HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 11/21/2013
Page 1 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 2013
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:03 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Miller and Rondeau – all present. Schultz – Absent.
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Mike
Furtak-AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Schierman showed the audience the November 6th and
November 113th 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 Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf
of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an
ordinance amending (Title 13; Title 14; Title 16) [13-1-4, 13-1-41, 13-1-62, 13-1-82,
13-1-84, 13-1-85, 13-1-87, 13-1-106, 13-2-11, 14-1-20, 14-1-40 and 16-1-8], code of
ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.
Schierman explained section 1 is the creation of section 13-1-4 to define the
term event hall / banquet center. After receiving the Kent Adams application and
anticipating similar requests in the future we want to introduce a definition and
establish where an event center would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.
The department anticipates more applications of this nature to be submitted as
people have shown an interest in reconnecting with the food production process
and converting barns to banquet halls and entertainment centers. Section 2
amendment of section 13-1-41 will establish a deadline for materials that are
included in the information packets given to committee members that are
submitted by concerned citizens that is consistent with the deadlines we currently
have in place for adjacent property owners and properties located within 300 feet
of the subject property. This will apply to both Conditional Use and Special Use
Applications. Section 3 amendment to the table set forth in section 13-1-62
creates the entry for Banquet Hall / Event Center in the Classification of Uses
chart. So people can easily identify what permitting is required in the various
zoning districts. Section 4 amendment to section 13-1-82 by adding the words
“business park or”. This allows a multi-tenant sign for business parks. The current
language only allows these signs for “a structure designed for multi-tenants” and
does not take into consideration developments designed for multiple businesses
on individual parcels. Such as what we have at the Ag station where there is one
Page 2 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
entrance leading to multiple businesses. Section 5 amendments to 13-1-84,
creates an exemption for on premise signs mounted flush with a building below
the roofline. Our department should be more concerned with free standing signs,
not every beer sign and sale sign that a business puts on the side of their
building. Our department should be more concerned with free standing signs. As
it stands right now every beer sign on the side of a building requires a permits
and the department thinks that is over burdensome. Section 6 amendment to 13-
1-80 to delete the reference to class A and class B signs and provide for the for
the erection, relocation and structural alteration of on premise and off premise
signs or rooftop signs requires a land use permit and establishes the
requirement for permits for signs not exempt. Section 7 amendment to 13-1-87 to
creates a general sign requirement to allow for signs along State and Federal
highways to be as tall as 20 feet. This request was brought forward by the Town
of Iron River in order to accommodate the businesses located along US Hwy 2.
Section 8 to create 13-1-106 related to powers and duties of the zoning
administrator. As recommended by our attorneys, the language contained in this
section duplicates the language found in our Sanitary Ordinance. This language
lends clarity to the “fine print” found above the signature line on our Land Use
Applications. Section 9 adds the recently received Middle Eau Claire Lakes Dam
Failure Analysis to our ordinance as is required by the State of Wisconsin.
Section 10 amendments to section 14-1-20 establish, through the Powers and
Duties section of our ordinance, when and how we can administer our
Subdivision Control Ordinance. It was recommended by our attorney to have this
in every section instead of just one and referring back to it. Section 11
amendments to 14-1-40 by deleting the words: by any part thereof is located in
shoreland as defined in section 13-1-4 and replacing with: on a parcel of land
which has frontage on a navigable waterway. Section 11 eliminates the need for
a Certified Survey Map on parcels created in a shoreland that are less than 19
acres, if the parent parcel does not have frontage on navigable waters. Section
12 establishes, through the Powers and Duties section of our ordinance when
and how we can administer our Non-Metallic Mining ordinance.
Patrick Dooley, with the Iron River Co-op, spoke in support of 13-1-87 currently
the restriction is ten feet and there needs to be more visibility better access to
customers when they are coming through the area and in the snow season snow
gets pretty high in winter time and lose all visibility.
Brian Matthias, President of the Iron River Co-op, also expressed his support for
13-1-87. There is new competition in Superior and possibly a new store in Iron
River and would like their sign at least visible, and twenty feet is not too intrusive
at their particular location.
Mark Ables-Allison, Bayfield County Administrator, supports item 9, the County
has worked with the state of Wisconsin over the past two years to update this
analysis and if included it will give the County a better chance of getting funded
for repairs on this structure.
