically help the county. Nesheim is in favor of stimulating local economy. The
highway project supports people in the area and provides better access for people
traveling into the area. As a property owner closest to the pit he has weighed the
inconveniences against the outcomes and concluded that a short term temporary pit is a
good idea.
Debra Nesheim, adjacent property owner, is in support. Nesheim read a letter to the
committee and submitted it for the records.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition.
Kathy Wendling spoke in opposition. Wendling read and submitted a letter to the
committee from Tessa Levens, resident and Plan Commission member, Town of
Russell, in opposition.
Ann Bowker, lives in the town of Russell and is on the Plan Commission, speaking in
opposition. Bowker states she is peaking solely for herself. Looking at the map it clearly
shows the industrial area is located just west of Red Cliff, this pit is located in Ag land.
Looking at another map (both maps were in committee packs) this pit is located in the
middle of two alternative development home sites. Also surrounded by 9 existing homes.
Mr. Nelson has said he would like to develop his own property as an alternative home
site. The comp plan states, “Development and redevelopment that does occur within the
town of Russell will do so with light impact standards that minimizes the impact on the
land”. Digging 20 feet below grade and leaving a 2 acre borrow pit is not in any way light
imprint. Water quality is another issue. Pollutants from the hot mix plant can easily
contaminate ground water. Nelson’s property is approximately 1.5 miles up the town
road which is steep and winding. It will take 1,650 trips by trucks to supply hot mix to the
highway project. Contractors do not like using town roads as it causes too much damage
to them. The Town Board did not consider the comp plan at all. They did not take time to
deliberate the issue, and did not look at the rec plan. That was a lack of responsibility on
their part.
Page 6 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
Sam Atkins spoke in opposition saying he farms organically, attends the Bayfield
farmers market in the summer, and lives within 2,000 feet of the pit (South East of the
pit). Atkins is concerned that 5 years ago Mr. Nelson received a temporary permit to dig
5 feet now he is asking to extent the permit and dig 20 feet which is significantly deeper
and will affect the reclamation plan. Atkins is asking that the permit be denied and feels
that this is a residential area and the hot mix plant will affect the health of the people
living near the pit, also the truck hauling will be going past houses on the South side not
the North side of Peterson Rd. There are other pits that will be suitable (the Sand Bay
Pit) that are located on black top roads and will not have to deal with the steep hills and
curves of Peterson Rd. It will also be good for the County to earn money on this project
rather an individual.
Frances Johnson spoke in opposition. Timing of the crushing is from 6 am to 6 pm and
this should be shortened. Asphalt plants release a lot of toxins which cause significant
health issues. These can be dangerous to human health including cancer, nerve
damage, and infant damage. Even with the best technology there still will be toxins that
will be emitted from the plant, which will go where ever the wind will take them. There are
a lot of organic farms very close to the pit and most of these toxins will land on these
farms. Johnson feels it is scary to buy a property that has had toxins there. Also there is
a gradual encroachment from Mr. Nelson.
Chris Bardon spoke in opposition explaining truck hauling will be dangerous on the
gravel road and will cause a lot of damage. This area is a recharge area for the
Raspberry River watershed and this pit might potentially cause damage. Also this pit
does not go along with the Town’s Comp Plan.
Fred Brunney spoke in opposition, this goes against the comprehensive plan and why
have a plan if no one is going to follow it. Draw the line somewhere.
Mark Wendling spoke in opposition stating Mr. Nelson’s counsel said that Pitlik and
Wick has been awarded the highway project and both parties are working together.
Tessa Leven’s stated, in her letter, she talked to Pitlik and Wick they never spoke with
Mr. Nelson. The county should verify what was said and what was not said. Wendling
believes that the Sand River pit would be a better location for the project. Miller
interrupted stating there has been direct conversation with Pitlik and Wick and the
reason why they cannot use the Sand River pit is because there is not the right type of
sand for the asphalt plant. Wendling went on to say the site can still be used for a
mixing plant. Basically the Sand River pit would be the best location for the mixing plant.
The Peterson Hill site is highly problematic.
Tyler Wickman, attorney representing Mr. Nelson, spoke in rebuttal to what was said
saying the sand that is at Mr. Nelson’s pit is currently being tested to see if it is the right
sand for an asphalt plant. There is no decision on where the mixing plant will be but Mr.
Nelson is asking that this be a potential option for a location. This is a temporary plant.
