HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 3/20/2014
Page 1 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
MARCH 20, 2014
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Schultz, Miller and Rondeau – all present. Pocernich – 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 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. Ronald & Joyce Soper / Thomas Schneller (Bayfield) – marina &
maintenance facility [a 13.64–acre parcel (Tax ID# 4290), described as a parcel
in Gov’t Lot 1 and S 70’ of N 300’ of S 957’ of Gov’t Lot 1, East of Road in V. 521
P. 103, in Section 07, Township 50 North, Range 3 West, Town of Bayfield,
Bayfield County, WI]
Thomas Schneller, Snow County Contracting, spoke in support. Explained that
this is the same as what was said in January. Roughly two years ago the NPS
went to look for property for a new maintenance facility/marina the Soper property
was found and the government reviewed the site and we received a contract and
we bid on that contract. They have gone before the Town and plan commission
and both parties have denied this request for many reasons. People want the
facility to stay where it is, there are already too many marinas in the area, why
only a 12 year lease on current building, none of which really are zoning issues.
The issue of “why can’t the NPS build on the current property” keeps being
brought up, but that is not the issue that is at hand. Jardine asked if this was this
approved by the Town? Schneller no it was not, it was denied by both plan
commission and Town Board.
Judith Robnik, spoke in opposition, would like the shoreland left undeveloped by
commercial buildings. There is a marina facility already at Roy’s Point and the
once quaint beautiful spot of Little Sand Bay has been developed as well. (See
Exhibit A for letter of opposition).
Spencer Robnik, spoke in opposition, stating the proposed area should stay
residential, would impact recreational activity, disrupt natural terrain of the
shoreland. (See Exhibit B for letter of opposition).
Page 2 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
Ron Haupert, spoke in opposition, marine concerns include; docks have been
destroyed by ice damage in the area, marina walls will cause treacherous
currents in West channel, affect local fisheries, and affect recreational activities.
Terrestrial concerns include; affect local property values, traffic congestion, noise
and light pollution, and night time navigation. (See Exhibit C for letter of
opposition).
File Report: Schierman stated there is a revised plot plan in the file, and there
are a few letters of opposition. The Scanlon’s wrote, concerned about property
values and would like to protect the area. Landon’s letter addressed concerns
about added traffic and equipment, fuels tanks and activity in the area, also
unnatural shoreland changes. A letter from Ron Haupert which summarizes his
presentation here today. Deb Davis wrote a letter about concerns of increase in
traffic, noise, and potential impacts on property value. A letter from the Robnik’s
which summarizes the presentation here today. Letter from Tamas Mir
expressing concerns about impacts to the lake and surrounding areas, also noise
and light pollution.
Jardine asked are the other surrounding marinas full? Schultz answered and
said the only marina that is not filled to capacity is the Bayfield marina because
the boats are getting larger and the slips at the Bayfield marina will not fit the
larger boats. Schneller added that this marina will not be open to the public.
Discussion ended.
6. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Schultz seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 4:20 pm.
7. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 4:16 pm.
8. Roll Call: Jardine, Schultz, Miller and Rondeau –all present. Pocernich – 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 January
16, 2014 meeting.
Miller motioned to approve as presented, Schultz seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
10. Business:
A. Ronald & Joyce Soper / Thomas Schneller (Bayfield) – marina &
maintenance facility [a 13.64–acre parcel (Tax ID# 4290), described as a parcel
in Gov’t Lot 1 and S 70’ of N 300’ of S 957’ of Gov’t Lot 1, East of Road in V. 521
P. 103, in Section 07, Township 50 North, Range 3 West, Town of Bayfield,
Bayfield County, WI]
Page 3 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
Miller asked for clarification of the Town Board. Schierman stated the Town
Board having taken into careful consideration the commission and the
comprehensive plan has voted to deny the application.
