HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 2/16/2012
Page 1 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2012
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, Doug Casina-AZA, Mike Furtak-AZA, and
Krystal Hagstrom-Secretary.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the February 2nd and
February 9th affidavit of publication and the certified mailing receipts, the office did not
receive a return receipt from the Town of Mason.
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. Town of Cable, owner and Larry Ludzack, Chairman (Cable) – Reclamation Plan,
on a [23–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-10000), described as SW ¼ of
the SE 1/4, less V. 235 P. 418, and their 17-acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-
000-20000, described as that parcel in SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 43
North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Kastrosky stated this is a request
to approve an already existing permit; the plan was approved in 2006. The permit will
expire shortly. A new plan has been submitted to Land Conservation and approved
February 8, 2012. Furtak added there is no plan for expansion of this pit. The location
where the pit is used for where the town of Cable stores materials and also the transfer
station is there. The town road equipment is also stored there.
Discussion ended.
B. Town of Cable, owner and Larry Ludzack, Chairman (Cable) – Non-metallic Mine on
a [23–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-10000), described as SW ¼ of the
SE 1/4, less V. 235 P. 418, and their 17-acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-
20000, described as that parcel in SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 43 North,
Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Kastrosky stated there is Town
Board approval and that it meets the Town’s comprehensive plan. When the Committee
gets to the business portion of the meeting he asks that they remember the duration in
the motion, the town did not put a condition of duration or hours of operation. Miller
Page 2 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
asked how much material is left in the pit and Furtak answered there are actually 2
parcels that are included in the conditional use. The total acreage is 40. The original
permit was for the North half this permit will include the South have. There are large hills
that have huge deposits on them, but none of the Southern half has been touched yet.
Rondeau also commented stating there is a good sized hill so there has to be a lot of
gravel left to mine. Miller asked if there is a limit on how many acres they can have open
at a time and Kastrosky answered no. The Town recommended no conditions.
Discussion ended.
C. Glen Berweger (Lincoln) – Reclamation Plan [30–acre parcel (ID# 04-030-2-45-05-13-
1-04-000-20000), described as that portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, less V. 502 P. 24,
Section 13, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln, Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Berweger explained this is 30 acres and the current plan expires in April. Furtak asked
if most of the material has already been extracted. Berweger stated there is about
30,000 to 40,000 yards left to mine. Part of the pit has been reclaimed already but
cannot reclaim what is going on now, needs this area for stock pile. About half the area
has been mined since NR 135 started. The pit has been here for about 29 years. The
reclamation plan will not change.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this proposal.
File Report: Kastrosky stated this plan was originally approved in 2003 and it was
rechecked and reapproved January 23, 20112.
Discussion ended.
D. Glen Berweger (Lincoln) – Non-metallic Mine [30–acre parcel (ID# 04-030-2-45-05-
13-1-04-000-20000), described as that portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, less V. 502 P.
24, Section 13, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln, Bayfield County,
WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Berweger explained if possible would like the duration to be 10 years. Miller stated at
the Town meeting it was stated there is 120,000 yards left to mine and now it is stated
there is only 30,000 or 40,000 left to mine. Berweger said there are only about 40,000.
Jardine asked how fast this material is being used and the answer from Berweger is
that 2 years ago they crushed and of 12,000 yards and there is about 200 left, won’t
have to crush again until next fall. Maki asked about a black top plant and Berweger
stated there will never be a black top plant there.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this proposal.
File Report: Kastrosky stated there were emails exchanged from Rowland Wolfe and
Kastrosky stating the Town of Lincoln plan commission would review for consistency with
the comprehensive plan and the actual land use to comply with their future land use
map. In looking at the Town of Lincoln plan where it talks about gravel pits the plan says
to prohibit the placement of new gravel pits but to unsure the reclamation plan for
existing pits. Furtak stated he reviewed the Town of Lincoln’s comp plan and the future
Page 3 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
land use map the area where the Berweger pit is located is a mining overlay area.
Consistent with future land use plan.
Discussion ended.
E. Bayfield County Forestry, owner and Pitlik & Wick Inc.-Carolyn Lurvey, agent
(Bayfield) – Zoning district map amendment from F-2 to F-1, on a [40–acre parcel
(ID# 04-006-2-51-05-13-4-03-000-10000), located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 13,
Township 51 North, Range 5 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Carolyn Lurvey with Pitlik and Wick, spoke in support explaining the reason for the
zoning change is so to be able to place the to mix asphalt plant there this summer for the
Highway 13 project. The Town of Bayfield plan commission passed the rezone
unanimously. Miller asked if this is a temporary rezone and Kastrosky answered the
rezone is permanent. It will stay F-1 until an applicant comes back to the Committee to
rezone it back to F-2. This parcel is zoned F-2 now and has little forestry practices on it.