No one spoke in opposition. File Report: Schierman stated nothing in the file.
Page 3 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
Discussion ended.
B. A petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf
of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee (Title 13) [13-1-43]
code of ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.
Rob Schierman explained the state budget for the 2013-14 biennium, 2013
Wisconsin Act 20, was published on July 1, 2013 and became law the next day.
A new statute was passed as part of the state budget, Wis. Stat. 66.0404, which
almost totally preempts local control over the siting of mobile service/cell towers.
The statute creates a mandatory application process. The statute also specifically
identifies a number of limitations for local ordinances. A local ordinance can only
regulate mobile service/cell towers henceforth as that has been laid out in the
statute. Some of those things are: no testing, sampling, monitoring or other radio
frequency compliance requirements; nothing related to signal strength or
adequacy of mobile service provided; no moratoriums; no control over physical
placement within the municipality; maximum fee levels $3,000, or $500 for “class
2 colocation” that cannot be recurring; disapproval on purely aesthetic grounds;
sureties for the structure in excess of $20,000 are strongly discouraged; any
limits on the durations of permits; any limits on the height of structures to any less
than 200 feet above 200 feet is regulated by the FAA anyway setbacks or fall
zones that are any different than other commercial structures; regulation of
related power systems; disapprovals based on lighting or lack thereof of the
structure; require indemnity; etc. The only future permits possible for mobile
service/cell towers will be permanent with a one-time fee and not really regulating
much, especially with regard to the typical uses of zoning such as location and
aesthetics. Although now extremely limited, the two options are (1) have the
limited mobile service/cell tower ordinance; or (2) have nothing at all on mobile
service/cell towers. With an ordinance, at least the local government will have
notice of when and where these things are going up; you will still have the albeit
limited, onetime fee; and you may still require the albeit limited surety for the
facility. There is a certain application needed with certain material and if this
material is in the permit we have to issue the permit. Rondeau stated this is a lot
cleaner. Jardine asked if the Committee has control of the collapsible area and
the answer was no. We cannot require setbacks or fall zones that are different
than any other structure.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Schierman stated Town of
Russell indicated support but wish that we could control the height of towers
(which we cant).
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 4:19 pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 4:20 pm.
Page 4 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Miller and Rondeau –all present. Schultz – Absent.
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Mike
Furtak, AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
9. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the October
17, 2013 meeting.
Jardine motioned to approve, Pocernich seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
10. Business:
A. A petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf
of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an
ordinance amending (Title 13; Title 14; Title 16) [13-1-4, 13-1-41, 13-1-62, 13-1-82,
13-1-84, 13-1-85, 13-1-87, 13-1-106, 13-2-11, 14-1-20, 14-1-40 and 16-1-8], code of
ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.
Jardine motioned to approve as presented. Miller seconded.
Pocernich asked Schierman about 13-1-106 access to property, explain how
you access a property. Schierman answered that when someone submits an
application and signs it that is our permission to access the property. There were
two instances this year when an application was submitted, and we were on the
property to inspect there were violations that were found and the owner in turn
asked what authority we have to be on their property. Miller disagrees and said
that they only gave you permission to go see what they wanted inspected not to
inspect the whole property. You do not give them access to the whole property.
Pocernich clarified that if an applicant enters a permit you are allowed on the
property between 8 and 8 (or whatever you agree on) for that purpose.
Schierman answered yes and explained that they need to assure that they are in
compliance with the zoning ordinance. If we are onsite and see that there is an
addition to a building and cannot find where they filed a permit for addition then
they are in violation. Miller said yes if you can visually see things but, you cannot
go into other buildings. Schierman said that is not the intent. It is obvious when
you are on the property (and with aerial maps) structures that have appeared
without permits. If there is an addition that is not in excess of 250 sq. ft. there are
times that we are pretty confident that their septic is failing but we don’t pursue
that angle since we don’t have the right. Murphy added that there is a section of
the ordinance that disallows us to issue a permit if in violation. It would be difficult
to enforce that section of ordinance if you cannot see if they are in violation.