Schultz stated that it meets the 12 points and motioned to approve with
the conditions as follows: in the 75 foot back area of the high water mark A] 75
foot area to be left in a natural state. B] No view corridors or walking areas
through the 75 foot setback area. C] Prior to construction a silt fence and orange
fence be installed at the 75 foot line to keep construction out. D] Access to the
marina will be through a 35 foot clearing with a 15 foot hard surface access. E]
The water meets the land there will be a maximum of a 10 foot hard surface area
from the water’s edge in. F] Fuel storage area is allowed but setback 25 from the
lake and access to it from the access road. Opening area around fuel storage be
5 feet. G] If the loading ramp is more than 50 feet from the launch ramp they can
have a second access point to the lake, 15 foot clearing with a 15 foot access
road. H] NO marina work will be done from the shore land. I] no storage of mower
bush or mowing will be allowed in the 75 foot area except for the access point. J]
in the area of the 10 foot to 75 foot with the exception of access areas, tree will
planted with a 6 inch butt and 36 inches off the ground and if they are not there
they will be planted with pacing of 35 feet apart. K] If there is a tree machine used
it will go straight in and straight out and will not dig up the dirt. L] Vehicles and
equipment will be removed from the access areas and the dock every night. M]
Indigenous materials will be used along the shoreline so the facility matches the
shore land. N] Open storage area will be no closer than 400 feet from the waters
edges. No second. Motion died.
Jardine asked if Schultz presented this material to the board and
planning commission. Schultz stated no but he went to the meetings.
Miller motioned to deny. Jardine seconded. Jardine stated that most of
the time the Committee goes along with the Town Board and the 17 steps, but if
they want to go by what Neil presented they should go back to the Town Board.
Miller added the reason for denial is that it does not fit with the 12 steps and that
the Town and plan commission denied. Jardine seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried. Favor – Jardine, Miller, & Rondeau. Opposed – Schultz.
Agenda Review and Alteration
B. Dennis and Kim Danowski (Barnes) – home-based business (taxidermy and
barber shop) [a 18.6-acre parcel (Tax ID #3153), described as SW ¼ of the SE
¼, That part lying E of Town Rd & less two par in V. 1008 P.828, Section 34,
Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Dennis Danowski explained he has done taxidermy in the past and looking for a
way to make a little more money but this will not be his primary job. His wife
would like to supplement with a beauty shop and cut down travel a day or two a
week and in the future they are looking at putting up a building.
Miller motioned to approve. Schultz seconded. Jardine asked about
Town Board approval. Schierman answered that there is approval from the Town
in the file and that it meets the comprehensive plan and they also recommend
approval. No further discussion. Motion carried.
Page 4 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
C. Jeffrey and Marilyn Campbell (Grand View) – home-based business
(seasonal bough buying and distribution) [a 30-acre parcel (Tax ID #17717),
described as NW ¼ of the SE ¼, Less W 330’, Section 30, Township 45 North,
Range 6 West, Town of Grand View, Bayfield County, WI]
Jeff Campbell explained this is just bough buying for about one month to about
six weeks out of the year October to Thanksgiving. This is all we do we buy
boughs for Winter Wood of Wisconsin also for the convenience of the community.
Miller asked if he needed a permit since he has been doing this for about 30
years. Campbell said someone complained and he now needs a permit and its
only one month out of the year. He went to Howard Sibbald of the Town Board
and they never heard of such a thing.
Jardine motioned to approve. Schultz seconded. Furtak added that
this includes birch bark and moss and any other forest products. Campbell
explained they have not done that in years. Marilyn Campbell added this would
be in different months of the year and it would be their choice if they wanted to do
that. Schierman explained to the Committee, the area of the property that this
activity takes place is zoned R-2, there are parts of the property that are zoned
forestry, that apparently are inaccessible and he would not require them to get a
permit in that area. There has been an adjacent property owner or someone
along the road who has been calling the past couple of years complaining. The
department decided to get this in the public, give the people a chance to voice
their concerns. If it’s approved the complaint, when they call next year, explain
that this was approved and they are allowed to do this. Miller asked that the
permit stay with the Campbell’s and not with the property. Schierman also stated
that there is Town Board approval and that it was reviewed with the
comprehensive plan. Jardine added to his motion that this permit stays with the
property owners not the property. Schultz seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
11. Previous Business
D. Jeffrey & Lynda Hammer / Steven Linton (Bayfield) – storage / retail
building (postponed 10/16/13) [a 6.21-acre parcel (Tax ID #4922), described as a
parcel of land in Govt Lot 2 in V.986 P.379, Section 22, Township 50 North,
Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Linton, Agent for this project and also General Manager for Pikes Bay Marina,
explained there is a copy of his presentation in the packets for the Committee.
