HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 6/21/2012
Page 1 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JUNE 21, 2012
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Schultz, Miller and Rondeau – all present.
Others present were: Director-Karl Kastrosky, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Kastrosky showed the audience the June 7th and June 14th
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. Theresa Wilson, owner and Shane Begley, agent for Central States Tower/AT&T
(Mason) – 300’ communication tower on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-36-1-
03-000-10000), described as part of the SW ¼ of the NE 1/4, and the SE ¼ of the NE ¼,
Section 36, Township 46 North, Range 6 West, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Shane Begley, Agent for Central States Tower and AT&T, spoke in support. He
explained this will be a 300’ tower with four additional sites for other users. Because of
the line of sight technology that these towers need to talk to each other, adding this 300’
tower will eliminate other additional towers in the area. Jardine asked if they were in
cooperation with Verizon, Begley explained this tower will be owned by Central States
Towers and they are individual companies and will have 4 sites for collocation. Miller
stated there is an absolute need in this area since there is no service. Kastrosky asked
if the surface elevation is conducive to the site and other elevations in the area. Begley
stated at this elevation is in direct line with the other towers in the area.
Sandy Hanson, representing herself and her neighbors, spoke in opposition stating it is
too close to their house. Wish there could be another location for this tower. She enjoys
nature and believes this will devalue her property and her neighbor’s property. She
agrees with needing coverage in the area but wishes there could be another site.
Schultz asked how far away she lives from the tower and the answer was 1 mile.
File Report: Kastrosky stated this is for a tower, and an 80’ x 80’ compound area and
equipment shed. Town Board reviewed with comp plan and approved and the need for
service in the area.
Discussion ended.
B. Jerald & Margaret Feirer (Barnes) – rezone R-2 to R-1 on a [.551-acre parcel (ID #04-
004-2-45-09-20-1-00-218-21000), described as Lot 1, Block 6, of Meyers & Worthington
Page 2 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
1st Addition Subdivision, located in Section 20, Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town
of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Jerald Feirer spoke in support and stated he is on a small parcel in Barnes and would
like the option to put up a small tool shed about 10’ x 12’. Kastrosky explained this is
only a .55 acre parcel that is zoned R-2 and the standards are 5 acres and set back is
75ft. If this is changed to R-1 then the setback standard is 10ft. Feirer stated he was at a
meeting with the Town of Barnes and they approved this request.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the Town board recommendation sheet is not filled out
but the applicant stated he was at the Town meeting and it was approved. No other
correspondence.
Discussion ended.
C. The Town of Grand View with Jeff Simon, Northwoods Paving, Agent (Grand View)
– temporary asphalt plant on a [5–acres (ID# 04-021-2-45-06-35-3-04-000-20000), and
35-acres (ID# 04-21-2-45-06-35-04-000-10000), described as the SE ¼ of the SW ¼,
Section 35, Township 45 North, Range 6 West, Town of Grand View, Bayfield County,
WI]
Howard Sybal with the Town of Grand View spoke in support stating Bayfield County is
crushing a lot of gravel and would like to store the gravel at the Camp Eight gravel pit.
Now they want to install a temporary asphalt plant and as far as the town is concerned it
is approved.
Eric Brye, with Northwood’s Paving, stated this plant would not be installed until after
Labor day and is only a 5 to 6 week window that it is needed and would do both County
and Town work at the same time. Hours of operation 6am to 8pm. Working with the
County forces so they will be dictating hours. Would ask for the possibility of running on
Saturdays maybe 8am to 3pm. This is the only year we will be in there with the plant.
File Report: Kastrosky stated Town Board approval but did not say if it was compatible
with Town comp plan.
Discussion ended.
D. Michael & Susan Ostrenga (Port Wing) – Rezone R-1 to Ag-1 on a [35.50-acre parcel
(ID #04-042-2-50-08-28-1-01-000-10000), described as the NE ¼ NE ¼, lying South of
St. Hwy 13, Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield
County, WI]
No one spoke in support or opposition.
File Report: Kastrosky stated the property is 35.5 acres and would like to use to raise
crops and animals. Town board recommended approval with comp plan and indicated
this parcel used to be a working farm.
Discussion ended.
E. Donald & Cynthia Landon (Bayfield) – exceed 35’ height restriction to 44’ on a
[1.19–acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-03-06-3-05-004-23000), described as Lot 2 of CSM
Page 3 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
1574, Section 6, Township 50 North, Range 3 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County,
WI]
Spencer Robnik spoke in support explaining he is the neighbor of the Landon’s and the
Landon’s are building back from the lake but the difference in height is largely due to the
walk out basement they have added and will be built up against a hill. There is only a
small area of the basement that will have the walk out and will not be seen from the lake.
