HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 5/15/2014
Page 1 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
MAY 15, 2014
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Strand, Bussey and Rondeau – all present.
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. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the April 17,
2014 meeting.
Jardine motioned to approve, Pocernich seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried.
6. Public Hearing:
A. Town of Bayfield, owner and Tom Gordon, agent (Bayfield) – rezone
property from Ag-1 to Commercial [parcel is a 1.79-acre parcel (part of Tax ID
#’s 34713; 4306; & 4325), described as the West 167 feet of the North ¼ of the
NE ¼ of the SE ¼, the South 66 feet of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, lying East of Lot 1
of CSM #1565 and the South 66 feet of the West 167 feet of the SE ¼ of the NE
¼, all in Section 1, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield
County, WI]
Tom Gordon, Chairman for the Town of Bayfield, spoke in support. About 8
months ago Bayfield County Economic Development, Scottie Sandstrom,
approached the Town and had a meeting with Midland and was interested in
putting a 30,000 gallon LP tank in the Town of Bayfield business park. When the
process was started it was found that the zoning was never changed for the
business that is there now, World Class Precision products, which employs about
22 people. Karl Kastrosky recommended leaving the zoning the way it was to get
going on the building for that business. The way it is zoned now the Town would
not be able to put the storage tanks there but if it was rezoned to Commercial the
Town could. The Town is in support and Impact 7 will sell the 1.7 acres to
Midland so it will be on the tax roll for the County. They will also build or extend
the road that is there. Jardine asked if this is going to bother any other structures
there and the answer was no. Bussey asked if the Town Plan Commission
looked at the rezone and the reply was yes and they approved it twice. Bussey
asked if it was his opinion that it would improve the general welfare of the citizens
Page 2 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
of the Town and Bayfield County, Gordon replied yes, because when the truck
comes to fill his tank they will not have to go back to Ashland to fill the truck.
Randy Knapp, citizen of Bayfield County also Energy Operations Manager of
Midland, expresses support and would like to make note that with what happened
this past winter with the fuel shortage having a tank in Bayfield would allow for
less travel back and forth to Ashland. Knapp would appreciate the Committee
approving the rezone.
Richard Geisen, Bayfield County Economic Development Cooperation,
expressed support and this is an appropriate place for the tank.
No one spoke in opposition.
Discussion ended.
B. Petition to Amend Ordinance (Title 13) [13-1-21; 13-1-41A; 13-1-62; 13-1-82
and 13-1-103]
Section 1. Subsection (e)(1)cc.2. [Fee Schedule] of Section 13-1-21 [General
Land Use Requirements] of Article B [General Provisions of
Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of
Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to
read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline
feature (additions):
13-1-21(e)(cc)2.
cc. ................................................................................. Miscellaneous
2. Failure to Obtain Permit Prior to Construction .... Double Fee
Possible Citation
(Doubling of fee may be waived by the Planning and Zoning
Director).
Section 2. Subsection (c) [Compliance] of Section 13-1-41A [Special Use] of
Article C [Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and
Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact Analysis; Handicap-
Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of
the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
amended to read as follows, with deletions highlighted by the
strike out feature (deletions) and additions highlighted by the
double underline feature (additions):
13-1-41A (c)
(c) Compliance. If a special use permit is approved with conditions,
an appropriate record shall be made of the land use and structures
permitted, and prior to the issuance of a Class B permit the
Planning and Zoning Department shall record with the Bayfield
Page 3 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
County Register of Deeds an affidavit prepared by the Planning
and Zoning Department setting forth the terms and conditions of
the permit and a legal description of the property to which they
pertain. The recording fee shall be paid by the applicant. The
terms and conditions of a special use permit of either class shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all current and future
owners of the property to which it pertains unless otherwise
expressly provided by the permit, or unless the permit terminates
under subsection (d) of this section. The recording fee for the
affidavit shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning and Zoning
Department within ninety (90) days after notice thereof has been
sent to the applicant by the Department. If the applicant fails to do
so, the Class B Permit shall not be issued and the Planning and
Zoning Committee’s approval thereof shall become null and void.
Section 3. Subsection (a) [Permissible Uses] of Section 13-1-62
[Classification of Uses] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances],
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows,
with additions highlighted by the double underline feature
(additions):
13-1-62 (a)
Classification List
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Signs On-Premises (UVOD) *subject to 13-1-82(4) S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A*
Section 4. Subsection (a) [On-Premise Signage] of Section 13-1-82 [Number
and Size of Permitted Signs] of Article E [Signs] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances],
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows,
with additions highlighted by the double underline feature
(additions):
Sec. 13-1-82 Number and Size of Permitted Signs.
