Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 6/19/2014 Page 1 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 19, 2014 1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at 4:00 pm. 2. Roll Call: Bussey, Jardine, Pocernich, Rondeau and Strand – 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 May 15, 2014 meeting. Jardine motioned to approve, Bussey seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 6. Public Hearing: A. Dennis/Jeffrey/Larry & Michelle Rasmussen (Cable) – continue operating a non-metallic mine [a 8.27-acre parcel (Tax ID #9632), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼ S of Hwy 63 Less Hwy in V.207 P.293, Section 24, Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI] Schierman explained this is a correction to the public hearing held two months ago. Previous was for the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and it should be corrected to the NE ¼ of the NE 1/4. The reclamation plan covers both parcels. This is the Rasmussen brother pit that is adjacent to the pit that was approved two months ago. No one spoke in support or opposition. File Report: Schierman stated there are no letters of support or opposition in the file. Bussey asked if there was Town Board approval and if the Town reviewed with the comp plan, reply from Schierman was yes. Strand asked about the duration of the pit. Schierman answered with, 10 year duration. Discussion ended. B. Craig Manthey (Drummond) – 2 unit short-term rental [a 1.46-acre parcel (Tax ID #14525), described as Lot 1 of CSM #1185 (located in SW SW), Section 33, Township 45 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI] Page 2 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 Craig Manthey, owner of Bear County, spoke in support; he would like to move a building on to his commercial property. Connect it to the Drummond sewer and water and have it as a 2-unit short term rental. The Town has approved this. Rondeau asked if this was behind Bear County and the reply was yes. File Report: Schierman stated no letters of support or opposition. Town states it is compatible with comprehensive plan and commented it is happy for the business. Strand asked if this met all setbacks, and the answer was yes. Discussion ended. 7. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Strand seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at 4:08 pm. 8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the meeting to order at 4:08 pm. 9. Roll Call: Bussey, Jardine, Pocernich, Rondeau and Strand – all present. Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Mike Furtak, AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary. 10. Business: A. Dennis/Jeffrey/Larry & Michelle Rasmussen (Cable) – continue operating a non-metallic mine [a 8.27-acre parcel (Tax ID #9632), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼ S of Hwy 63 Less Hwy in V.207 P.293, Section 24, Township 43 North, Range 8 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI] Jardine motioned to approve with the corrections and Town Board approval, with the same conditions approved at the April meeting and for 10 years(Conditions from April Meeting: Duration of 10 years and subject to same conditions proposed by the original conditional use permit. Conditions from original permit: Hours of operation Monday – Saturday 7am – 7pm). Bussey seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 B. Craig Manthey (Drummond) – 2 unit short-term rental [a 1.46-acre parcel (Tax ID #14525), described as Lot 1 of CSM #1185 (located in SW SW), Section 33, Township 45 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI] Bussey motioned to approve. Strand seconded. Bussey stated that he supports based on the Town Comprehensive Plan, Town recommendation, the Counties comprehensive plan, community general welfare economic plan impacts to the proposal, does not appear to have any adverse impacts to the environment. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 Agenda Review & Alteration C. Hans Dahl (Washburn) – building contractor and equipment and material storage [a 10.46-acre parcel (Tax ID #35562), described as that part of the W Page 3 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 1/2 of NE ¼ of the SW ¼ Lying S of Paulson Rd, Section 33, Township 49 North, Range 5 West, Town of Washburn, Bayfield County, WI] Croonborg-Murphy stated this application is approved to build a residence with a mirror image side, family on one side, mother-in-law on other side. Approved for a conventional system. He would like to move his contractor business here as well, putting up a pole building and storing equipment there. The building is not an unusual size or location and it meets all requirements. This application is looking at contractor storage, there may be employees coming and going taking equipment, traffic may be looked at. The Town recommended approval and looking forward to the business in the community. Schierman stated there are no letters in the file from the general public. Town Board approval is here with the statement, this would be a good business (contractor) to have in our Township, and they did not indicate whether or not they reviewed with the comp plan. Jardine motioned to approve based on Town Board Approval and their comprehensive plan. Schierman stated they did not indicate whether or not they reviewed it for approval, their statement would lead you to believe they did but the box is not checked, from his experience the Town of Washburn is generally very thorough. Bussey seconded. Croonborg-Murphy stated the Town plan commission did meet out at the site, but she was not present for the meeting. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 D. Drummond Area School District (Drummond) – municipal building (florist/vegetables/greenhouse/nursery) [a 0.26-acre parcel (Tax ID #15166), described as Par in Block 13 Original Plat of the Townsite of Drummond, Section 33, Township 45 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI] Schierman stated the local schools have been working with some grants with the Extension Department and have to opportunity to put greenhouses at the schools and this would help with producing some of the food used at the schools and help with educational purposes. Rondeau stated that he and Dennis talked about this a little and today Rob told him they may want to expand to sell some of the produce in the future. Schierman added that they ultimately would like to sell to the local restaurants. Pocernich added that more and more schools are erecting greenhouses and he though why not exempt the schools but if they are talking retail then that is a different situation. Rondeau agreed. Jardine asked if they are zoned municipal Schierman stated they recommended that to the school and they said no they wanted to go through with the special use process. They are going to do off property sales. Bussey asked about Town input. Schierman stated yes, approved with comp plan and is for educational purposes. Rondeau again stated that this is a good thing but once they start selling from it, then it is a different thing, if using it for the school then there is no issue. Schierman agreed and added that once people start coming to the school to buy and sell it changes the character of the application. Bussey motioned to approve that it is consistent with the Town Plan, the Town Board recommending it, interest in the general welfare of the community and the County, and there are no negative impacts. Pocernich seconded. Page 4 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 Jardine asked if anyone from the school was there, no one spoke. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 E. Rosemarie, Bernard, Brian Varisco & John Wersells, & Kristi Griscom (Delta) – 1 unit short-term rental [a 2.29-acre parcel (Tax ID #34784), described as Lot 2 of CSM #1570 (located in NE NW & NW NE), Section 4, Township 46 North, Range 8 West, Town of Delta, Bayfield County, WI] Pocernich motioned to suspend rules and allow for public comment. Strand seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 Rose Marie Varisco, explained her parents bought the place in 1954 and then build a place next door. Her and her husband are both retired and need to stick to a budget. They started renting out the place next door and have had no complaints. She did not know she needed a permit to rent. Bayfield County sent a letter stating she should contact the Town of Delta to attend the meeting and the meeting had already taken place, so she did not get the opportunity to speak. The Town told her the issue was disturbing the neighbors, well she is the neighbor on one side and there is a ravine on the other side, also the fact they have been renting for two years and no one complained about anything. There was concern about the road; they are on a paved road. There are not boat rentals, renters eat at local restaurants, they use all recreational activities in the community. They also hire local to mow lawn and clean cabin. Since she is the neighbor they supervise what goes on. It would have been nice to know about the Town meeting sooner. They want to keep in the family and keep it nice. Jardine asked if she is on a private road, Varisco replied public. Bussey stated he usually gives town board a lot of weight but sympathetic about her not being able to meet with the Town and wanted to know if she would be interested in meeting with the Town again, she replied with yes. Schierman stated Town did not approve based on R-1 zoning, traffic hazards, intrusion on incompatible land uses, preferred land use classification of shoreland community states that primary consideration of potential negative impacts to existing residents when reviewing proposed developments, this is from the town of Delta meeting minutes. Craig Manthey, stated he was up here a month ago on another short-term rental and is frustrated with the Town and Zoning boards are more concerned than the neighbors are. There was no one at either meeting stating concerns. These short-term rentals are all they have in this area. Wayne Seeger, Delta Town Chair, the parcel is residentially zoned and the Town does not feel that there should be rentals in residential zones. They are working on