If it is changed to F-1 there still can be forestry practices allowed on the parcel. Casina
stated that in the land use plan the parcel would still be used for silviculture practices.
Miller asked if it is necessary to rezone the property then and Kastrosky stated the
Committee can no hear a request for a batch plant in an F-2 zone. This is a long
process. Once this is rezoned then we can hear the request for the Conditional Use for a
batch plant in March or April. Miller asked Jason Bodine, of the Forestry Department,
how the board voted on this request and the answer was approved contingent upon all
other permits and requirements for the Conditional Use Permit.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the plan commission has approved this request but the
Town Board has not yet met on this issue. The committee needs to be sensitive to this
since they have not yet met. This is on the agenda for the County Board at the end of the
month. Timing sometimes only allows us to do this in this matter. If we have to wait for
Town Board recommendation then we will be another month off. This will be close to the
due date of the placement and operation of the plant which is in July. Jardine stated that
in the motion the Committee can say contingent upon Town Board approval.
Discussion ended.
F. Michael Isaksson, owner and Bayfield County Emergency Management-Jan
Victorson, agent (Port Wing) – Extent height of existing tower from 180’ to 195’, on
a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-042-2-50-08-25-2-04-000-20000), described as the W ½ of the
SE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section 25, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing,
Bayfield County, WI]
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Jan Victorson, Coordinator of Emergency Management for Bayfield County, explained
the goal is to provide cellular service to the Port Wing, and Herbster areas. The tower is
existing and has an antenna on top that extends 20 feet, so the tower is under the 200
foot limit that requires lighting. AT & T wants to add an addition 15 foot tower to support
their services, still staying below the 200 foot lighting requirement. This is a County
owned tower. There are currently 3 users on that tower. Miller stated he does not see
this as a problem since it is already covered in the ordinance; the only concern would be
the collapse radius. Casina stated that the collapse radius only applies to new towers
Page 4 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
and this is an existing tower. The height would be brought up to 195 feet and the permit
that was issues in 2001 is for 184 feet. Maki asked about the surrounding buildings if the
tower were to collapse and Casina stated this tower is located in a field with no
surrounding buildings.
File Report: Kastrosky stated no correspondence except the Town Board
recommendation form which states approval and was reviewed for compatibility with the
Town comprehensive and land use plan.
Discussion ended.
G. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, is requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend the definitions listed in section 13-1-4(a) to
include definitions of Comprehensive Plan and Consistent With and to amend section
13-1-41(b)(4) regarding the procedure for decisions by the Planning and Zoning
Committee upon applications for Conditional Uses.
Kastrosky spoke in support stating in the Zoning and Board meeting there are differing
opinions on how to utilize comprehensive plans and decision making. Problems that
were had in the past were readdressed in requirements and process. These three
petitions were drafted quite hastily since they were time sensitive. These take time to
absorb. The last month was taken to be review and revise. These petitions will come
back next month in the public hearing. This is a petition to give a stronger level of Town
Board recommendation and the criteria that this Committee needs to follow for decisions.
Rondeau then asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Roger Dreher spoke in favor stating it is a good start. There are a few rough edges and
it is good to add the conflict of interest portion. Sometimes there is confusion on behalf of
the citizens and have a clear set of rules helps this. With respect to the changes, under
decision making considerations, there are some additions for the consistency with
comprehensive plans, is there going to be something added to this section. Kastrosky
stated the intent there was to make sure that everyone understood that the Town plan
was more specific on local issues. This could probably be restated in a better manner.
Dreher also stated that a CUP only requires a 7 day notice to the Town; this makes it
almost impossible for the Town Board and the Commission to have any level of review
prior to a public hearing. The application deadline should be 21 days. This will give time
to sit down and look at the application prior to the public hearing on the more
controversial issues.
Rondeau then asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this proposal.
Barbara Robertson came forward and asked what the amendment stated. Kastrosky
stated he would get her a copy of the amendment.
File Report: Kastrosky stated as far as the timing of application the department is
thinking of using the Daily Press instead of the County Journal for official publication.