The marina has ran out of room for storage, there are boats parked outside, and
they are looking to expand to a 6 acre parcel adjacent to them that is zoned R-RB
and meets zoning requirements for the special use permit. Expansion involves a
storage building and a mini storage building with a retail center. The plan
commission and Town Board have both approved this. There is a site plan in the
packet, the main plan has gone through the home owners association for the
Waterford Group and they have tried to address as many of their concerns as
possible. The Town Board recommended that we meet those concerns of the
group and have limited the storage building to 150 x 225 and mini storage to 80 x
132. The retail center is not going to be a strip mall and will have low traffic; there
may be a community space for the community to rent for meetings and this type
Page 5 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
of thing. There will be an 80 foot buffer zone between this and the Waterford
condos and have agreed to employ a landscape architect to ensure that the
buffer zone is properly designed. As far as lighting and noise this is only going to
be used in the spring and in the fall when moving boats in and out, not every day
use. Linton asks for approval of this project. Jardine asked if there is going to be
a parking lot and reply was yes there will be some parking and some outside boat
storage and inside boat storage. Jardine is concerned about the blacktop and
water runoff towards the lake. Linton said yes there is a storm water plan and
they will get a permit they have walked property with the DNR. Miller asked
about the stream that is shown on the map. Murphy stated yes that stream is
located on the property and it was inspected with Alyssa Core from the DNR and
determined non-navigable only because it was not navigable by boat. Schultz
asked if Linton was associated with Pikes Bay and the reply was yes, general
manager and this facility will be owned by Goldridge Group which owns Pikes
Bay. This property is still owned by the original owner and has to have approval
before it is purchased. Schultz asked about cradle storage and outdoor storage.
Linton replied there will be both. Buildings will look very similar to what is at
Pikes Bay now. Schultz commented Goldridge Group has spent millions on
erosion control. Linton added that this is a 6 acre parcel but only 4 acres can be
developed so the slope and drainage area is not messed with and stay natural.
Schultz commented that the boats are getting larger therefore the storage
buildings need to be larger and now they are heated, people want their boats to
be in heated storage.
File Report: Schierman stated the Town recommended approval with the
attached conditions: [1] That the new construction includes two buildings—a mini-
storage/retail building not to exceed 80 ft x 132 ft and a storage building not to
exceed 150 ft x 225 ft. [2] To obtain all DNR storm water permits for both
construction and the completed project prior to beginning construction. [3] To hire
a landscape architect to design an aesthetically pleasing landscape barrier
between the expansion property and the Waterford condominiums and Highway
13. [4] To use downward directed lighting to limit light pollution. [5] That, to limit
noise, the primary traffic to and from the property by Pikes Bay Marina will be
during spring launch and fall haul-out of boats and that the storage building will
not be used as a maintenance facility. [6] To use the existing driveway for
commercial traffic to the mini-storage/retail store if approved by the WDOT. [7] to
use the existing well on the proposed property and not interfere with water use at
the Waterford condominiums. [8] That the electric power will be separate from the
Waterford Condominiums and will not interfere with normal electric service to the
condominiums. [9] That a minimum setback of 80 feet is maintained between the
property and the Waterford condominiums and Highway 13. [10] That a
performance bond will be provided to secure compliance with the all of the
conditions of the special use permit. [11] That prior to issuance of the special use
permit, these conditions will be recorded with the Bayfield County Register of
Deeds as restrictive covenants encumbering the subject property as required by
the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance. Jardine asked if Linton went over the
conditions with the Town Board and the answer was yes to meet concerns of the
home owners association. Miller asked Murphy what she found when she went
to the site. Murphy reported that there are wetlands onsite and there will have to
be a formal evaluation of the site. The storm water management and wetlands
will affect the building placement and possibly parking lots. There is a concern
about the waterway and she would have assumed it navigable. With the owner’s
Page 6 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
permission, Alyssa went to the property to determine if the waterway was
navigable, and it was found to be non-navigable although it is on the border, that
is why the picture is included in the packet so the Committee has a good
overview of what is going on the property. The building size was changed to
satisfy the Towns concerns. When the site inspections were conducted only one
building was staked, no inspection of the larger building, the new building is
proposed to be 90 feet from the stream, and if it was navigable they would be
required to be 100 feet. Interested in protecting the high percentage slope, since
it is greater than 20%, with a buffer and not sure how the DNR will manage that
and it is not in the conditions of the Town. The existing building, to build that they
cut out a significant amount of soil and it is set into the clay bank and it is still
failing. Something should be done about this. One thing that is on the application
is that when the building was built a lot of that soil was dumped in the waterway
to connected the two portions of the land that the waterway divides, this
application is going to fix that and return it to its natural state. Basic overview
there is a concern about the high percentage slope, the close proximity of the
buildings, and there could be a vegetative buffer. Jardine asked if she would
recommend approval. Murphy stated the Committee has different concerns then
she and Murphy wanted to express her concerns. Miller wanted to know about
the future expansions and the wetlands that are in that area. Murphy explained
they will have to file for wetland fill permits; they DNR may work with them in
location of structure, and what can and can’t be filled.