their comprehensive plan and having a meeting Monday night and they have invited Fred to that meeting. Rondeau asked if they would be receptive to listen to this again at their next meeting and the answer was absolutely. No one showed at the meeting so they went off what was on the paper. There is a process for posting and that was all done correctly. Jardine stated the last one was denied since it was on a private road and this one is on a public road that belongs to everyone. Seeger stated this one was denied since it is residential. Page 5 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 Bussey motioned to postpone until next meeting, send this request to the Town to provide Varisco with the opportunity to express concerns and thoughts regarding the matter to them and take them into consideration and then comeback to us. Pocernich seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 F. Joint School District #1 (South Shore) (Port Wing) – municipal building (florist/vegetables/greenhouse/nursery) [a 1.5-acre parcel (Tax ID #28869), described as Okerstrom Heydloff Addition to Port Wing Lots 18-34 Block 7 TOG with Vacated Portion of Lake Ave & TOG with Vacated East-West Alley in V.938 P.338, Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield County, WI] Schierman stated this is similar to the request just heard by the Drummond School District. Strand motioned to suspend rules and allow for public comment. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Beth Hoagland, Science Teacher at South Shore, spoke in support, the USDA gave out a grant that Bayfield and Ashland County were granted. They have the plants in the ground now and want to build a high tunnel over them. They do have in their plan that they would like to sell the plants. This would give the students the opportunity to sell the produce to local restaurants, and stores. They are not selling directly from school grounds but from farmers markets or with direct delivery to stores. All the money invested in the garden has come from fund raisers including plant sales. Grant covers the entire high tunnel. This grant was written for us so not a lot of leg work, this is a great opportunity for the students. Pocernich asked if the high tunnels were moveable. Hoagland said this will not be. Bussey asked Schierman if the application would cover the selling of produce, the reply was the intent was to get all potential uses in the public and if there were concerns people would have the opportunity to speak. You can include plant sales in the motion. Rondeau asked what the school alone would use. Hoagland replied with it is hard to tell at this point since most will be harvested before kids get back. The goal is to get most into the lunch program. The intent is to have the kids come in the summer and tend gardens. There might be an opportunity to teach the community how to can different foods. Schierman stated he is also a member of the South Shore School Board and last night it was reviled that they are applying for a grant to potentially provide for breakfast and lunch next summer. Rondeau does not have a problem with this. Strand asked if Bussey was going to approve without onsite sales being permissible, Bussey stated he has no problem with them being permissible. Bussey asked about Town approval. Schierman stated they do not have Town Board approval but has heard that it was approved. Bussey motioned to approve which would include the authority of onsite or offsite sales of the produce that is raised, Approved based on general welfare. Pocernich seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 G. Nichevo Ferry Lines (Russell) – residence in commercial zone (boarding house for employees) [a 1.29-acre parcel (Tax ID #29332), described as Lot 1 Page 6 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 of CSM #1254 (Located in NE NE), Section 26, Township 51 North, Range 4 West, Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI] Schierman stated request from Nichevo Ferry Lines to use a building on a commercially zoned property to board employees. Bussey motioned to suspend rules and allow for public comment. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Kevin Buzicky, Wife Beth Meyers and he own a 5 acre commercial parcel on the corner and there are three other parcels there and there are very limited commercial parcels in the Town of Russell and are opposed to this request. They believe it is a commercial area and purchased the property 5 years ago. He has a small kitchen a bath showroom in Bayfield and would like to consider building a larger building which would have employees which this 5 acre parcel is critical to this decision. He is not opposed to commercial use but use as a residential. Buzicky did go to the Town of Russell meeting and voiced concerns, there were no questions about intent and they did approve it, however he feels he did pay a premium for commercial use and would like to maintain this all as commercial use not residential. He is opposed to this request and did write a letter and took some pictures from his property. There is nothing on his property now but