The Journal is problematic with deadlines. Also the Towns’ know when their meetings
are and when the Zoning Committee meetings are, Barnes and Bayfield there are two
months that the time frame does not line up right.
Discussion ended.
Page 5 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
H. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to create section 13-1-41B regarding the statutory
authority of the Planning and Zoning Committee Rules and Procedures, describing and
resolving conflicts of interests of Committee members, and the decision process by the
Planning and Zoning Committee upon applications for Conditional Uses
Kastrosky explained comments are the same as item G.
Rondeau then asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Same as item G.
Discussion ended.
I. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance To amend section 13-1-105 to change the title of
the section from “Rezoning” to “Petition to Change District Boundaries” and to clarify the
Planning and Zoning Committee procedures for review and decision on petitions to
change zoning district boundaries.
Rondeau then asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
Roger Dreher spoke, asking if these petitions will be in the form of a public hearing next
month.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Same as item G.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Miller seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at
1:48 pm.
[Chairman Rondeau called for a break at 1:48 pm.
Meeting reconvened at 1:56 pm]
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 1:56 pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Maki, Miller, Rantala, and Rondeau –all present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, Doug Casina, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA and
Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the January
19, 2012 meeting.
Miller motioned to approve, Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
Page 6 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
10. Business:
A. Town of Cable, owner and Larry Ludzack, Chairman (Cable) – Reclamation Plan,
on a [23–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-10000), described as SW ¼ of
the SE 1/4, less V. 235 P. 418, and their 17-acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-
000-20000, described as that parcel in SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 43
North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Maki motioned to approve the Reclamation Plan and it meets the Town
Comprehensive Plan. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/0
B. Town of Cable, owner and Larry Ludzack, Chairman (Cable) – Non-metallic Mine on
a [23–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-10000), described as SW ¼ of the
SE 1/4, less V. 235 P. 418, and their 17-acre parcel (ID# 04-012-2-43-07-22-4-03-000-
20000, described as that parcel in SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 43 North,
Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve the extension for 10 years and that it meets the
Town Plan. Rantala seconded. Kastrosky asked about hours of operation. Maki
stated same hours as before and Miller indicated that the Committee should state what
the hours the Town has established. Kastrosky said the Town did not have any
conditions on their approval. No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/0
C. Glen Berweger (Lincoln) – Reclamation Plan [30–acre parcel (ID# 04-030-2-45-05-13-
1-04-000-20000), described as that portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, less V. 502 P. 24,
Section 13, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln, Bayfield County, WI]
Rantala motioned to approve the Reclamation Plan pending Town Board approval
and it meets Comprehensive planning. Maki seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried. 4/0
D. Glen Berweger (Lincoln) – Non-metallic Mine [30–acre parcel (ID# 04-030-2-45-05-
13-1-04-000-20000), described as that portion of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, less V. 502 P.
24, Section 13, Township 45 North, Range 5 West, Town of Lincoln, Bayfield County,
WI]
Rantala motioned to approve for 15 years, provided it is consistent with the land
use plan and Town Board approval. Maki seconded. Kastrosky stated that
administratively when these applications are received with Town Board approval, they
can be issued. Maybe choose to modify your motion that any hours of operation etc.
would apply what the Town puts as a condition. Hope the Town does not go with a
different duration. Also that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Rantala stated
that is ok and to modify her motion, Maki seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried. 4/0 (*Note: No stipulations were placed by the Town)
E. Bayfield County Forestry, owner and Pitlik & Wick Inc.-Carolyn Lurvey, agent
(Bayfield) – Zoning district map amendment from F-2 to F-1, on a [40–acre parcel
(ID# 04-006-2-51-05-13-4-03-000-10000), located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 13,
Township 51 North, Range 5 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County WI]
Maki motioned to approve the rezone from F-2 to F-1, Rantala seconded.
Kastrosky stated that the plan commission did recommend approval to the Town Board.
He stated to the Committee that they should say contingent upon Town Board approval
Page 7 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
since they have veto power and can file a petition. Maki motioned to approve pending
Town Board approval, Rantala seconded. Kastrosky then asked when the Town Board
meets on this issue and the reply from the audience was Monday. No further discussion.
Motion carried. 4/0 (*Note: Town Board approval received on 2-8-2012).