As a neighbor Robnik has no objection. Jardine asked if this is clay soil and the reply
was yes mostly clay. Kastrosky asked if this was approved before and the answer was
yes but they have downsized now and the previous permit had lapsed.
File Report: Kastrosky stated Town Board approved and was consistent with the comp
plan with the following conditions; 1] the building is not to exceed 44’ from the lowest
elevation and not to exceed 35’ from the highest elevation at grade. 2] the
comprehensive plan for the Town of Bayfield has language that supports and concurs
this condition of approval.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Miller made a motion to adjourn, Schultz seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at
4:25pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 4:25pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Schultz, Miller and Rondeau –all present.
Others present were: Director Karl Kastrosky, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the May 17,
2012 meeting.
Pocernich motioned to postpone until next month due to the transfer of email to
iPads, Miller seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
10. Business:
A. Theresa Wilson, owner and Shane Begley, agent for Central States Tower/AT&T
(Mason) – 300’ communication tower on a [40–acre parcel (ID# 04-032-2-46-06-36-1-
03-000-10000), described as part of the SW ¼ of the NE 1/4, and the SE ¼ of the NE ¼,
Section 36, Township 46 North, Range 6 West, Town of Mason, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve based on Town approval and based on the higher
tower will eliminate other towers. Schultz seconded. Miller would like to motion to
suspend rules to allow input seconded by Pocernich. Begley explained his propagation
map to the committee and how it helps determine where to add another tower, explaining
the difference between the coverage with the tower in this location or height as opposed
to another location or height. A majority of the towers are running on 1900 mhz so the
signal doesn’t travel as far and each tower needs to be able to see the next tower. The
need for the height of this tower to be 300’ is so it can talk to the other surrounding
Page 4 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
towers that it links up to. Most of these towers are already built. The construction of this
tower is set for the beginning of next year. At this particular location, at 200’, there would
have to be an additional two towers. At 300’ this would be the only tower. Miller stated
he has demonstrated the need for the height of the tower. Begley stated in regards to
the lady that spoke earlier this tower will not be a red and white tower so it will blend into
the skyline as much as possible and the FAA states that the towers over 200’ have to be
lit. Pocernich asked if the 200’ limit is a County statute or a state, Kastrosky stated a
County, and committee added up to 400’ if the need for a higher tower was
demonstrated by the applicant. Pocernich stated that the ordinance should be amended
since it seems like more and more towers will be coming in over the 200’ limit. Miller
stated that already happened, it used to be 199’. Begley stated that most companies are
going to come in and ask for what they need anyway and demonstrate the need for that
height. Miller stated it meets the 12 points and Town Board approval. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
B. Jerald & Margaret Feirer (Barnes) – rezone R-2 to R-1 on a [.551-acre parcel (ID #04-
004-2-45-09-20-1-00-218-21000), described as Lot 1, Block 6, of Meyers & Worthington
1st Addition Subdivision, located in Section 20, Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town
of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve and that it meets 12 points. Schultz seconded.
No further discussion. Motion carried.
C. The Town of Grand View with Jeff Simon, Northwoods Paving, Agent (Grand View)
– temporary asphalt plant on a [5–acres (ID# 04-021-2-45-06-35-3-04-000-20000), and
35-acres (ID# 04-21-2-45-06-35-04-000-10000), described as the SE ¼ of the SW ¼,
Section 35, Township 45 North, Range 6 West, Town of Grand View, Bayfield County,
WI]
Note: Pocernich abstained from discussion and voting.
Miller motioned to approve based on that it met the 12 criteria points, also the
Town was at the meeting representing, and with the condition that it is only for the
months of September and October, hours of operation Monday through Saturday 6am to
8pm. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 3/0
D. Michael & Susan Ostrenga (Port Wing) – Rezone R-1 to Ag-1 on a [35.50-acre parcel
(ID #04-042-2-50-08-28-1-01-000-10000), described as the NE ¼ NE ¼, lying South of
St. Hwy 13, Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield
County, WI]
Jardine motioned to approve based on that is was used as agricultural before,
and meets the land use plan, Town approval, and 12 points. Schultz seconded. No
further discussion. Motion carried.
E. Donald & Cynthia Landon (Bayfield) – exceed 35’ height restriction to 44’ on a
[1.19–acre parcel (ID# 04-006-2-50-03-06-3-05-004-23000), described as Lot 2 of CSM
1574, Section 6, Township 50 North, Range 3 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County,
WI]
Schultz motioned to approve because it meets the comp plan of Bayfield and
was previously approved by the Town and Zoning Committee, also it meets the 12 points
Page 5 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
of criteria. Pocernich seconded. Schultz explained the fact that the 35’ restriction is
for emergence purposes and having to exceed that height then those services may not
be provided. No further discussion. Motion carried.
