HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 6/18/2015
Page 1 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JUNE 18, 2015
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:10 pm.
2. Roll Call: Bussey, Jardine, Rondeau and Strand – all present. Pocernich – in at 4:15
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Josh
Rowley-AZA, and Krystal Hudachek - 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 Comment – relevant affairs to be addressed towards Planning and Zoning
Committee [ 3 minutes per citizen]
6. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the May 21,
2015 meeting.
Strand motioned to approve, Bussey seconded. No further discussion. Motion
carried.
7. Public Hearing:
A. Richard Allen (Bayview) – rezone R-RB to Ag-1 [a 5.14-acre parcel (Tax ID
#6626), described as parcel in W ½ of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ Section 28,
Township 49 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayview, Bayfield County, WI]
Mark Guenther, adjacent property owner to the South, spoke in opposition
explains that the property owner intends to have livestock (pigs and sheep) about
170 feet from bedroom window. He spoke with the owner and he stated that he
only wanted one or two pigs and a sheep. He hears from other people that he will
be getting more. He runs his landscaping business from the property already.
This land used to be a large scale farming operation, now it is down to a 5 acre
parcel. He has placed honey bees on his property already, about 50 feet from his
driveway, when it rains his boat will have water in it, the bees will go there looking
for that water. He asked that the committee make an exception to allow his
business to be run from the property but do not allow the zoning change. Bussey
asked which side of the property Mr. Guenther is located on and he answered
east and handed a map to the Committee.
Wanda Meierotto, adjoining land owner, once owned this property as Country
Kids Daycare, she supports what Guenther already said in detail.
Page 2 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
Croonborg-Murphy stated she has been working with Mr. Allen since last June.
The use of the property does not have any permits that are required. There is a
landscaping business and leasing to a general contracting business from that
property, the general contractor can be permitted with a CUP but there is no way
to permit the landscaping business. Mr. Allen expressed he might want a
commercial greenhouse on property and possibly a commercial kitchen and a
school room or something of that nature. She sat down with Mr. Allen and put all
of these uses together and he does want to have livestock the only two uses that
fit what he would like to do is Commercial or Agricultural, Commercial you cannot
have livestock. She thinks that Mr. Allen’s primary concern is his landscaping
business. Croonborg-Murphy apologizes that she has to represent Mr. Allen’s
interests, she does not want to do that, she is just trying to recount facts. Once
this is rezoned she can permit the uses. The adjoining property owners concerns
are for the livestock not for the business, if rezoned he would have unlimited
livestock use, there is no way to limit livestock in agriculture zone. Right now it is
R-RB and she could permit a hobby farm but not the landscaping business. Stuck
in a place where he wants uses that are conflicting in different zoning districts.
Bussey stated if zoned commercial you could permit the landscaping business
but no livestock, hobby farm is not available in commercial, Croonborg-Murphy
answered no. Bussey asked what the surrounding properties are zoned,
Croonborg-Murphy answered agricultural, except the Good Thyme is zoned
commercial. Strand asked if beehives are defined as agricultural, Croonborg-
Murphy answered they are not defined as livestock in the ordinance.
File Report: Schierman stated no letters of support or opposition and there is
town board approval indicated complies with comp plan. Croonborg-Murphy did
attend that meeting and the future land use plan is zoned agricultural for that
parcel. There is a Hwy 13 viewing corridor overlay.
Discussion ended.
B. Edward Dumont / Randy Knapp (Drummond) – gasoline, fuel oil (bulk
storage tanks & related facilities [consisting of a 30,000 gallon tank] [a
2.004-acre parcel (Tax ID #13752), described as SW ¼ of the NW ¼ East of Hwy
63, Section 8, Township 44 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield
County, WI]
Randy Knapp, Midland Services Energy Operations Manager, here to ask for
permission to have this request granted, this same operation was built up in
Bayfield last year. Just recently received from the State of Wisconsin Department
of Safety and Professional Services a conditionally approved letter that he would
like to submit for the file.
File Report: Schierman stated there is town board approval and meet town
comp plan, they stated that all business is welcome in Drummond. No letters of
support or opposition.
Discussion ended.
C. A petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf
of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an
Page 3 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
ordinance amending (Title 13) sections 13-1-4, 13-1-21, 13-1-22, 13-1-24, and
13-1-62 code of ordinances, Bayfield county, Wisconsin.
