HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 4/19/2012
Page 1 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
April 19, 2012
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:00pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Schultz, and Rondeau – all present. Miller – Absent.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Mike Furtak-AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom -
Secretary.
A. Election of Chairman
Pocernich motioned to elect Rondeau, Schultz seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
B. Election of Vice-Chairman
Pocernich motioned to elect Jardine, Schultz seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
3. Adjournment of Public Hearing 4:04 pm
4. Call to order the Public Hearing 4:05 pm
5. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Schultz, and Rondeau – all present. Miller – Absent.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, Mike Furtak-AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom -
Secretary.
6. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the April 5, 2012 and April
12, 2012 affidavit of publication and the certified mailing receipts as published in the
County Journal.
7. 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.
8. Public Hearing:
A. Brian Capps and 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]
(Postponed from January 19, 2012 meeting)
Spears explained that her parents who are old but not dying have asked to be buried on
Spears’ land in Cornucopia. When trying to investigate how to do this it was explained to
her, to go through the Conditional Use process and ask for a private cemetery. She went
to the Town meeting and spoke with the town of Bell and they felt it was not in their
Page 2 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
jurisdiction to make the decision. Jardine asked if the Town put any special conditions
on this request, the reply was no, and that the Town felt this was not in their jurisdiction
and there are no legal statutes to go by. The Town did not make a recommendation one
way or the other. Spears explained she just wants to do this legitimately. Jardine asked
Kastrosky if the department looked into this request, Kastrosky replied with, yes there
are no statutes stating one way or the other. A letter was sent out to other counties
asking input. No response from anyone. Kastrosky explained that Bill Bussey looked at
the request and also stated there were no limitations that could deny this request. The
Town did deny this request stating the issue was not addressed in the comprehensive
plan. They denied it because they did not know what to do with it. There should be a
GPS point recorded on the deed so future owners know that there is a burial site on the
land and where it is. Are we going to have set backs and how far does the committee
want to go with this? Pocernich thinks the reason why the Town denied this is because
when the owners abandon the property, the property goes back to the Town, and it is
then their responsibility. If there is a burial site on the property the Town does not want to
deal with it. Rondeau asked if it is going to be an urn or a casket, Spears stated a
casket. Jardine made a statement saying if there is nothing in the ordinance then the
Committee can make it up as they go. Pocernich stated there needs to be a GPS point
recorded on the deed. Rondeau agreed saying this might create issues with others in
the future wanted a private burial site on their property.
No one spoke in opposition. Discussion ended.
File Report: Kastrosky stated Town Board denied this request. There are no other
letters of opposition or support.
B. Village of Cable, Town of Namakagon and Town of Cable (Cable) – expand existing
airport facility (terminal building & 18 hangers on a [20.00–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-
2-43-07-21-1-02-000-70000) described as the S ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 21,
Township 43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, W]
Bill DeVries, Treasurer/Secretary of the Cable Union Airport Commission, explained that
just to clarify the Town of Cable, Drummond, and Namakagon all own the Cable Union
Airport. They just finished a 1.3 million dollar grant to put together a 25 year plan, and
finished the reconstruction of the runway. This request is a plan for the proposed 18 sites
for hangers and eventually a terminal building. There is a list of 14 people who would like
to build hangers. They lease the property from the airport and pay taxes on them. The
person owns these hangers themselves and they pay for building them. This airport is a
sport airport.
James Drougas spoke in opposition and has a property adjacent to the proposed
building sites for the hangers on this property. He does not know what the setbacks are
but is concerned about lighting and noise. These hangers might be too close to his
property. Schultz asked how long Drougas owned his property and the reply was one
year but he lives in Chicago and showed the Committee where his property was located
on the map.
File Report: Kastrosky stated no recommendation from the Town of Cable. There are
letters of concern from the DNR talking about environmental issues, wetlands, and
floodplains that could be impacted. Another letter from the National Park Service,
concerning potential encroachment on the river boundary.
Page 3 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
Discussion ended.
C. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) –
reclamation plan on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-01-000-10000),
described as the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-02-
000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Eric Brye, division manager for Mathy Construction, explained the plan is in Roffer’s
Name and Mathy bought out that company a few years prior but there is no change in
the plan. In the future they would like to submit and new plan in their name but the plan
will not change.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the plan was approved March 20, 2006 and reapproved
March 19, 2012 by Land Conservation.
Discussion ended.
D. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) – continue
non-metallic mine and temporary asphalt plant on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-
47-08-35-4-01-000-10000), described as the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel
(ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-02-000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, both
located in Section 35, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield
County, WI]
Eric Brye explained they want to renew their non-metallic mine. Jardine asked about
the one person that was in opposition for the hours on Saturday. Brye stated he believes
in the old application the hours were from 6 am to 9pm Monday through Saturday but
they would be ok with shortening the hours for Saturday. This was 5 year duration, but
would prefer a longer duration.
File Report: Kastrosky explained the application stats hours of operation Monday
through Saturday 6 am to 9 pm. The Town Board approved it based on those hours.
What the Town didn’t approve was the temporary asphalt plant. It was mentioned on the
application and the public hearing but Casina probably did not transfer it onto the Town
Board sheet. The Town does have an ordinance on gravel pit as far as hours. There is
an email from Jim Doaust expressing concern about hours on Saturday and that they
should be shortened to 6 am to 4 pm.
Discussion ended.
E. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) –
reclamation plan on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-04-000-10000),
described as the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-03-
000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Eric Brye explained this is an adjoining parcel.
File Report: Kastrosky stated no hot mix plant on this site, hours 6 am to 9 pm Monday
through Saturday, Town Board approved compatible with comprehensive plan, no other
correspondence in the file.
Page 4 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
F. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) – continue
non-metallic mine on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-04-000-10000),
described as the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-03-
000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Eric Brye explained adjourning parcel to the previous parcel, the mine extents from one
parcel onto another parcel. This has the same duration, 5 years.
File Report: Kastrosky stated no hot mix plant on this site, hours 6 am to 9 pm Monday
through Saturday, Town Board approved compatible with comprehensive plan.
G. Nancy Dymesich, owner and Don Dymesich, agent (Mason) – reclamation plan on
a [30-acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-23-1-03-000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼, less a 5 acre parcel in the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, of the NE ¼,
Section 23, Township 46N, Range 6 W, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Don Dymesich explained the plan will stay the same and the pit has not been expanded
since the plan was approved. There is 1.5 acres.
File Report: Kastrosky stated approved February of 2005. All permits get reviewed
and monitored on an annual basis. Jardine asked if there are limits on acreage for
borrow pits and Kastrosky explained prior to NR 115 pits were open and never had to
be reclaimed. If the pit was open before the bill was passed they still do not have to be
reclaimed. If the pit was opened after the bill was passed they have to be reclaimed and
the owners pay on open acres of the pit. Pits of less than an acre there is no reclaiming.
Discussion ended.
H. Nancy Dymesich, owner and Don Dymesich, agent (Mason) – reclamation plan on
a [30-acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-23-1-03-000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼, less a 5 acre parcel in the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, of the NE ¼,
Section 23, Township 46N, Range 6 W, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Don Dymesich would like to get the Conditional Permit renewed and would request the
permit for a duration of 15 years. Also would like to have the hours of operation to be 7
am to 6 pm Monday through Friday.
File Report: Kastrosky explained the Town of Mason approved this request and the
Town board is in full agreement and see no problems. Nothing else in the file.
I. Lisa Gordon (Russell) – rezone on a [2.08-acre parcel (ID #04-046-2-51-03-31-3-03-
000-20000), described as the S ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼,
and the N 110’ of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 31,
Township 51 North, Range 3 West, Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI from F-2 to R-
RB]
No one spoke in support or opposition.