(4) UVOD Unincorporated Village Overlay Districts are allowed
one (1) light-emitting diode (LED) on-premise sign as defined in
13-1-61(m)(1-3). Sign may not exceed 32 square feet.
(4) Notwithstanding Sec. 13-1-87(a), if a business is located in the
Unincorporated Village Overlay District (UVOD) as defined in
Sec. 13-1-61(m), one of the on-premise signs allowed under Sec.
13-1-82(a) may be a light-emitting diode (LED) sign not exceeding
32 square feet.
Page 4 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
Section 5. Subsection (d) [No Permit Penalty] of Section 13-1-103 [Violations]
of Article F [Administration and Enforcement] of Chapter 1 [Zoning
Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with
deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
13-1-103 (d).
(d) No Permit Penalty. Any person, and/or his/her authorized agent
or contractor, proceeding with any action that requires a land use
permit under this Chapter without first securing such a permit,
shall be subject to twice the fees for such a permit provided that
the Planning and Zoning Committee, in its the Planning and
Zoning Director, in his sole discretion, may waive the doubling of
fees for such permit if it the Planning and Zoning Director
determines such action to be warranted under the circumstances
of the case in question; if the Planning and Zoning Director denies
the applicant’s request for waiver of fees, the Planning and Zoning
Committee may consider the request.
Schierman explained section 1: Ran into some issues with enforcement actions
and the department has no discretion on waiver after the fact fees. In 2005
Rondeau had thought that the Zoning department needed leeway and have the
ability to waive fees. In 2010 that was taken out of the ordinance. Now we are
requesting that we have that leeway back in the ordinance. Section 2: gives the
department the ability to close out applications if they there is not the required
documentation to complete the application after 90 days. This is consistent with
what the department has for conditional use permits. Usually when an application
comes in not complete a letter is written to the applicant stating what they are
missing after 90 days we can disallow that permit because the people didn’t
follow through with the paper work needed and the department does not have to
keep chasing the applicant. The recording fee for the affidavit shall be paid by the
applicant to the Planning and Zoning Department within ninety (90) days after
notice thereof has been sent to the applicant by the Department. If the applicant
fails to do so, the Class B Permit shall not be issued and the Planning and Zoning
Committee’s approval thereof shall become null and void. Section 3:
Classification use list for LED signs. Section 4: Notwithstanding Sec. 13-1-87(a),
if a business is located in the Unincorporated Village Overlay District (UVOD) as
defined in Sec. 13-1-61(m), one of the on-premise signs allowed under Sec. 13-
1-82(a) may be a light-emitting diode (LED) sign not exceeding 32 square feet.
This would be with Town approval. Section 5: clarifies the language on no permit
penalty. Any person, and/or his/her authorized agent or contractor, proceeding
with any action that requires a land use permit under this Chapter without first
securing such a permit, shall be subject to twice the fees for such a permit
provided that the Planning and Zoning Director, in his sole discretion, may waive
the doubling of fees for such permit if the Planning and Zoning Director
determines such action to be warranted under the circumstances of the case in
question; if the Planning and Zoning Director denies the applicant’s request for
waiver of fees, the Planning and Zoning Committee may consider the request. If
the director does not waive the fees there is still the relief valve that the person
Page 5 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
can go before the Committee to ask for forgiveness. Section 6, 7, & 8: details of
effective date and that modification don’t affect any other sections of the
ordinance.
No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Schierman stated there is
no input from any of the townships.
Discussion ended.
7. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Bussey seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 4:17 pm.
8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 4:17 pm.
9. Roll Call: Jardine, Pocernich, Strand, Bussey and Rondeau –all present.
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Mike
Furtak, AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
10. New Business:
A. Town of Bayfield, owner and Tom Gordon, agent (Bayfield) – rezone
property from Ag-1 to Commercial [parcel is a 1.79-acre parcel (part of Tax ID
#’s 34713; 4306; & 4325), described as the West 167 feet of the North ¼ of the
NE ¼ of the SE ¼, the South 66 feet of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, lying East of Lot 1
of CSM #1565 and the South 66 feet of the West 167 feet of the SE ¼ of the NE
¼, all in Section 1, Township 50 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield
County, WI]
Bussey moves to recommend the requested rezone to the County Board
on grounds that it is consistent with the Town of Bayfield comprehensive plan, it
is in the interest of the general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Bayfield and
those in the Northern part of the County and the County in general and for those
reasons the request should be granted. Jardine seconded. Schierman stated
the file does have Town Board approval indicating that the Town Board held
special meetings on May 5, 2014 and recommended approval. No further
discussion. Motion carried. 5/0
B. Petition to Amend Ordinance (Title 13) [13-1-21; 13-1-41A; 13-1-62; 13-1-82
and 13-1-103]
Section 1. Subsection (e)(1)cc.2. [Fee Schedule] of Section 13-1-21 [General
Land Use Requirements] of Article B [General Provisions of
Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of
Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to
read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline
feature (additions):
13-1-21(e)(cc)2.