Section 1. Subsection (a)(4h),(4k),(22g),(37m),(37p),(37r),and (72m) of Section 13-1-4
[Definitions] of Article B [General Provisions of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title
13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
created to read as follows:
(4h) Brewery/Megabewery. A place too large or economically diversified to be a
microbewery. A building or establishment for commercially brewed beer or other
malt liquors where milling, malting, mashing, lautering, boiling, fermenting,
conditioning, filtering and filling occurs and produces more than 15,000 barrels of
beer annually. A global business industry.
(4k) Brewpub. A brewpub is a restaurant or pub that sells beverages brewed or
distilled on the premises.
(22g) Farm Winery. A farm winery is a winery where the fruit, which is the source of
the wine, is usually produced on the farm (crop failure may require a farm winery
to outsource fruit). A farm winery may conduct tours and classes and contain a
brewpub, tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(37m) Microbrewery. A microbrewery is a brewery that produces a small amount of
beer less than 15,000 US beer barrels (475,000 US Gallons) annually. A
microbrewery may conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub, tasting
room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(37p) Micro-distillery. A micro-distillery is a small distillery established to produce
beverage grade alcohol in relatively small quantities. A micro-distillery may
conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub, tasting room, and sales room
for associated merchandise.
(37r) Micro-winery. A micro-winery is a small wine producer that does not necessarily
have its own vineyard, and may instead sources its fruit product from outside
suppliers. A micro-winery may conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub,
tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(72m) Winery. A winery is a building or property that produces wine, or a business
involved in the production of wine. A winery may conduct tours and classes and
contain a brewpub, tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
Section 2. Subsection (e)(1)kk. [Fees] 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):
kk. Shoreland (non-conforming, impervious surface, grading, etc.) . $ 100.00
Section 3. Subsection (a)(4)e. [Structures Exempt Under 59.692(1v)] of Section 13-1-22
[Setbacks and Height Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions of Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County,
Page 4 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
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):
e. The structure shall not exceed a thirteen (13) foot height, with a maximum
overhang of twenty-four (24) feet.inches.
Section 4. Subsection (b)(4) [Highway Setbacks] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks and Height
Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions 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 creations highlighted by the double underline
feature (creations):
(4) Cul-de-sac Setback. Setback of 75’ from centerline of a cul-de-sac or 30’ from
ROW whichever is greater.
Section 5. Subsection (h) [Height Restrictions] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks and Height
Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions 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 deletions highlighted by the strike out feature
(deletions)
(h) Height Restrictions. A conditional land use permit shall be required for any
structure within shoreland areas, which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height,
excluding farm and public utility structures. Within shoreland areas no structures
may be constructed taller than 35 feet in height. The height of a structure shall
be the difference in elevation between its highest point and its lowest point of
intersection with ground level, exclusive of chimneys, communications, antennas,
weather vanes, and lightening rods which do not extend more than five (5) feet
above the highest point on the roof. Applications for land use permits for
structures thirty (30) feet and more in height shall include elevational drawings
accurately showing the height of the proposed structure as defined above.
Section 6. Subsection (b), [Lake Superior] and (d) and (d)(2) [Grading] of Section 13-1-24
[Filling; Grading; Dredging; Lagooning] 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 deletions
highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and additions highlighted by the
double underline feature (additions):
(b) Lake Superior. Except as provided in subsection (c), a Class A special
land use permit shall be required for excavating, grading, or filling of two
hundred (200) square feet or more within one thousand (1,000) feet of the
normal high water mark of Lake Superior (roadway maintenance
accepted).
(d) Grading. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a Class A special
land use permit shall be required for the grading or filling of one thousand
(1,000) square feet or more within a strip paralleling the shoreline of a
Page 5 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
navigable water and extending inland three hundred (300) feet from the
ordinary high water mark.
(2) A Class A special land use permit shall be required for any grading
in areas on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%).
Section 7. Subsection (a) 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 amended to read as follows,
with deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and additions
highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
Section 8. Subsection (a) 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 amended to read as follows,
with deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and additions
highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
No one spoke in support or opposition.