File Report: Kastrosky explained this is tribal owned land and for whatever reason the
land is zoned F-2. This is a 2.08 acre parcel and F-2 does not allow residences in this
Page 5 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
zone. Jardine asked if the house burns down can’t they rebuild. Kastrosky stated there
is discussion on moving the location of the new building. The Town was notified and the
department did not hear back from them.
Discussion ended.
J. Eric Allen, owner and Tony Stewart, agent (Drummond) – 400 foot cell tower The
property is a portion of this [40.00–acre parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-07-04-03-000-
10000), described as part of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, and on a portion of his 22-acre
parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-04-4-04-000-30000), described as part of the SE ¼ of the
SE ¼, both in Section 7, Township 44 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond,
Bayfield County, WI]
Tony Stewart, Agent for AT&T, explained AT&T is trying to expand their coverage in this
area. There are over 280 sites that are being proposed throughout Wisconsin. This tower
site will be on a 100’ x 100’ leased area on Mr. Allen’s property and allow space on the
tower for Bayfield County Emergency Management Systems. AT&T has clearance from
the FAA to build this tower. There were environmental studies done on this tower and
one of the concerns that was raised was the issue with migratory birds. A condition was
placed that the tower has to have bird diverters on the guide wires for the birds and other
than that the tower was approved. Instead of having two, 200 foot towers we went with a
400 foot tower. Once this tower is up and running hopefully one of the other proposed
tower sites will be eliminated. Bayfield County ordinance says that the tower cannot be
within 2,000 feet of another tower and this tower is not within 2,000 feet of any other
tower. There is a Verizon tower to collocate on but the tower failed drastically from a
structural standpoint. AT & T feels they have met all requirements for the county. The
Town abstained from voting but has checked it is in compliance with the comprehensive
plan. Jardine asked what the two concerns of the Town were and the answer was 1.
Concerns for the local cooperative and local jobs. The construction of this tower is only
45 days and 2. The Town wanted AT&T to build on town owned property. That particular
site is located a quarter mile from this site and does not link up with other towers and
would not fit in with network. There is also a letter that was faxed in at 4 pm before the
Town meeting, from Norvado stating AT&T should let Norvado build the tower and then
Norvado would have space available for AT&T to collocate on that tower. Jardine was
also concerned that the Town wanted AT&T to build on their land but yet they would not
make a decision one way or another. Abstaining from voting does not give the Zoning
Committee any direction. Schultz asked if there will be any other pace on the tower to
sell and the reply was yes up to 4 additional collocate spaces.
Dave Carter, General Manager with Norvado, spoke in opposition stating several
months ago Norvado went to AT&T and Verizon explaining they were going to be putting
up towers and wanted their input on where to locate these towers, no one responded
and Norvado moved forward with trying to cover the most populated areas first. The
permit was for 190 foot tower in Drummond and has been hung up for property line
disputes between the Town and the school. At that point when Norvado asked AT&T, if
they would have told Carter they needed a tower south of town, Norvado would have
erected a tower in that location. Most of the time we do not retain ownership of the tower
but after it is built we sell it. In that respect how is AT&T going to impact our tower.
Norvado also gets all the calls thinking the tower is theirs when it is actually AT&T’s (so
Norvado is doing most of the work anyway). Carter also questioned the elimination of
other towers. AT&T says they cannot move a tower or will not know if they can until the
tower is up and running for 6 months but most businesses do a progression study before
Page 6 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
they erect a tower to know what (if any) towers can be eliminated. Norvado needs the
revenue from this tower. Schultz asked about the comment about selling the tower after
it is built and Carter stated it is normal for AT&T, or any company, to sell the tower once
it is built. Also in Douglass County AT&T have many towers that were erected but are not
operational yet. Norvado does all the ethernet and telephone services to make the tower
work, so Norvado knows when the tower is running. Jardine stated that the Committees’
decision is going to make the difference between one and the other and he would have
liked the Town to make a decision or at least have some input.
File Report: Kastrosky stated Town Board abstained from voting concerned for local
cooperative and lack of consideration for building on town property a quarter mile from
proposed site. Letter from Dan Anderson and Irene Johnson who both are opposed.