Miller motioned to suspend rules and allow the audience to speak.
Schultz seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Minea, lives by the property and is also on the Architectural Board of the
Waterford group and has worked closely with the board on this issue. There
have been correspondences to the Zoning Department from him and the board
on this issue. The Bayfield Town Board said that there are storage buildings
down the road and if they approved them in good conscience they would have to
approve this one as well, in that case, those storage buildings do not have
outside storage, this one will have a lot of outside storage which will be visible
both from the road and the condos. Those other facilities are not in a shoreland
area and not governed by the shoreland protection ordinance. Those other
buildings are not in a residential zone. A lot of the people who live in the
Waterford have signed that they are against this. The conditions that were placed
by the Town Board were drafted by the Waterford board and given to the plan
commission the largest concern being water. The proposed construction is going
to pave 3.5 out of the 4 acres; this is a concern with the waterway that is
funneling water right towards the townhomes. Schultz asked if there are erosion
problems at Waterford. The reply was the paved roads have not washed out but
after a heavy rain the marina turns brown. Murphy would like to correct a
statement that she made earlier; the proposed construction is not 90 feet it is 68
feet from the high water mark of the waterway. Miller commented that the
Committee just denied one now this one is going to go through in flying colors.
Jardine asked if the stream will be left as a natural area. Linton stated that there
is nothing that will take place where the stream is, it will all be left natural.
Schultz motioned to approve with the conditions that the Town of Bayfield
has placed. Towns Conditions [1] That the new construction includes two
buildings—a mini-storage/retail building not to exceed 80 ft x 132 ft and a storage
Page 7 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
building not to exceed 150 ft x 225 ft. [2] To obtain all DNR storm water permits
for both construction and the completed project prior to beginning construction.
[3] To hire a landscape architect to design an aesthetically pleasing landscape
barrier between the expansion property and the Waterford condominiums and
Highway 13. [4] To use downward directed lighting to limit light pollution. [5] That,
to limit noise, the primary traffic to and from the property by Pikes Bay Marina will
be during spring launch and fall haul-out of boats and that the storage building
will not be used as a maintenance facility. [6] To use the existing driveway for
commercial traffic to the mini-storage/retail store if approved by the WDOT. [7] To
use the existing well on the proposed property and not interfere with water use at
the Waterford condominiums. [8] That the electric power will be separate from the
Waterford Condominiums and will not interfere with normal electric service to the
condominiums. [9] That a minimum setback of 80 feet is maintained between the
property and the Waterford condominiums and Highway 13. [10] That a
performance bond will be provided to secure compliance with the all of the
conditions of the special use permit. [11] That prior to issuance of the special use
permit, these conditions will be recorded with the Bayfield County Register of
Deeds as restrictive covenants encumbering the subject property as required by
the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried. Favor – Jardine, Schultz, Rondeau. Opposed –
Miller.
12. Other Business
E. Update regarding septic maintenance program.
Schierman there is potential of a law suit, Rondeau is familiar with it, and Harry
Worth may take this forward and have a jury trial. There are 7 outstanding non-
compliant systems. Schultz out of how many, Schierman answered 9,000.
Basically started this process with a citation, people wouldn’t pay the citations
and wouldn’t service. Then went to the settlement agreement, which was subject
to discussion several months back, where in the court’s opinion the settlement
agreement circumvents their department and takes them out of the equation, so
we can’t do this anymore. We moved to summons and complaint which goes
through Clerk of Courts. If someone doesn’t service their system, doesn’t
respond to their notices, and doesn’t service by the deadline that is established,
which generally takes course of 5 months to 6 months; at that point the
enforcement will continue. There is a $485 fine which $250 of that goes to courts
and the remainder is the settlement agreement. The department is getting people
to service systems. For the last 5 years no post cards were sent out in February.
Last year we sent out a letter giving them an extra month because of road bands
and this year anticipating giving them until end of June. There have been “heads
up” letters sent telling people they are coming due in the winter. Rondeau stated
Worth had called him. He did receive post cards all through the summer. He is up
here two months out of the year. He told Worth to have the system looked at,
Worth said they can’t do it and Rondeau agrees with Rob that there is more than
one service provider that can conduct the service. Worth’s answer all the time is
“I am going to sue you”. Jardine said that in the winter time they can test it and
pump in the summer. Schultz asked if there is only 7 people how much time are
you going to spend on only 7 people. Schierman stated there are 53 that are out
of compliance but have since serviced, it has to be fair and when people don’t
service we have to follow through. Schultz asked if this was a state rule and how
Page 8 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
often does it have to be pumped. Rondeau stated yes and every three years.