Schierman explained he sent out language to all the towns for their review as
well. Section one would create new definitions. There was an old definition of
winery. In his opinion, Bayfield County not being a pass through County needs to
provide for reasons to help people with business. On average one microbrewery
is opening per day. Expanded on definitions on micro brewing. Section two adds
grading into the shoreland fee. Pocernich asked the definition of grading;
Schierman stated that is in section 6. Section three is a correction of an error; it
should read 24 inches not 24 feet for a roof overhang. Section four is a setback
that we are missing, setbacks for a cul-de-sac. Section five is on height
restriction, there were changes presented to this that are in front of you. The
purpose of this is to take it out of the condition use and make it a variance
request. Section six deals with grading. Shoreland grading has been a class A
permit, the responses from the towns are not encompassing what they should, as
far as best management practices. Would like to make it a land use permit with a
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Brewery-Megabrewery, (Bottling, Sales and Associated
Facilities) C C
Microbrewery, Micro-distillery, Micro-winery, Farm Winery,
Winery, Vineyard, (Bottling, Sales and Associated Facilities) SB
C C SB
C
PERMISSIBLE USES
R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Shoreland Grading S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
Page 6 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
fee of $100 instead of $175. This would also speed up the process. Bussey
asked if a town has ever objected to a request. Schierman answered not that he
has seen (he read a few examples of towns approvals for shoreland grading,
Namakagon stating no violation of town plan, and another stating no reason not
to approve). The state and many statutes explain what best management
practices are. Section seven is a modification of the classification list. Sections
eight through ten are the legal clauses.
Discussion ended.
8. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Jardine made a motion to adjourn, Bussey seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 4:35 pm.
9. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 4:35 pm.
10. Roll Call: Bussey, Jardine, Pocernich, Rondeau and Strand – all present.
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Josh
Rowley-AZA, and Krystal Hudachek - Secretary.
11. Previous Business:
(March –E) Joseph and Sarah Zuelke (Iron River) – hobby farm (crops, sheep,
goats, chickens and cows) (tabled 3/19/15; 4/16/15) [a 17-acre parcel (Tax ID #35687),
described as N 745’ FRAC NW ¼ of the NW ¼ Section 30, Township 47 North, Range 8
West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]
Schierman stated that there was a letter submitted by the applicant asking to withdraw
this request and asking to refund the fees (read letter). Item FF in the fee schedule
states no refunds on special request application after deadline date.
Bussey motioned to accept withdraw. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
Bussey motioned to decline refund of the application fee based on
provisions of the ordinance addressing that. Strand seconded. Jardine stated
with all the notifications the department has more than spent the fee for the
request. Schierman added that the $30 recording fee will be returned to the
applicant. No further discussion. Motion carried.
12. New Business
A. Richard Allen (Bayview) – rezone R-RB to Ag-1 [a 5.14-acre parcel (Tax ID
#6626), described as parcel in W ½ of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ Section 28,
Township 49 North, Range 4 West, Town of Bayview, Bayfield County, WI]
Strand stated that this one troubles him, sounds like the applicant wants to do
numerous things that won’t comply with any zoning, Rondeau agrees.
Croonborg-Murphy stated she had been pursuing the violation for over a year.
Page 7 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
Jardine motioned to deny. Rondeau seconded. Pocernich asked if this
is the twin silos north of Washburn, was this farmed for years. Schierman stated
it was and it was rezoned to R-RB for the restaurant. Bussey stated he is in favor
of the request. It was traditionally a farm which went out of business. The town is
fortunate to have those buildings used for something after that. If this person was
not there it would be vacant. It is a positive use of the property. It was zoned Ag,
it is zoned Ag across the highway, there is a town plan that states it should be
Ag. If he can make multiple uses of the property it will be good for the local
economy. He understands the concerns of the neighbors. This is not spot zoning,
there are horses across the street, there is town board recommending approval.
Jardine stated he does not like the multiple uses that are going on without a
permit. Strand asked for clarification, if zoned to Ag he will need a special use
permit for landscaping business. Croonborg-Murphy answered, he will need a
special use B for that, conditional use for carpenter, no use in the list for
commercial kitchen in Ag (would not be allowed), commercial greenhouse would
be allowed. Rondeau asked how many acres. Answer, just over 5. Croonborg-
Murphy went on stating, she does not know particulars on what he wants for the
greenhouse. Event center would be allowed with conditional use permit. Only
thing not allowed would be commercial kitchen in the Ag zone. Bussey stated if
not rezoned he is in violation and both business need to leave that property.