Rondeau asked Carter a yes or no question, the existing tower that Norvado has, can it
be built up to 400 feet, the answer was no.
Discussion ended.
9. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Pocernich seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned
at 5:13 pm.
[Chairman Rondeau called for a break at 5:13 pm.
Meeting reconvened at 5:20 pm]
10. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 5:20pm.
11. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Schultz, and Rondeau –all present. Miller – Absent.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA, and Krystal
Hagstrom - Secretary.
12. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the March 15,
2012 meeting.
Pocernich motioned to approve, Schultz seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
13. Business:
A. Brian Capps and 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]
(Postponed from January 19, 2012 meeting)
Kastrosky reminded the Committee of the 13 points of guidance for decision making.
Jardine motioned to approve with the GPS location on the deed and a setback.
Pocernich seconded. Schultz stated this needs to be in a vault and then the setbacks
would not be an issue. Cemeteries usually require a vault. Pocernich is concerned and
wants it limited to just the current property owners. Furtak says there are no statutory
Page 7 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
requirements for burying a body on private property. Once the body is buried there has
to be a court order to dig up any body no matter where it is buried. Jardine stated he
would like his motion revised to be [1] GPS coordinates [2] Limited to two people [3] A
vault must be in place [4] All must be recorded on the deed. Schultz seconded. No
further discussion. Motion carried. (Approved – Jardine, Schultz, and Rondeau.
Opposed – Pocernich)
B. Village of Cable, Town of Namakagon and Town of Cable (Cable) – expand existing
airport facility (terminal building & 18 hangers on a [20.00–acre parcel (ID# 04-012-
2-43-07-21-1-02-000-70000) described as the S ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 21,
Township 43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, W]
Schultz motioned to approve. Pocernich seconded. Schultz sympathized with
the property owner that was opposed but explained the owner knew there was an airport
there and his concerns would not stop him from denying this request. Jardine stated the
property is farther away than what was thought. No further discussion. Motion carried.
C. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) –
reclamation plan on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-01-000-10000),
described as the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-02-
000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve. Jardine seconded. Pocernich asked if he should
abstain from voting since he works for Mathy Construction and the answer was yes. No
further discussion. Motion carried. (*note: Pocernich abstained from voting)
D. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) – continue
non-metallic mine and temporary asphalt plant on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-
47-08-35-4-01-000-10000), described as the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel
(ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-02-000-10000), described as the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, both
located in Section 35, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield
County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve as applied for. Jardine seconded. Schultz stated
he lives close to this plant and cannot hear the noise. No further discussion. Motion
carried. (*note: Pocernich abstained from voting)
Rondeau motioned to approve for a limit of 10 years. Jardine seconded. Motion
carried. (*note: Pocernich abstained from voting)
E. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) –
reclamation plan on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-04-000-10000),
described as the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-03-
000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve. Jardine seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried. (*note: Pocernich abstained from voting)
F. Mathy Construction Co, owner and Richard Forsythe, agent (Iron River) – continue
non-metallic mine on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-04-000-10000),
Page 8 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
described as the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ and a 40-acre parcel (ID# 04-024-2-47-08-35-4-03-
000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, both located in Section 35, Township
47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve for 10 years. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried. (*note: Pocernich abstained from voting)
G. Nancy Dymesich, owner and Don Dymesich, agent (Mason) – reclamation plan on
a [30-acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-23-1-03-000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼, less a 5 acre parcel in the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, of the NE ¼,
Section 23, Township 46N, Range 6 W, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve. Pocernich seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
H. Nancy Dymesich, owner and Don Dymesich, agent (Mason) – reclamation plan on
a [30-acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-23-1-03-000-10000), described as the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼, less a 5 acre parcel in the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, of the NE ¼,
Section 23, Township 46N, Range 6 W, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve with hours 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday
and 15 year term. Jardine seconded. Pocernich asked about Saturday hours. Schultz
motioned for Saturday hours 8 am to noon. Jardine seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
I. Lisa Gordon (Russell) – rezone on a [2.08-acre parcel (ID #04-046-2-51-03-31-3-03-
000-20000), described as the S ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼,
and the N 110’ of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 31,
Township 51 North, Range 3 West, Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI from F-2 to R-
RB]
Pocernich motioned to approve. Jardine asked if the Town approved this and
Kastrosky stated no word from the Town. Schultz stated he went and looked at the
property and all the way on both side of the street to the property are residential lots.