F. Michael Isaksson, owner and Bayfield County Emergency Management-Jan
Victorson, agent (Port Wing) – Extent height of existing tower from 180’ to 195’, on
a [20–acre parcel (ID# 04-042-2-50-08-25-2-04-000-20000), described as the W ½ of the
SE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section 25, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing,
Bayfield County, WI]
Miller motioned to approve as long as it is consistent with the Towns
comprehensive plan and that it meets collapse criteria. Jardine seconded. Casina
explained the easement boundary would have to be extended. Kastrosky explained the
tower is 200 feet and the 125% fall zone radius that would put the fall zone radius at 500
feet. The easement area is currently 330 by 660. Casina stated this tower was in place
before the telecommunications ordinance went into effect, and the 125% set back was
not in place at that time. Kastrosky explained the fall zone works North and South just
not East and West. No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/0
G. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, is requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to amend the definitions listed in section 13-1-4(a) to
include definitions of Comprehensive Plan and Consistent With and to amend section
13-1-41(b)(4) regarding the procedure for decisions by the Planning and Zoning
Committee upon applications for Conditional Uses.
Miller motioned to Table. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried. 4/0
H. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance to create section 13-1-41B regarding the statutory
authority of the Planning and Zoning Committee Rules and Procedures, describing and
resolving conflicts of interests of Committee members, and the decision process by the
Planning and Zoning Committee upon applications for Conditional Uses
Miller motioned to Table. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried. 4/0
I. A petition by Karl Kastrosky, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting amendments to the
Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance To amend section 13-1-105 to change the title of
the section from “Rezoning” to “Petition to Change District Boundaries” and to clarify the
Planning and Zoning Committee procedures for review and decision on petitions to
change zoning district boundaries.
Miller motioned to Table. Rantala seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried. 4/0
J. Bayfield Storage LLC (Bayfield) –storage building (12, 000 sq. ft.) [5.12–acre parcel (ID#
04-006-2-50-04-22-1-04-000-12600), described as Lot 2 of CSM #167 in V.10 P.31
Page 8 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
(located in the SE NE) Tog with Ease., Section 22, Township 50 North, Range 04 West,
Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
John Nelson explained he is looking to expand his storage and add an additional
building of 12,000 square feet. When Nelson met with the plan commission they
considered the building a primary building not an accessory building on the application,
but they approved it. The Town did not meet yet. The site is approved for a 20, 000
square foot building but due to state regulations only a 12,000 square foot building will
be built with the phase two site existing there. The storm water pollution prevention plan
would cover both structures. Maki asked if the planning commission approved this
request and the answer was yes but the Town Board is meeting after the Zoning
Committee. File Report: No Town Board input. No other correspondence.
Miller motioned to approve and that it is consistent with the comp plan and
contingent upon Town Board approval and any stipulations they place. Jardine
seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/0 (*Note: Town Board approval
received on 2-24-2012 and no stipulations were placed).
11. Previous Business
K. Discussion and possible action regarding reasons and rational for the denial of the Town
of Lincoln Overlay (remanded back from Board of Supervisors on 1/31/12)
Miller motioned to suspend rules to allow public input limited to three minutes per
person. Jardine seconded. Motion Carried.4/0 (Jardine passed around a map of
Marengo Lake for the Committee to see).
Rondeau explained to the audience that full board instructed the Committee to explain
the reasons and rational for denial. The Committee could make one of three decisions.
They can approve the decision made last month, overturn the decision made last month,
or table the decision made last month. Those in favor can speak first.
Roger Dreher explained he is not comfortable commenting since the agenda stated the
Committee was to only state why they made the decision, therefor there are people that
did not attend this meeting, that are very much for the overlay. It is inappropriate to
rehear this issue at this point. There should be a clear explanation for the reasons for
denial and let the issue rest. Miller stated at this time the Committee is not taking
testimony but only public comments. Jack Carlson agrees and stated if the Committee
would like to take public comment that is fine but base their decisions based upon the
testimony that was taken at the public hearing. If the Committee would like to hear from
the public now that is fine but abide by the rules of the County Board and give your
reasons for denial. Maki stated if there is no need to take public comment the Committee
should just state the reasons for denial.