Agenda Review and Alteration
F. Town of Drummond (Drummond) – municipal well and well house on a [1.49-acre
parcel (ID# 04-018-2-45-07-32-4-01-000-12000) described as South 100 feet in the NE
¼ of the SE ¼ Section 32, Township 44 North, Range 7 West, Less the Portion thereof
lying West of a creek, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI]
Pocernich motioned to allow Jim Crandall to speak. Schultz seconded.
Crandall explained in the last 10 years the municipal well levels started dropping during
that same time the Town received a grant to drill a second well. The spot is on a parcel
that is owned by the Town of Drummond. The Town of Drummond gave and easement
to the sanitary district to allow the drilling and placement of a well house. This is
essentially a 95’ hole in the ground with a house over it. The DNR gave permission to
drill the hole. Miller motioned to approve based on Town Board approval, and meets
comp plan and 12 points. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
G. Doug Manthey (Drummond) – construction yard, equipment materials storage,
construction trailers, toilets (portable) on a [4.52-acre parcel (ID# 04-018-2-45-07-33-
3-03-000-10000) described as Lot 1 of CSM#1261, in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 33,
Township 45 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI]
Kastrosky explained that Manthey owns a property across from the Black Bear and fiber
optics is using it for a staging area and there is a definite change in the use of the land.
Therefore there needs to be review from the Committee. Town Board recommended
approval and meets comp plan.
Jardine motioned to approve based on Town Approval, comp plan, and 12 points
of criteria. Miller seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
11. Previous Business
I. Discussion and Possible Action regarding proposed changes to 15-1-10( c
)”Sanitary Code”
Kastrosky stated he amended the language to read, allow a holding tank for a system of
choice, instead of a mound, at grade, unless a conventional system can be installed.
Holding tanks should be a two compartment holding tank to allow for future expansion.
Shultz motioned to suspend rules and let Polkoski speak. Jardine seconded.
Motion carried.
Tony Polkoski stated his opinions, and explained he likes Kastroskys’ changes that if a
conventional system can be installed then that is what should be installed since the costs
between the two are about the same. Mounds are much higher, and would like to see
holding tanks as a system of choice in that situation. Two compartment tanks would not
be a good way to go. There are two manholes above grade, instead of one, and frost will
move these around and that is when the tanks will start to leak. Also when there are two
manholes above grade, the filling in-between the two tanks has to be just right to prevent
Page 6 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
water from settling in there and leaking into the tanks, this is critical. Once a soil test is
done and comes back that a mound has to be installed this proposal will let you install a
holding tank in lieu of that mound. Polkoski would rather see that in this case, if the
home owner so chooses to could install a mound. To switch it would be simple, all one
would have to do is dig another hole for the pump chamber. Polkoski is happy with the
proposed changes. Jardine asked if the Bayfield County soil map is useful and the
answer from both Kastrosky and Polkoski was no. Kastrosky asked if this is time
sensitive and if he should draft language and come back next month. Pocernich stated
no, it’s June and contractors are wanting to build so home owners will be at a
disadvantage, if people want a holding tank that’s what they should be able to get.
Jardine agrees. Kastrosky stated it is not a good idea to encourage holding tanks when
a conventional system can be installed especially since the cost is relatively the same
and the disposal capabilities for a holding tank are limited. Miller thinks that if the soil is
suitable to have a traditional system then that is what should be installed. In this case
home owners should not get a choice.
Miller motioned to approve a holding tank as a system of choice unless soils and
available area allow for the installation of either a non-pressurized in-ground or
pressurized in-ground design. Pocernich seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
12. Other Business
J. Discussion and Possible Action regarding why it takes so long to get a
permit/state requirements
Kastrosky said Schultz wanted this on the agenda. Schultz asked why it takes so long
to get a permit especially with the short season. What can be changed? Pocernich
explained those permits are not ones that come through the committee but are ones that
the department has the authorization to do. When contractors call and are told that they
will be met on site, either the department does not show, is late, or the contractor is told
it will be tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. Sanitary permits are reviewed on
Wednesday but it’s a week later before it is issued. These are the complaints that
Pocernich is receiving and would like to know the process. Kastrosky explained that
the process is not perfect but neither are contractors. Sometimes applications come in,
incomplete and the department needs those applications filled out in detail to do their
job. Sometimes they come in not signed, then the plumber needs to be contacted,
plumbers are busy, so now the application is set back a day or two. In the internal office
Krystal works Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Sanitarys are issued Wednesday. The
office does what they can to get these permits out the door. If they are not complete they
get kicked back to plumber or contractor. Pocernich asked how many people are in the
department. The answer was, 2 inspectors, 1 help desk that answers phones and deals
with walk-ins, 1 office manager that does all the legal issues, and 1 person that issues all
the permits, meeting minutes, and correspondence. Schultz asked that with the short
building season why can’t someone else issue permits on the two days that no one is
there to issue. Kastrosky stated that there is a procedure to follow and different systems
to enter data into. Pocernich asked what happens when Krystal is on vacation,
Kastrosky stated she does not get much vacation at all and in that case all permits are
issued before she leaves or someone will have to pick up the slack. There are set jobs in
the office and then if someone is issuing on Monday and Tuesday then their job does not
get done. The office cannot drop everything to issue a sanitary. If someone has an issue
with the office then please have them call Kastrosky directly and talk to him and explain
Page 7 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
the issues. Miller stated that plumbers and contractors should know how to fill out an
application. Pocernich explained that the person he talked to their permit took a year to
issue and two site visits, why does there need to be two site visits. Kastrosky knows
who he is talking about and that particular owner did not want to follow regulations.