Page 6 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
dd. ................................................................................. Miscellaneous
2. Failure to Obtain Permit Prior to Construction .... Double Fee
Possible Citation
(Doubling of fee may be waived by the Planning and Zoning
Director).
Section 2. Subsection (c) [Compliance] of Section 13-1-41A [Special Use] of
Article C [Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and
Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact Analysis; Handicap-
Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of
the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
amended to read as follows, with deletions highlighted by the
strike out feature (deletions) and additions highlighted by the
double underline feature (additions):
13-1-41A (c)
(c) Compliance. If a special use permit is approved with conditions,
an appropriate record shall be made of the land use and structures
permitted, and prior to the issuance of a Class B permit the
Planning and Zoning Department shall record with the Bayfield
County Register of Deeds an affidavit prepared by the Planning
and Zoning Department setting forth the terms and conditions of
the permit and a legal description of the property to which they
pertain. The recording fee shall be paid by the applicant. The
terms and conditions of a special use permit of either class shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all current and future
owners of the property to which it pertains unless otherwise
expressly provided by the permit, or unless the permit terminates
under subsection (d) of this section. The recording fee for the
affidavit shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning and Zoning
Department within ninety (90) days after notice thereof has been
sent to the applicant by the Department. If the applicant fails to do
so, the Class B Permit shall not be issued and the Planning and
Zoning Committee’s approval thereof shall become null and void.
Section 3. Subsection (a) [Permissible Uses] of Section 13-1-62
[Classification of Uses] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances],
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows,
with additions highlighted by the double underline feature
(additions):
13-1-62 (a)
Classification List
Page 7 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Signs On-Premises (UVOD) *subject to 13-1-82(4) S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A* S-A*
Section 4. Subsection (a) [On-Premise Signage] of Section 13-1-82 [Number
and Size of Permitted Signs] of Article E [Signs] of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances],
Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows,
with additions highlighted by the double underline feature
(additions):
Sec. 13-1-82 Number and Size of Permitted Signs.
(4) UVOD Unincorporated Village Overlay Districts are allowed
one (1) light-emitting diode (LED) on-premise sign as defined in
13-1-61(m)(1-3). Sign may not exceed 32 square feet.
Section 5. Subsection (d) [No Permit Penalty] of Section 13-1-103 [Violations]
of Article F [Administration and Enforcement] of Chapter 1 [Zoning
Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield
County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to read as follows, with
deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
13-1-103 (d).
(d) No Permit Penalty. Any person, and/or his/her authorized agent
or contractor, proceeding with any action that requires a land use
permit under this Chapter without first securing such a permit,
shall be subject to twice the fees for such a permit provided that
the Planning and Zoning Committee, in its the Planning and
Zoning Director, in his sole discretion, may waive the doubling of
fees for such permit if it the Planning and Zoning Director
determines such action to be warranted under the circumstances
of the case in question; if the Planning and Zoning Director denies
the applicant’s request for waiver of fees, the Planning and Zoning
Committee may consider the request.
Bussey moves to adopt the proposed amendments. Jardine seconded.
Bussey clarified his motion, submitted some language to Rob for the creation of
13-1-82 highlighted in yellow, motion would be to recommend to the County
Board the adoption amendment proposed in the petition substituting the
highlighted yellow version for the original version. Jardine seconded. Pocernich
asked if the meaning is still staying the same. Schierman added that the
department wanted to allow for an LED sign knowing that other signs still fall into
the guidance of the general sign requirements. Bussey answered his proposed
addition does not change what is Rob intended it just clarifies. This is for the
village overlay district which includes Iron River, Port wing, Herbster, Cornucopia,
Grandview and Cable which is served by sanitary sewer, wants to know if the
Page 8 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
other towns are aware of this change. Notice was sent out to those towns,
wondering if other committee members have a sense of what the other
communities think this of this proposal. Rondeau stated there would be no
problem in Cable. Jardine agrees that there would be no issues in his towns’.
Schierman stated this would go before the Town Board to they have a say in the
applications. It is limited to the village overlay districts where there are gas
stations with lights and signs already. There is an approval process that goes on.