does intend to build. Wayne Nelson, representative, this is a commercial property and is moving all his commercial business there. There is office headquarters form gravel pit and road building construction business. There is a portion that when he purchased the building there is a mini three bedroom apartment in the second story of the building. It is heated and insulated. The main purpose for this request is for short term, seasonal, temporary housing for employees. Went through the process with the town board and plan commission and there was a lot of discussion on what to do, how it will work, and how to limit it. There was a 2-1 vote in favor of approval with conditions. Strand what would be definition of seasonal, Nelson answered, not seasonal but short term employees. There are short term needs; there are operators that need housing. He also he wants a person on site for security. Jardine asked what the conditions are. Bussey asked for clarification from Nelson, there is already an apartment; yes it was there when purchased. It doesn’t have plumbing but if this is permitted all laws will be applied with. Bussey, what does it consist of? Nelson full apartment. There is a privy permit of file and a wash down station. There are 3 rooms and it is upper level and not connected with commercial part of it. Secondary level with a secondary entrance. Bussey how many people can those rooms accommodate? Nelson would guess 8 employees, big enough for a double bunk beds. Bussey, looking at the Town approval, there are 3 mobile housing units, is this included in the application? Nelson answered that the reason they are here is because he had an employees with a 33’ camper that has a 4 month old baby and the heat went out so he plugged them in onsite. He didn’t know if this was legal so they made a call to Rob. Bussey asked if there are any kitchen facilities. Nelson answered yes there are 3 refrigerators, two stoves, two microwaves, and a pizza oven. There are two different little break rooms. Bussey on the application looks like there is an expansion, Nelson replied yes that has been granted. That is for commercial operation. Page 7 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 Schierman explained there is Town Board approval form that was approved and reviewed with compatibility with the land use plan. Please see conditions, read as follows: The Town board recommended approval of the above referenced TBA with the following conditions at their Town Board meeting on June 10, 2014 1] Permit is valid for two years from date of issuance buy Zoning Committee at which time it may be reviewed to determine if the use will be recommended to continue. 2] Not more than 8 persons may reside at property at one time. 3] The current building may be used as a residence and a maximum of 3 mobile housing units may be utilized for seasonal use. 4] No permanent housing use will be allowed during this 2 year period. There were questions at the Town level if this was a proper way to get this into the public. Schierman emailed Brian Ohm who works for the University of Wisconsin Law School and the author of the 2013 edition of Wisconsin Land Use and Planning Law. Questioned, if a land owner comes to see what permits are required to use an existing building on a commercially zoned property and an employee boarding facility and the use “employee boarding facility” is not identified on our Classification of Uses List we would not assume that that is a permissible use because the ordinance is silent on the issue. We would take that requested use before the Zoning Committee as a Special Use Class B and solicit the Towns’ input. Reply was: It sounds like a residential use. I am not aware of any cases directly on point but generally courts will defer to the local governments’ interpretation. The language you include makes it sound like since the residential use is not on the list your planning and zoning committee get to interpreted the ordinance. If the use is something that would be allowed as a special use under your ordinance that would work. Otherwise they should rezone the property to the appropriate district. This is why he chose this process. There are concerns about the 3 mobile housing units. Our ordinance has a separate section that states any recreational vehicle located outside a state or county approved park shall: Require an RV placement permit issued by the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department prior to the unit being placed on an undeveloped parcel if placed more than twenty-one (21) days. The RV shall be permitted to be used for temporary dwelling purposes for an aggregate time period of up to four (4) months per calendar year in all zoning districts except Commercial, Forestry-2, Agricultural-2, Conservancy, and Industrial. Doesn’t think he can allow them to use the RV’s. As far as the use as a residential he would have to go through UDC that is out of our jurisdiction. Did include a map of the Town of Russell future land use map showing the subject parcel and it is identified for commercial use. However the town of Russell does not have a definition of