Croonborg-Murphy stated the carpenter/woodworking would be allowed it is the
landscaping that is not allowed and would need to be vacated. The original
permit on file is for a mall with a campground, there are 12,000 gallons of holding
tanks there. That was the original change to commercial, since then it has been
switched over a lot. Schierman stated that if Mr. Allen has a plan for the future
he could bring the plan forward as one conditional use request to allow for the
various uses and the committee would have ability to say yes to one or no to
another and place conditions on each. Rondeau’s concern is if turned to Ag then
there is unlimited livestock. Croonborg-Murphy stated it is a permitted use that
is not regulated, which is the same all over the county. Bussey stated it is not
comforting to the adjoining property owners but the likely hood of it turning into a
major livestock operation is not that great. Strand asked, of the four uses that
Jennifer identified would there be a better zoning district. Croonborg-Murphy
answered there is no livestock in commercial zone and cannot permit a hobby
farm either. Strand asked of the four identified, Croonborg-Murphy stated he
wants livestock, but in commercial the commercial kitchen would be permitted,
the event center / school room would be permitted, building contractor would be
special use B, and carpenter / wood work would be permitted. No further
discussion. Roll call vote (yes – deny, no – not to deny): Strand – no, Rondeau
– yes, Jardine – yes, Pocernich – no, Bussey – no. Motion failed. 3/2
Pocernich motioned to move to full board. Bussey seconded.
Croonborg-Murphy stated that if rezoned setbacks will be increased to 75 feet
and accessory to 30 feet this might help the distance from property owners, right
now the setbacks are 10 feet. Strand asked if the county chooses to rezone the
property to agriculture would the committee have the authority to limit the
livestock. Schierman stated he doesn’t believe so. Croonborg-Murphy stated
that if approved maybe suggest that the property obtain a nutrient management
plan. (Schierman left meeting to get a copy of the Wisconsin Land Use Planning
Law book) Pocernich asked that if this is rezoned can the committee add
conditions, (Schierman returned) Schierman replied, somewhere he remembers
Page 8 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
having a conversation with corp counsel about conditional rezones. Conditional
rezones have been brought up in the past. Bussey stated that once more
information is found it can be taken into consideration at the county board
meeting. Schierman stated he could get that information before next Tuesday.
Bussey went on to state that if there was some way of limiting the amount of
animals he would be ok with that. Pocernich amended motion to move to full
board with option of a conditional rezone by restricting the number of animal units
if legally possibly. Bussey seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried.
B. Edward Dumont / Randy Knapp (Drummond) – gasoline, fuel oil (bulk
storage tanks & related facilities [consisting of a 30,000 gallon tank] [a
2.004-acre parcel (Tax ID #13752), described as SW ¼ of the NW ¼ East of Hwy
63, Section 8, Township 44 North, Range 7 West, Town of Drummond, Bayfield
County, WI]
Pocernich motioned to approve. Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
C. 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) sections 13-1-4, 13-1-21, 13-1-22, 13-1-24, and
13-1-62 code of ordinances, Bayfield county, Wisconsin.
Section 1. Subsection (a)(4h),(4k),(22g),(37m),(37p),(37r),and (72m) of Section 13-1-4
[Definitions] of Article B [General Provisions of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title
13 [Zoning of the Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby
created to read as follows:
(4h) Brewery/Megabewery. A place too large or economically diversified to be a
microbewery. A building or establishment for commercially brewed beer or other
malt liquors where milling, malting, mashing, lautering, boiling, fermenting,
conditioning, filtering and filling occurs and produces more than 15,000 barrels of
beer annually. A global business industry.
(4k) Brewpub. A brewpub is a restaurant or pub that sells beverages brewed or
distilled on the premises.
(22g) Farm Winery. A farm winery is a winery where the fruit, which is the source of
the wine, is usually produced on the farm (crop failure may require a farm winery
to outsource fruit). A farm winery may conduct tours and classes and contain a
brewpub, tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(37m) Microbrewery. A microbrewery is a brewery that produces a small amount of
beer less than 15,000 US beer barrels (475,000 US Gallons) annually. A
microbrewery may conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub, tasting
room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(37p) Micro-distillery. A micro-distillery is a small distillery established to produce
beverage grade alcohol in relatively small quantities. A micro-distillery may
conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub, tasting room, and sales room
for associated merchandise.