There are businesses that want to invest in the new technology and the
department wants to be proactive. Furtak restated what Schierman already
explained. Bussey asked if the Town denies the applicant still has the
opportunity to come before the Committee, answer from Furtak was yes that is
an option. Bussey stated his other concern is that in the classification list there
are areas where it will be allowed in Residential, does not know how much of the
village overlay is zoned residential but there is a significant amount. Opinion is
that these signs do not belong in residential zone. If down the road there is a
case then would be willing to listen to it. Jardine agrees and stated the Towns
should zone communities as they want and not spot zoned or a business area.
Bussey moves to amend the proposed ordinance to delete the SA references in
the R-1 R-3 R-4 column and in the R-2 column. Strand seconded. Pocernich
LED, not a lit light. Schierman no not a spot light, just an LED sign, example
would be at gas stations or the casino. Rondeau agrees with Bussey. Bussey
asked what “W” was, if it was the conservancy district. Furtak answered yes.
Bussey included that in his motion. Strand asked about the Ag and the forestry
districts. Bussey included those as well. Strand seconded. Jardine asked why
forestry. Strand answered that some people have residence on a parcel that is
zoned forestry or Ag. Croonborg-Murphy indicated that the sign ordinance is to
capture the rural and scenic beauty of the area with the important need to support
the Counties economic base. No furthered discussion. Amended motion carried
5/0. The original motion, as amended carried 5/0.
C. Jim & Heather Musil (Delta) – short-term rental (Class A denial of Town
Board) being considered as a Class B [a 2.2-acre parcel (Tax ID #13681),
described as Kern Acres Lot 12 (Located in Govt Lot 1), Section 33, Township 46
North, Range 7 West, Town of Delta, Bayfield County, WI]
Strand motioned to suspend rules and allow public comment.
Pocernich seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
Craig Manthy, owner of Bear Country? Vacation Rentals, representing the
Musil’s. They were unable to attend. He did attend the Delta Town Board
meeting; the comprehensive plan does not say there can’t be any short-term
rentals. The Kern Lake area has a lot of frontage, and they are big lots. The lake
is small and there is no public access for boats or jet skis. Furtak added there is
plenty of parking there, believes the septic is up to code, very rural private lake,
no close neighbors. Rondeau asked if it is a very big lake and how big is the
cabin. Manthey answered not very big, big enough for a pontoon. The cabin is 3
bedrooms. Jardine asked if it meets setbacks. Furtak replied the building existed
and setbacks don’t apply. Bussey asked how long the clients will be gone.
Manthey answered, they will be around this summer then leaving in the fall.
Bussey have the owners explored renting it by the month. Manthey answered
that they are not interested in doing that. They plan to close it for the winter.
Page 9 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
Jardine asked why the town disapproved. Manthey does not know for sure. The
town could not give an answer, that it wasn’t commercial property.
Wayne Seeger, Chairman of the Town of Delta, the reason why the town was
against is that it is on a private road and it is not maintained by the Town. The
Town would also like to keep the lake shore residential not rentals. Bussey has
the plan commission looked at this to see whether or how this would fit or not fit
with the plan. Seeger answered they did and decided it wouldn’t fit because of
the residential. Pocernich asked if there are any other rentals in the Delta area.
Seeger believes there are but in the resort areas there are three private roads
and that is the one that is denied. Schierman stated there are two applications
for short-term rentals, one was approved one was denied. Bussey asked where
they were located. Schierman answered in the Town of Delta, R-1 zoning.
Seeger added the one that was approved was in the resort area of Delta Lodge.
Jardine explained that if the Town pays taxes and repairs the road it should not
be called there road. Seeger stated the town does nothing with this road. Town
does not plow it. Pocernich added that if the applicant pays to maintain that road
they should be allowed to do whatever they want with the road. Bussey asked if
adjacent owners were notified, answer from Schierman was yes. Schierman
stated he looked through the Towns comprehensive plan and submitted some
pages to the committees drop box that were of importance. There was a claim
that the department was wasting the Towns time and the tax payers’ money. On
page 17 it reads, “Work cooperatively with Bayfield County to achieve the town’s
desired future pattern on land use” and “continue to provide recommendation to
Bayfield County Zoning on Conditional and Special Use application using the
Town of Delta year 2030 comprehensive plan as a basis for decision making”.
The comp plan speaks to tourism in the town and want to encourage it. The Town
does lump R-1 into shoreland community, the intent of this is to identify suitable
areas for future waterfront development to ensure the continued use of these
areas for home and compatible business and to focus future growth into areas
without physical constraints (wetland and floodplains). This classification includes
existing concentrated waterfront development. Both existing residential and
recreational business uses are included.