Schultz wants to know if it is possible to walk in with an application and walk out same
day with a permit and the reply from Kastrosky was no. The site plan is not accurate or
adequate so the office needs to visit the site and verify setbacks. It will get costly down
the road if setbacks weren’t measured. People would unknowingly build on property lines
and such. Kastrosky explained there are two other options, the department could go to
just using map viewer and doing measurements from the computer but parcel lines are
off and not accurate, or there can be a site plan that was certifies by an engineer. Miller
agreed and explained in forestry this happens a lot were people are either on the
property line or too close since the mapping technology that is in place is not accurate.
Kastrosky went on saying site visits are required and the County states that vehicles
need to be at the County court house at the end of the day. Now this creates and issue
since there is two hour windshield time for the guys in the field driving to pick up the
County car and return it. Another reason it takes so long to issue. Pocernich explained
they can drive own person vehicles and get reimbursed. Schultz can the property owner
clear land without a permit, the answer was yes, but not in shoreland. Pocernich asked
about revenue from sanitary. Kastrosky stated no, not all money goes to state. Paper
work comes in and gets reviewed and issued. Inspections are done at time of cover up.
He also stated, again, that if there is problems please come to him and help fix the
problems.
Discussion ended.
K. Discussion and Possible Action exploring moving permits from “conditional” to
“permitted use”
Schultz said this is worth the review and Conditional Use Permits take a lot of office
staffs’ time and he thinks this process needs to be smoother. Just wants the department
to think about this issue not necessarily discuss it at this time.
Discussion ended.
L. Discussion and Possible Action allowing houses and garages in any zoning
districts
Kastrosky noted houses in a commercial zone or Forestry 2 require a permit. Schultz
wants to explore a possibility to allow houses and garages in any district. If people want
to build let them. Rondeau explained that maybe Kastrosky and Schultz should get
together and come up with a plan and come back to another meeting at a later date with
a plan and what needs to be done.
Discussion ended.
M. Discussion and Possible Action automatically renewing a non-metallic mining with
conditions for hours of operation to Mon-Fri (7AM – 8PM), Saturday (8AM – 4PM),
No Sundays or Holidays
Schultz stated that these pits are existing and it is a lot of work to go through the
process to renew them. Rondeau stated, not leaving these conditional use permits open
Page 8 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
ended gives this committee control to be able to stay on top of these pits. Miller also
stated these conditions are based on individual needs and wants.
Discussion ended.
N. Discussion and Possible Action regarding what services can be contracted out
Rondeau stated this is not a Zoning Committee issue and is going to end discussion on
item N and O.
O. Discussion and Possible Action regarding consolidation / elimination of
departments
See above decision.
P. Discussion and Possible Action regarding listing(s) of contractors on public hand-
out
Kastrosky stated the office has a list of plumbers and contractors and other services
that land owners may need. He believes it is not the department’s job to advertise for
contractors and plumbers and would like to have a list with just the bare minimum of
plumber, surveyors, and soil testers, just a list of services needed to get a permit from
the department. Miller and Jardine agree.
Discussion ended.
Q. Discussion and Possible Action on NR 115
Kastrosky stated he resigned from the state and county committee. There will be a
petition for Act 170 that he is drafting and be available for public hearing notice.
Discussion ended.
R. Discussion and Possible Action on Comprehensive Planning
Kastrosky stated there was a meeting with the Town of Lincoln and they are about to
adopt the comp plan then the department will receive the $100,000.
Discussion ended.
13. Monthly Report
(Sheets in packets)
Miller motioned to receive and place on file Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
14. Budget and Revenue
No discussion.
15. Adjournment
Page 9 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 21, 2012
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:57pm.
Prepared by kmh on 6/22/2012; given to KK 6/22/12 3:45pm
Approved by KLK on 6/26/2012 1:30pm
Final Approval on 7/19/2012
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2012/#6 June