What the applicant is asking is absolutely compatible. Pocernich asked if the Town of
Russell had the opportunity to review this and the answer was yes every request.
Pocernich motioned to approve contingent upon Town Board approval. Jardine
seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
J. Eric Allen, owner and Tony Stewart, agent (Drummond) – 400 foot cell tower The
property is a portion of his [40.00–acre parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-07-04-03-000-
10000), described as part of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼, and on a portion of his 22-acre
parcel (ID# 04-018-2-44-07-04-4-04-000-30000), described as part of the SE ¼ of the
SE ¼, both in Section 7, Township 44 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond,
Bayfield County, WI]
Schultz motioned to approve. Jardine seconded and also stated that the Town
should have had some input. Rondeau has a concern with the Town abstaining from
voting. The committee decided to govern from the bottom up to give the Town some
decision. Schultz stated the Town made their decision by not voting, they did not side
with AT&T or Norvado. Pocernich agrees. Kastrosky asked the Committee the reasons
for approval. Schultz explained coverage is needed in Bayfield County. Also the Town
Page 9 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
made their decision and they did not back Norvado. Jardine explained he agrees with
the higher tower idea and the fact that it will cover more area with less towers. Rondeau
explained this is a huge decision and with the Town being so concerned they should
have made a decision. Kastrosky again stated that the reason for approving this request
is [1] The area needs more coverage [2] The Town had the opportunity to make a
decision and chose not to [3] The higher tower will decrease the number of other towers
in the area. Pocernich agreed with all those decisions. No further discussion. Motion
carried. (Approved – Jardine, Schultz, and Pocernich. Opposed – Rondeau)
14. Other Business
K. Discussion and Possible Action regarding changing conditions that were
erroneously placed by town on Josh and Brenda Rowley’s non-metallic mine
(December 15, 2012)
Kastrosky explained the applicants applied for two Conditional Use Permits, the Town
errored in writing the conditions on the pink sheet, they were different from what the
Town had in their minutes. The Committee approved what the Town wrote on the pink
sheet for conditions, a letter was written to the Rowley’s and they came back explaining
that is not what the Town had said in the minutes. The Town states hours of operation 7
am to 6 pm Monday – Friday, 8 to 12 Saturday, access route Maple Ridge Rd, combined
total of 15 acres open. The Committee needs to make a motion to change the conditions
since the Town made a mistake not the Committee or the Secretary.
Schultz motioned to approve the change as presented by Kastrosky (written
above). Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motioned carried.
L. Discussion and Possible Action on next meeting time and date.
Kastrosky stated in the winter the meeting starts at 1pm and in the summer the meeting
starts at 4pm. would the Committee like to keep the hours the same or move all the
times to 1 pm. Pocernich would like to keep the hours as they are. Schultz and Jardine
agree.
M. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky said two more Towns that need to amend and adopt. Once this is done the
department will get the $100,000 that is owed to us.
N. Discussion and Possible Action on NR115
Kastrosky noted this will go on for a long time and has been on the committee since
2002 and will not be completed until 2014. The DNR is willing to open up the rule that
just got approved.
Page 10 of 10 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 19, 2012
15. Monthly Report – No report.
16. Budget and Revenue – No discussion.
17. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 6:10 pm.
Prepared by kmh on 4/26/2012; given to KK 4/26/2012 4pm
Approved by KLK on 5/11/12
Final Approval on 5/17/2012
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2012/#4 April