Bussey moves to deny the permit on grounds and taking into
consideration the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Town Plan Commission and
Town Board’s interpretation of the plan, overcrowding of a natural resource, lake
river or stream, location of the site with respect to existing and future access
roads pertaining to the type of road, potential impact on land use and future land
use within the vicinity. Strand seconded. Bussey stated that the overall zoning is
residential and the people that have properties next door don’t have the
expectations that the other properties be rented out. This could be rented on a
month to month basis. Strand agrees and added concern about economics of the
area. Has a recommendation to the Town that they clearly address short-term
rentals in their plan. Rondeau and Jardine agree and agree with the Town
recommendation. Pocernich asked to clarify that they are still able to rent this
out just not on a short-term basis. Schierman answered yes. No further
discussion. Motion carried. 5/0
11. Other Business
Page 10 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
D. Discussion and Possible Action pertaining to County contract for
inspections of Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC).
Schierman explained the County is in a situation where the state assigned UDC
inspection agencies to the townships in the county there has been some issues
with some of the agencies. James Price is here to discuss some benefits for a
county contract.
James Price, CEO of Alder Engineering, spoke about UDC history, and some
benefits that the County may have if entering into a contract with a UDC agency.
The state implemented the uniform dwelling code in 1980. There were a lot of
complaints from home owners due to no uniformity the governor passed the
home safety act in 2003. Municipalities have the option to adopt the program or if
they were under 2,500 people they municipality could opt out of the program. If
they opted out they had to go to a county program. Bussey asked what the
current status is in Bayfield County, Schierman answered 13 townships have a
state assigned agency, they rest have contracted on their own. Bussey asked
how this pertains to the Zoning Department. Schierman stated that if an
applicant applies for a house and they get a permit the department notifies the
owner that they need to contact UDC for any additional permits. Thought this
would benefit the County if the County had input on who the contract is with.
There are model ordinances in the Committees packets. Pocernich stated that
he had asked Schierman to look into this issue, since most of the townships had
opted out so they were assigned a state inspector. The intent was to have one for
the County, it isn’t going to cost the County anything, and it will still cost the
contractor or the homeowner. It will ensure uniformity on inspections. Furtak also
stated this will help facilitate timely uniform inspections, also will eliminate the
butting head factor. Rondeau stated that his township opted out. Jardine noted
there was one health inspector for the area and restaurants were not getting
inspected every year. The fees that inspector charged were the same as to hire
someone for the County. It would be nice to work something out like that.
Pocernich stated the County is not looking to hire someone; the County is not
paying those benefits or anything. Bussey asked if they would have to enter into
an agreement with all of the Towns that they use the County contract. Price
answered yes it creates a nice “one stop shop” for the contractors and
homeowners. This area has a lot of people that are from out of town and don’t
know a lot of people. The concern is that there is no help for the municipalities
who are having problems. Croonborg-Murphy commented that she worked on a
municipal level with a UDC inspector and there were efforts made on both side to
help each other out, both knew when each other required permits. Now there is a
consistency issue in this department. There are complaints that are being
received. This should be extended to the municipalities that already have a
contract so they have the option to choose who they want to contract with.
Rondeau stated the Committee is looking for Schierman to draft an ordinance for
a County UDC contract. Jardine stated the towns should know about this,
Bussey agreed. Would there be additional administrative costs to the County.
Schierman stated it would depend on how the County sets up the program.
Croonborg-Murphy added unless it went to lawsuit then the County authority.
Price stated yes. Bussey stated it would go to the Board of Adjustment.
Pocernich motioned to direct Schierman to create the ordinance for
UDC. Bussey seconded. Bussey stated they need to solicit the townships.
Page 11 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 15, 2014
Schierman stated it would be sent to the townships by certified mail. Bussey
stated to highlight it for the townships. Price stated that if this goes through,
whatever projects are out there now, the current inspector must follow through
with those projects until completion.
Bussey Motioned to suspend the rules and allow public comment.
Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
Bill Erickson, owner of a project management company, puts together all the
permits, agrees that Bayfield County needs consistency, every township requires
something different. He supports this issue.
Beverly Steele, chair of the Town of Clover, concerned when she heard that the
current inspections that are out there would continue and not be able to convert
to the County. There are adversarial relations with one of the residents.
No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0
12. Monthly Report
No report.
13. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:30 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 5/16/2014; given to RDS 5/16/14
Approved by RDS on 5/21/2014 Sent to ZC on 5/22/14
Final Approval on 6/19/14
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2014/#5 May