Maki asked if the Town turned Mr. Nelson down on the plant. Wickman stated no that
the Town approved the plant but Mr. Nelson did not want a concrete plant and this be
withdrawn.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the Town Board reviewed and approved this request and
that they reviewed it with compatibility with the comprehensive plan. This is an extension
of an existing plant. There are conditions; Site will be a maximum of 20 acres, stock pile
material will be limited to a 5 acre area, excavation depth not to exceed 20 feet below
Page 7 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
grade, hot mix plant to be located with the 20 acre area, storage material not to exceed 4
years from the date the modified permit is issued, stock piling and or mining pit materials
should only be from 7 am to 5:30 pm daily and no work on Sundays or federal holidays,
a minimum of 10 days prior to crushing/stock piling materials or operating hot mix plant
owner shall contact adjacent property owners and contact the Town of Russell to
schedule public meeting to discuss volume of materials, times, and other matters
pertinent to the activity, crushing and hot mix operations from 6 am to 6 pm daily and not
allowed on Sunday or federal holidays, permit duration till December 31, 2014.
Kastrosky read a letter from Mike Eldred and Kate Kitchell, dated January 12, 2012,
expressing concern. There also were letters of support from Robert Nelson, Ronald
Nelson and David Stark.
Maki asked Nelson if the property for the pit has been surveyed and Nelson replied with
yes, the property has been surveyed and stakes are in on both sides of the property.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Miller seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at
2:07pm.
Chairman Rondeau called for a break at 2:07 pm.
Meeting reconvened at 2:15 pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 2:15pm.
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, Secretary.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the revised minutes are from the
October 20, 2011 meeting.
Rantala motioned to approve the minutes as revised, Miller seconded. No
further discussion. Motion carried.
Rondeau stated the minutes are from the December 15, 2011 meeting.
Rantala motioned to approve, Jardine 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 is requesting an amendment to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend the table listed in Section 13-1-62(a)
regarding classification of uses to add a row for the permissible use of a trailhead and to
Page 8 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
include a definition of a trailhead in the definitions listed under Section 13-1-4(a)
regarding definitions.
Section 1. The table listed under Section 13-1-62(a) [Classification of Uses] of Article
D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the
Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to
include the following:
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Trail Head SB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Section 1. The definitions listed under Section 13-1-4(a) [Definitions] of Article A
[Introduction and Definitions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13
[Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
amended to include the following:
(67a) Trailhead. An access point to recreational trails which may
include parking areas, restrooms, warming buildings or shelters,
concessions, and storage buildings. The access point is for the
purpose of recreational activities such as cross-country skiing, dog
sledding, riding of all-terrain vehicles, riding of snowmobiles,
bicycling, hiking and walking.
Jardine motioned to approve the petition to amend the ordinance. Rantala
seconded. Kastrosky stated earlier there was a public comment for the potential
addition of the word skijoring and would the Committee like to add that word to the list of
activities. Miller asked how this will affect the trail head issue that is going on south of
Cable. Kastrosky stated this gives direction if in fact someone comes to the Committee
with a conditional use permit there is a procedure that the Committee can follow.
Rondeau asked, if someone goes to Northend Ski Club and there are 80 vehicles and
another person comes with a dogsled, can someone say no to this person using the
dogsled. Kastrosky stated any recreational activity at any time could be problematic, but
there is a changed use of the land when a trail head is established, but this can be
reviewed at the time the conditional use permit comes before the Committee. Jardine
amended his motion to add the word skijoring. Miller stated that the Committee is now
directing what the Forestry Department can do with their lands in that area. Kastrosky
explained the Committee does not have to authorize anyone to proceed if chose not to.
Furtak stated that this petition does not give approval for anyone to do anything. All this
does is provide a process to apply for a permit to create a trailhead. As far as the County
Forest land that will be up to Forestry to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. Rantala
stated this is ok with her second. Kastrosky stated the Town of Russell reviewed this
amendment and had no additional comments. The Town of Bayfield also has no
objections to the ordinance change. Miller asked who would file for a permit, Kastrosky
stated the property owner. Maki asked if this is going to be restrictive in the fact that if a
property owner filed to run dogsleds then will there be dogsleds only Kastrosky stated
this will be filed with the department under the trail head amendment and with the uses
stated at that time. The permit goes with the land unless the Committee puts a duration
on it and for anyone who wants to use it. If the permit is for a trail that is non-motorized
than the permit is for non-motorized use and if the permit is for a trail that is for all uses
then the permit will be for all uses. For clarity Kastrosky reread the petition to the
Page 9 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
Committee. No further discussion. Approved – Jardine, Rantala, and Miller; Opposed
– Maki. Motion carried.
B. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee is requesting an amendment to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 13-1-102A(h)(2) regarding
reopenings and rehearings of Board of Adjustment cases
Section 1. Subsection (h)(2) of Section 13-1-102A [Board of Adjustment Rules and
Procedure] of Article F [Administration and Enforcement] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Reopenings and Rehearings Limited. The Board, on its
own motion, may not reopen any case upon which a
previous hearing has been held, except in the following
circumstances:
a. To correct a manifest error or when there is some
ambiguity or missing element in the decision that
makes it impossible for the Planning and Zoning
Department to apply the decision(s). In such a
situation, the Board may reopen a case at its next
scheduled meeting.
b. The Board, at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Department, may also reopen a case
without regard to time limits if an interpretation of a
prior decision is necessary, or if interpretation,
modification or enforcement of conditions of a
board decision is necessary. Nothing in this section
c. should be interpreted as allowing a complete
reopening of the case, nor require or presume that
the Board of Adjustment should make any
substantial change in their decision. There shall be
a $100.00 filing fee assessed if the applicant is the
party seeking a partial reopening under this section
c. for purposes of deleting or substantially
modifying a condition placed on a Board of
Adjustment decision. There shall be no filing fee if
the request for reopening is solely at the request of
the Planning and Zoning Department. In any
rehearing or reopening of a Board of Adjustment
decision, the criteria for decision shall be the same
legal criteria as for the original decision.
Page 10 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
Kastrosky stated the Town of Bayfield commented that this petition was reviewed and
there are no objections. The Town of Russell reviewed and stated the current ordinance
already addresses the reopening and rehearing of cases by the BOA in a timely manner.
This petition should not be adopted and the Town of Russell motioned to deny.
Kastrosky stated this petition was drafted by legal counsel for the board as well as
reviewed by corp counsel. This is not to rehear the whole case, which would be illegal;
the board by its own motion could open portions of the case and review. There was no
response by any other town.
Rantala motioned to approve the petition to amend the ordinance. Miller
seconded. Kastrosky stated this has to go before the County Board. Maki asked
Kastrosky if the Town of Russell received this in time to review and the answer was yes
they are opposed to it and Bayfield approved it. No further discussion. Approved –
Jardine, Miller, and Rantala; Opposed – Maki. Motion carried.
C. Brian Capps / Nyasha Spears (Bayfield) – private cemetery on a [43.73–acre parcel
(ID# 04-006-2-51-05-30-2-02-000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section
30, Township 51 North, Range 5 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Maki motioned to postpone until more information is received, Rantala
seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
D. Wayne Nelson (Russell) – reclamation plan on a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-046-2-51-
04-22-1-04-000-20000), described as the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 22, Township 51
North, Range 4 West, Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve the reclamation plan. Miller seconded. Maki
stated that the public was saying the plan commission did not have a chance to look at
the plan but believes that is how the Town of Russell operates. Jardine showed Maki
that the plan commission met on Saturday, January 7, 2012 and the Town of Russell
Board on January 10, 2012. No further discussion. Approved – Jardine, Miller and
Rantala; Opposed – Maki. Motion carried.
E. Wayne Nelson (Russell) – extension on non-metallic mine / temporary asphalt and
concrete plant on a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-046-2-51-04-22-1-04-000-20000),
described as the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 22, Township 51 North, Range 4 West,
Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI]
Miller motioned to approve with the exclusion of the concrete plant, and the
conditions the Town placed, and that is follows the consistence of the comprehensive
plan and the 12 steps. (Conditions are as follows; 1.) Site will be a maximum of 20 acres.
2.) Stock pile material will be limited to a 5 acre area. 3.) Excavation depth not to exceed
20 feet below grade. 4.) Hot mix plant to be located with the 20 acre area. 5.) Storage
material not to exceed 4 years from the date the modified permit is issued. 6.) stock
piling and or mining pit materials should only be from 7 am to 5:30 pm daily and no work
on Sundays or federal holidays, a minimum of 10 days prior to crushing/stock piling
materials or operating hot mix plant owner shall contact adjacent property owners and
contact the Town of Russell to schedule public meeting to discuss volume of materials,
times, and other matters pertinent to the activity. 7.) Crushing and hot mix operations
from 6 am to 6 pm daily and not allowed on Sunday or federal holidays. 8.) Permit
duration till December 31, 2014). Jardine seconded. No further discussion.
Approved – Jardine, Miller, and Rantala; Opposed – Maki. Motion carried.
Page 11 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
11. Previous Business
F. Petition to Create Title 13-1-22(l) (tabled 12/15/11)
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 that since there are more accurate and sophisticated maps
that there are more and more properties with homes or buildings are being found
to be on the neighbor’s property and the only way to alleviate this is to file an
adverse possession claim which is expensive, problematic, and time consuming.
This is a petition that if both property owners agree that the building is on the
neighbor’s property, they will grant them an access to maintain the building or
property. One concern is that the easement does not alleviate the non-
conforming status of the building and that is correct they will not be able to
expand their home. Maki asked about selling the property and Kastrosky replied
the easement can go with the property. This petition provides a solution to these
problems. There is nothing in the file report and no input from anyone.
Rantala motioned to approve. Maki seconded. Kastrosky stated this is a re-
wording and this goes forward to full board as well. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
G. Town of Lincoln (Lincoln) – petition to create Title 13-1-68 (postponed 12/15/11)
(open for public comments)
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.