Miller motioned to close public comment. Rantala seconded. No further
discussion. Motion Carried. 4/0
Carlson explained the statutes state that when the Committee turns down an ordinance
amendment to set forth the reasons and rational for denial. This is what the Committee is
here to do today. When the motion is made it is for the reasons and rational behind the
decision. The Motion would simply be the reasons and rational for the committee’s
decision are as follows and then set that forth. Where this is coming from in terms of
Section 59.69 of Wisconsin Statutes, talks about county zoning. 59.69(e) talks about the
Page 9 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
board may amend and ordinance or change the district boundaries. The Committee
denied the petition and the statute provides that the Committee, after the public hearing
recommends denial of the petition, it shall report its recommendations directly to the
County Board with its reasons for the action. Miller stated he is a resident in the Town of
Lincoln and is there and conflict of interest and the reply was no. Maki explained the
petition had 93 signatures and 287 people in the Town of Lincoln that means not
everyone was not petitioned. Also this seems like a controlling mechanism for the
shoreline properties. Rantala explained one of the reasons that need to be taken into
account that Bayfield County is one of the most restrictive as far as zoning and setbacks.
There is a population of 15,000 in the County. Tourism is important in the County and
this may or may not be an opportunity to build in that area somewhere down the road.
The overlay was too restrictive and is not necessary. Miller stated the following rational
and reasons were already given (see motion below, Miller read these at this time) and
the Committee did take into account the 12 points (Section 13-1-41(b)(1)(2)(3)). Jardine
explained the protection for the particular lake is already in the ordinance. The overlay
contradicts the ordinance plans. There were people in the Town that were opposed to
the overlay, the petition was not valid. Rondeau explained the County worked hard to
put together and Comprehensive Plan and the entire Towns have put together a
Comprehensive Planning Commission. They do a good job and it is another layer before
it comes to the Committee. The overlay restricts the comprehensive plan for the Towns
and basically states you do not have a choice. Rondeau agrees with Rantala. The
proposal that is in place with the comprehensive planning commissions gives great
guidance to the townships and town boards and gives the Committee great leeway on
what the Towns want in their area. This overlay eliminates what the towns
comprehensive planning does and is too restrictive. Carlson stated the Committee just
stated its reasons for denial and it would not hurt to put those reasons in terms of a
motion. (He then paraphrased what was already stated by the committee in terms of the
motion made by Miller below).
Jardine motioned to conglomerate all the Committees reasons together and
forward to County Board. He then withdrew his motion.
Miller motioned to uphold the denial based upon the following reasons and
rational presented today (2/16/2012) by the Committee, Rantala seconded. The
following are the reasons and rational for the denial:
1. Protection already exists in ordinance requirements, specifically, section 13-
1-29(b)(4) of the zoning code.
2. The overlay contradicts land use plans, comprehensive plans and the
Bayfield County ordinance requirements for Multiple Use Developments and
Conservation Subdivisions. The County Land Use plan encourages Multiple
Use Developments and Conservation Subdivisions by virtue of cluster
development, and maintenance of open spaces. Such developments may be
impeded if density requirements of Multiple Unit Developments and
Conservation Subdivisions are too restrictive.
3. The Committee gave careful consideration of testimony from land owners
speaking in support and opposition to proposed overlay.
4. Impact has not been measured or identified; however, it is believed there is
limited property subject to Multiple Unit Developments in the town.
5. There is no actual request or immediate threat of this occurring and no
existing Multiple Unit Developments in the Town.
6. Overlay zoning was a land use tool that pre-existed comprehensive planning
and requirements for consistency. The need of overlay districts is diminished
by virtue of the adoption of the county and town comprehensive plans.
Page 10 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2012
7. This proposal eliminates discussion of flexibility and dictates by prohibition
8. It is not parcel of resource specific.
9. Statute requires the County ordinance to be final zoning authority and
compliant with “consistency with”.
10. Pending ordinance requirements pertaining to the decision making procedure
will address issues specifically, proposed changes to 13-1-41 of the zoning
code.
No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/0
12. Other Business
L. Discussion and Possible Action regarding software programs (Novus and Flex
Viewer)
Kastrosky said there is software in the County available for use but cannot be used. For
example when viewing a property statement online, there is a little house on the page
and when clicked on, it is supposed to take you to a map view of the parcel, this feature
does not work. The point is there is nothing in the budget for this but would like to work
within the County to get this function to work properly. There is a software program that
licenses the County to be able to do this. Each application has to have a property
statement and photo attached.
M. Discussion and Possible Action on NR 115
Kastrosky said this will go on for 2 more years.
N. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky noted he is pleased with the new document and is the solution to the
problem, looking forward to the petition to be heard next month.
13. Monthly Report
Miller motioned to receive and place on file. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.4/0
14. Budget and Revenue
Kastrosky mentioned in Item 13.
15. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 2:42 pm.
Prepared by kmh on 2/23/2012 Approved by KLK on 3/8/12
Final Approval on 3/15/2012
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2012/#2 February