Miller says you have to assume if you can’t see the violation. Murphy said yes
that if she is handed a permit for an accessory structure, goes to inspect, finds
that there is an addition to the house without a permit she asks for a permit for
that addition and issues everything at once. Schierman stated that Mike and he
went to a violation that had junk spilled out onto the road, walked up to the door
and if the owner is not home they do not have permission to be on the property,
they then leave. Furtak stated that most of the properties are small enough that
you can see all the buildings on the property. When inspecting you have to
identify the property lines which mean finding the posts so you have to walk
around the property looking for those. If there is a complaint, you can obtain an
inspection warrant but that is rare. Pocernich asked about the signs that are
Page 5 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
attached to buildings or within one foot off a building and roof top is there a limit
on size. Schierman stated no but it needs to be under the roof line and the
reason for that is if there is a ballast or light bulb in the sign that can be 12 inches
and want to accommodate that. Rondeau explained that when you go by his
store you have multiple signs that advertise what is sold in the store, under the
current ordinance you needed a permit for every one of those. Schierman added
that we are trying to accommodate the business owners to advertise their
different product lines. Furtak stated that the way the ordinance reads now is
unenforceable since business owners do what they want and advertise what they
are selling with signs on the sides of buildings. We are trying to loosen it up a bit.
When the sign ordinance was originally adopted it was more concerned with free
standing signs / billboards wasn’t intended to effect signs at the principal
business on the business, somehow got out of control. Jardine stated that no
one wanted billboards in Bayfield County. Pocernich asked for example that if
he had a daycare and put a sign at end of driveway he would need a permit; the
reply from Schierman was yes if advertising a specific business, directional signs
do not. No further discussion. Motion carried.
B. A petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf
of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee (Title 13) [13-1-43]
code of ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.
Jardine motioned to approve. Pocernich seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
11. Previous Business
C. Jeffrey & Lynda Hammer / Steven Linton (Bayfield) – storage / retail
building (postponed October 17, 2013) a [2.29-acre parcel ID (# 04-014-2-50-07-08-
1-00-322-03000), described as Lot 3, Robert Bartlett Jr 2nd Addition to Orchard
City, less V. 107 P. 409 and V. 608 P. 193, Section 8, Township 50N, Range 7
W, Town of Clover, Bayfield County, WI]
Schierman explained the Town is not going to deal with this at the plan
commission level until January. Miller asked if this is becoming a hardship for the
applicant.
Pocernich motioned to suspend rules and allow applicant to speak.
Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Steve Linton, explained that every day is making it more difficult and he
thinks that if we can bring the issue to closure, whatever it may be, in January
they should still be ok to move forward. Miller stated that we should let Bayfield
know that if they don’t act on it we will. Rondeau agrees with Miller. Jardine
stated that Rob will be instructed to send that message to the Town of Bayfield.
Miller motioned to Postpone. Pocernich seconded. Miller added to his
motion to encourage Bayfield to act on this because it is getting to be a hardship
for the property owner. Pocernich seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
12. Other Business
Page 6 of 6 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 21, 2013
D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding winter staffing (Neil Schultz)
Jardine motioned to disregard this because it has already gone through
budget and in place already. No second. Motion Died.
Schierman asked if they would like this on a future agenda. Pocernich
states unless Schultz asks. Miller said postpone this indefinitely, but then
reconsidered and stated it should just be discussed. (Schierman handed out a
winter work load list to the committee and discussed all the duties the office does
throughout the winter months i.e. database maintenance, violations, septic
inspections, trainings, meetings, sanitary audit, filing and organization, continuing
Ed classes, and compliance inspections). Jardine stated that ordinance
amendments can be added to that list. Miller stated that you will not get anyone
that will come in here do what they do only to be laid off as soon as it gets slow.
Schierman stated there is always something to do. Furtak added every time the
state changes the law we have to amend the ordinance.
13. Monthly Report
Schierman explained in October issued 52 land use permits, one more than last
year, 19 sanitary permits, one more than last year, took in $22,532.25 in fees
which is $4200.25 shy of budget. With what Mike and Jen brought in for
November should bring us to our budget projection.
Miller motioned to receive and place on file, Jardine seconded. No
further discussion. Motion carried.
14. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 4:43 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 9/20/2013; given to RDS 11/25/2013
Approved by RDS on 12/5/2013
Sent to ZC on 12/5/2013
Final Approval on 12/19/2013
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2013/#11November