commercial in their plan, the County defines it as: Existing highway oriented commercial. Primary commercial and small scale office uses. Examine potential design standards to improve aesthetics and vehicular and pedestrian access. New commercial development will be encouraged in core communities throughout the County. Where limited commercial is proposed, it should be developed in small rural residential clusters and near major intersections throughout the County. Bussey stated this was not scheduled for a public hear this is a special use what circumstances can we hear this as a public hearing. Schierman answered of the Committee feels the use in question deserves the process of the conditional use. Bussey asked if the department has heard from the land owner to the North. Schierman stated no. Only correspondence from the gentleman that spoke earlier. He was notified, everyone within 300 feet was notified. Bussey asked if anyone from the staff have seen the apartment? Croonborg-Murphy stated she was there to approve the privy and addition, until tonight she was unaware there was an apartment there. It is not Page 8 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 approved for human habitation. Schierman added that there was no evidence that there was some one living there. At no time did anyone come forward to inform us of that. Bussey asked if anyone has seen these rooms. Croonborg- Murphy again stated no, she had called Nelson ask for clarification because the application was vague. Narrow down information to help with decision. She did not inspect inside the building that is not her jurisdiction. She did email Teresa Black questioning what might have to occur. There would need to be sanitation and plumbing there would need to be code upgrades to the building. Rondeau stated he does not like the fact of bringing in RVs in there and it is not appropriate. As far as how many people are there that is a concern as well. There is a privy correct, Croonborg-Murphy states she doesn’t know if it has been installed but there are not permits for the port-a-potties that are reported there. Furtak stated 3 or more RVs are considered a campground. Schierman explained, such units shall be permitted to be stored within a garage, carport, or accessory structure or in the rear or side yard areas of developed parcels of land, provided setback standards are met. The placement or storage of more than three (3) units shall require a conditional use permit. Jardine said change it to two. Schierman said he is not allowed. Bussey explained this is a significant issue and should be treated as a conditional use. Bussey motioned to treat this as a Conditional Use application, schedule a public hearing for the next meeting. This gives us more time to get on top of this and consider all potential ramifications. Rondeau asked if he would like to send to the Town Comp Plan. Croonborg-Murphy does have a concern with this process since the town did not at all review this with the comp plan and was at the meeting and asked that they review and that is a piece of information that the County does not have right now for the decision making process. Bussey would include in motion that the Committee would want their input and assessment of how it fits in with their comprehensive plan. Strand seconded. Jardine asked that he change it to 2 mobile homes. Schierman rebutted that the ordinance now states more than three will require a conditional use permit. He questions the intent of the ordinance, if he can’t issue in F-2, Ag-2, Commercial and Industrial if undeveloped, is the intent to keep RVs out of these districts or once developed it is allowed. Bussey would have to take a look at the language. Does the request include mobile unit housing? Schierman the request was for residential use of property for boarding seasonal employees or guards. Pocernich asked if this is going to be more specific because the way he sees the ordinance is there are no RVs on Commercial property period. What is the application consisting of? Bussey not a new application but treat this as a Conditional Use application. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0 11. Monthly Report Schierman explained for April the department is behind 20 land use and 4 sanitary and behind $5097.50. Pocernich motioned to receive and place on file, Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Schierman explained for May the department is 30 land use behind and 4 sanitary behind. $3484.50 short from last year. Page 9 of 9 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 19, 2014 Pocernich motioned to receive and place on file, Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Rondeau would like to have an agenda item for any questions or comments from the Committee. Schierman asked if this is in addition to 3 minutes of public comments. Rondeau replied yes, in addition to. 12. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 5:13 pm. Prepared by KMH on 6/23/14; given to RDS 6/23/14 Approved by RDS on 6/26/14 Sent to ZC on 6/26/14 Final Approval on 7/17/14 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2014/#6 June