Page 9 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
(37r) Micro-winery. A micro-winery is a small wine producer that does not necessarily
have its own vineyard, and may instead sources its fruit product from outside
suppliers. A micro-winery may conduct tours and classes and contain a brewpub,
tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
(72m) Winery. A winery is a building or property that produces wine, or a business
involved in the production of wine. A winery may conduct tours and classes and
contain a brewpub, tasting room, and sales room for associated merchandise.
Section 2. Subsection (e)(1)kk. [Fees] 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):
kk. Shoreland (non-conforming, impervious surface, grading, etc.) . $ 100.00
Section 3. Subsection (a)(4)e. [Structures Exempt Under 59.692(1v)] of Section 13-1-22
[Setbacks and Height Restrictions] 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 deletions highlighted by
the strike out feature (deletions) and
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
e. The structure shall not exceed a thirteen (13) foot height, with a maximum
overhang of twenty-four (24) feet.inches.
Section 4. Subsection (b)(4) [Highway Setbacks] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks and Height
Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions 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 creations highlighted by the double underline
feature (creations):
(4) Cul-de-sac Setback. Setback of 75’ from centerline of a cul-de-sac or 30’ from
ROW whichever is greater.
Section 5. Subsection (h) [Height Restrictions] of Section 13-1-22 [Setbacks and Height
Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions 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 deletions highlighted by the strike out feature
(deletions)
(h) Height Restrictions. A conditional land use permit shall be required for any
structure within shoreland areas, which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height,
excluding farm and public utility structures. Within shoreland areas no structures
may be constructed taller than 35 feet in height. The height of a structure shall
be the difference in elevation between its highest point and its lowest point of
intersection with ground level, exclusive of chimneys, communications, antennas,
weather vanes, and lightening rods which do not extend more than five (5) feet
Page 10 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
above the highest point on the roof. Applications for land use permits for
structures thirty (30) feet and more in height shall include elevational drawings
accurately showing the height of the proposed structure as defined above.
Section 6. Subsection (b), [Lake Superior] and (d) and (d)(2) [Grading] of Section 13-1-24
[Filling; Grading; Dredging; Lagooning] 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 deletions
highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and additions highlighted by the
double underline feature (additions):
(b) Lake Superior. Except as provided in subsection (c), a Class A special
land use permit shall be required for excavating, grading, or filling of two
hundred (200) square feet or more within one thousand (1,000) feet of the
normal high water mark of Lake Superior (roadway maintenance
accepted).
(d) Grading. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a Class A special
land use permit shall be required for the grading or filling of one thousand
(1,000) square feet or more within a strip paralleling the shoreline of a
navigable water and extending inland three hundred (300) feet from the
ordinary high water mark.
(2) A Class A special land use permit shall be required for any grading
in areas on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%).
Section 7. Subsection (a) 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 amended to read as follows,
with deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions) and additions
highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
PERMISSIBLE USES R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Brewery-Megabrewery, (Bottling, Sales and Associated
Facilities) C C
Microbrewery, Micro-distillery, Micro-winery, Farm Winery,
Winery, Vineyard, (Bottling, Sales and Associated Facilities) SB
C C SB
C
Page 11 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
Section 8. Subsection (a) 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 amended to read as follows, with deletions highlighted by the strike
out feature (deletions) and additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
Jardine motioned to approve with the changes presented. Bussey
seconded. Bussey is concerned about moving the grading to a permitted land
use. The committee can impose conditions on conditional and special uses but
cannot on permitted uses. If it is a permitted use to what extent can you impose
conditions for example use best management practices? Looking at the statute
land uses permitted by right are allowed in indicated zoning districts provided that
these uses comply with all previsions of this chapter and all other applicable
county and state regulations. So in a land use permit you can certainly state that
they comply with all county ordinances. If you look at 13-1-24 it states some
conditions that need to be met and those could be included in a land use permit
but is there a condition in there that states that best management practices need
to be met. If not we might want to add specific provisions to the grading
ordinance. Schierman responded that 13-1-24 states only grading,
lagooning,and dredging which is done in a manner designed to minimize erosion,