Page 12 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
(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
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.
Rondeau stated this is open to public comment and would anyone like to comment.
Jack Wichita, chair of the Town of Lincoln planning commission spoke in support
explaining this will bring shoreland frontage requirements on the Towns lakes, rivers, and
streams for Multiple Unit Developments (MUD) and conservation subdivisions into line
with the individual dwellings. Current Bayfield County ordinance allow much more
Page 13 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
densely populated shoreline development in area where MUD and conservation
subdivisions are permitted. There are consequences including, more shoreline use,
traffic and erosion issues, negative impact on water quality, and increase likelihood of
aquatic invasive species. This is not an anti-development change but to insure fairness.
The Town’s waterways are small and fragile; this will help protect them into the future..
This petition has gone through the comprehensive planning process. 92 individuals
signed a petition urging the Committee to approve this request. 2 letters were written in
opposition.
Mark Dryer, clerk for the Town of Lincoln speaking on behalf of the Town Board, stated
that the Town is in full support of this request and Jack Wichita summarized the reasons
the Town Board approved.
Steve Robertson, resident of the Town of Lincoln, spoke in opposition stating the
perception the Town has given is that everyone is united in this issue and that is not true.
They also stated that Barnes has been granted the change and why not Lincoln too,
Barnes and Lincoln are by far different. Lincoln is less populated and has less lake front
properties than Barnes. Lakes are different in the fact that there is limited attraction to
lake front building in Lincoln. There are no hard surface roads, only gravel. The Town
cannot afford to put obstacles where revenue can be brought in when the Town
desperately needs this revenue; this change puts an obstacle there. What is good for
Barnes is not necessarily good for Lincoln. Many supporters of these changes are
people with no water frontage. This change has the potential to lower the value of water
frontage property. Robertson was made aware that there were many people who did not
know about this change and are not in favor of it. Currently the Town of Lincoln is
working to acquire a 400 acre conservation easement grant when just the past year a 5
acre plot was rejected. Development rights are property rights. Is this change right or
reasonable?
Roland Wolff, member of the comprehensive plan commission, spoke in favor. Wolff
states he fully supports this change. This issue was thoroughly announced and
publicized with public discussion. When the petition went through 93% signed and 7%
did not. These people were not cherry picked but they Town went to all residents.
Roger Dreher spoke in support of the proposal stating the Town did all of the steps right.
The language was reviewed in advance. The language is the same for all towns. This is
an improvement from the original language. Several other towns will come before the
committee and propose the same thing.
Barbara Robertson, lakefront property owner in the Town of Lincoln. Robertson read
and submitted two letters in opposition, one from Eleanor Williams dated January 13,
2012 and one from Kevin Schram dated January 12, 2012. Robertson also stated the
Bayfield Regional Conservancy is trying to purchase a property and the Town is trying to
change the rights of property along the lakes and waterways. This is a strategy move to
devalue the property prior to the purchase. It is short sighted and the Town is trying to
rush this through. Now Plum Creek has the resources to make a liability case against our
town and County because this property is slated to be acquired soon.
Gerald and Rebecca Nelson spoke in opposition saying the rules and regulation that are
already in place protect the natural waters and shorelines. The new rules put forth are
trying to justify unknown fears. The proposed amendment is not in balance with future
growth of the town. There should be a shoreline density map for all lakes in Bayfield
Page 14 of 14 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – January 19, 2012
County before the Committee changes the rules for one Town to stricter standards. Also
neither one of the Nelson’s was contacted to sign a petition.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there were 92 petitions received and two letters in
opposition.
Jardine stated that every Town has their land use plan and there are so many different
variations of each overlay. The Town’s should encourage zoning to cover all those rather
than to have overlays that are all different. The one being proposed says nothing about
public access to the water. The Town’s land use plan, if changed, should be in the plan
and not with an overlay. Jardine then motioned to deny. Rantala seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
12. Other Business
H. Discussion and Possible Action regarding NR 115
Kastrosky said the DNR is opening this issue up to public comment and review in
March.
I. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky said Todd Oschner from SEH is heading to Madison with the final product
and there is approval from all the Towns. Very shortly the department should receive the
$100,000. There will be a full, complete, approved plan.
J. Correspondence from the public.
Kastrosky noted all the floodplain maps went out after 3 months of hard work. There
were only a handful of phone calls. The letter was sent with a map, to the people that are
now in and to the people that are now out. Maki stated he appreciated his map and
thinks other people appreciated as well.
13. Monthly Report
Jardine motioned to approve, Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
14. Budget and Revenue
Kastrosky commented budget is approved.
15. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 3:10 pm.
Prepared by kmh on 1/26/2012
Approved by KLK on 2/9/2012
Final Approval on 2/16/2012
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2012/#1 January