Schierman added pumped or inspected. Since 2006 the department has
accounted for one hundred million gallons of sewage. This department has done
more than any other County to protect the water quality.
Discussion ended.
F. Discussion and Possible Action on revising sign ordinance to allow LED
signs.
Schierman explained in the past the Committee has amended the ordinance to
allow for higher signs the application that came in after the change is for a rather
substantial LED sign, similar to what you would see at Culvers or on the way to
Superior in Maple. Section 13-1-88 (a) reads: No flashing color moving or
intermittent lights parts or sound producing device shall be used with or on any
sign. Don’t know if the Committee would like to see provision brought forward to
allow for LED signs. Miller asked about Rustic Roost and their LED sign and if
this is for them. Schierman stated this is for the IGA in Iron River and they would
like it on Highway 2. Furtak stated the message part of it is about 20 sq. ft. Miller
asked if Rustic Roost was able to keep their sign. Furtak responded it hasn’t
been resolved. The people in Iron River were supposed to bring forward an
amendment and they threw up their hands and gave up. Rondeau stated the
department should bring forward something saying they are comfortable with
LED signs. Miller doesn’t mind LED signs just limit the size of it. Furtak
suggested in the villages and developed areas, like Iron River, Dummond,
Herbster, Bayfield and Washburn, within the sanitary district; you would go to the
Town Board if they approve it then what would we care. No billboards.
Schierman stated it could be a Class A Special Use for a LED sign. Miller does
not want to see billboards along the county roads. If it is reasonable in the Town
then its fine, that’s our direction.
Discussion ended.
G. Discussion and Possible Action regarding fees for Ernest L’Heureux
property (Tripp).
Schierman explained there is a situation where there was a building that was
done without permits some was prior to an amendment, agriculture buildings
were exempt from permits then the ordinance changed. There was more
construction activity also a house and septic system that was built without
permits. The fees are adding up. Miller asked if he had permits or if they were old
permits. Schierman stated applicant is here if Committee would like to discuss
with him. There were no permits on file for this. Miller asked how long the
department keeps permits on file. Schierman stated there are permit going back
to the 60’s. Jardine stated the concern is the after the fact double fees.
Schierman stated the ordinance required to double the fees on after the fact
permits. Schultz asked what you are suggesting. Murphy added that L’Heureux
is not contesting the fact that he needs after the fact permits and has worked with
us. The question is, is it necessary to charge after the fact fees. Rondeau asked
what he would owe. Murphy answered she handed out an update, the house
would be $600 and the sanitary $800. His farm stead has agricultural buildings
that were built in 2000 they do not need permits. There is documentation for that.
Page 9 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 20, 2014
There is one building which would be $150 and an addition to house which would
be $150, greenhouse and $150. Miller stated so about $2000. Jardine stated he
would be in favor of just charging for the permits and not double anything.
Jardine motioned to just charge permit fees. Miller seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
H. Discussion and Possible Action regarding penalty fees (after-the-fact
permits).
Schierman explained the previous item brings to light the fact that the
department has no discretion on after the fact fees. If someone comes to the
office and says, hey I forgot to get permits, and works with the office, or someone
that does not get permits that we find later, all have to be treated the same. At a
previous time the Committee thought it is important that the office have discretion
on after the fact fees. Jardine remembers this. Schierman continued, in 2005
there was a deck that was taken from one side of the house to the other and
another deck built to replace it so there was an after the fact fee applied. The
applicant approached the committee to get the fee waived. There was a
discussion between Jim Beeksma and Dick Compton; it was their opinion that the
department has discretion on whether or not to charge after the fact fees. Karl
brought forth language and the ordinance was amended. Miller asked what
happened. Schierman answered in 2010 there was another amendment that
struck the line; doubling the fees may be waived by the department and sole
discretion. Miller asked who brought that forward, the reply was Karl did. Miller
would like to make a motion. Schierman stated that there would have to be an
ordinance amendment.
Miller motioned to draft language. Schultz seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
13. Monthly Report
No monthly report.
14. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:21 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 3/21/2014; given to RDS 3/24/2014
Approved by RDS on 4/1/2014
Sent to ZC on 4/8/2014
Final Approval on 4/17/2014
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2014/#3 March