sedimentation of riparian and fish and wildlife habitats which is accomplished in
conformity with all applicable federal state and local laws is permissible by
shoreland, in other words best management practices. Goes on to say that the
smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest amount of time
feasible and that temporary ground cover such as mulch and permanent cover be
planted. Bussey wonders how that will work with land use since it states, may,
be imposed. Is there a clause saying “notwithstanding”, that may be added to a
land use permit issued for grading, to make it clear in the ordinance that even
though this is a land use permit, under this provision you can add those additional
conditions. Schierman stated that in general requirements best management
practices must be followed. Croonborg-Murphy added that she does not
oppose this change and agrees with Bussey’s sentiment but it could be more
particular on Lake Superior, grading is 200 sq ft or larger which is a minimal
concern but a lot of the applications that come in are for bluff repair but when you
do repair on one bluff it is associated with riprap and that wave action does cause
concern how that one property is managed. Obviously the wave action does not
end at that one property. Because of the liability, the conservation department is
not reviewing any planting plans for her on Lake Superior, so it would be good to
include what that department does for inland lakes into the zoning ordinance for
our department and what it has to do for review, or it has to be an engineered
planting plan so our department is not overloaded with work that land
conservation is generally supposed to do. Croonborg-Murphy does agree that
there could be more specific requirements for Lake Superior. Bussey amended
motion to exclude section 2, 6, and 8 from recommending to full board with the
PERMISSIBLE USES
R-4
R-3
R-1
R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W
Shoreland Grading S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
S-A
P
Page 12 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
understanding that will be recommending later after they are thought through a
little further. Jardine seconded. No further discussion. Motion to amend carried.
Original motion as amended. No further discussion. Motion carried.
D. Discussion and possible action regarding recommendation to full board for
land use updates of (6) townships
Schierman explained that he has been working with a consultant developing and
collected the amendments from the townships that have full standalone
comprehensive plans, in an effort to bring them forward. This is supposed to be
done on an annual basis. These are the changes done by the town to adopt and
recognize them as the county’s comprehensive plan.
Pocernich motioned to recognize the land use changes in the
municipalities and entitlements within Bayfield County. Jardine seconded.
Bussey asked if there was any reviews to see what he changes are. Schierman
stated that some were changes to allow rezones, changes to transportation, and
community facilities. Bussey asked if the City of Washburn is recognized as part
of the comprehensive plan. Schierman said they are recognized as part of the
County but all of these went through the public hearing process in the towns in
which they originated. No further discussion. Motion carried.
E. Discussion and possible action regarding paragraph 23 of motion #520
State of Wi budget bill
Schierman explained there has been language that is attached to the budget bill
that has not gone through any committees, natural resources board, or public
hearings. If this passes it will move our ordinance back 40 years. Everything that
we have done in order to have stronger protections on our lakeshores, the lakes
classes, the larger frontage requirements, setbacks could all be gone and could
not be more restrictive than the state. There are 23 counties that have adopted
ordinances that are stricter to further protect the unique resources. If this is
passes everyone will be the same across the board. We think Bayfield County
resources are of a higher quality than some down state. Croonborg-Murphy
stated in her personal opinion this is a complete disaster. Schierman went on to
say that at Strands request he wrote a letter to the state officials and asked the
committee if it can be sent. Pocernich asked if a resolution should be drafted.
Bussey stated yes a resolution and send letter right away.
Strand motioned to approve and send letter. Bussey seconded.
Schierman stated he would capture what is in the letter and have a resolution for
the next full county board meeting. No further discussion. Motion carried.
F. Committee members discussion(s) regarding matters of the P & Z Dept
Strand asked about the stop work order. Schierman explained that both the
owner and contractor have abided by the order and are in the process of having
the property surveyed and can hopefully issue a permit soon.
13. Monthly Report
Page 13 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 18, 2015
Schierman stated that land use permits are up by 55 from last year; sanitary permits are
up by 38 from last year and took in $120,846 in fees.
Pocernich motioned to receive and place on file, Jardine seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried.
14. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 5:16 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 6/22/2015; given to RDS 6/23/2015
Approved by RDS on 6/23/2015
Sent to ZC on 6/23/2015 & 7/14/2015
Final Approval on 7/16/2015 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2015/#6 June