Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 8/18/2016Page 1 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING AUGUST 18, 2016 1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at 4:02 pm. 2. Roll Call: Bussey, Pocernich, Rondeau, Silbert and Strand – all present. Others present were: Director-Robert Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA, Perri Shuga Campbell, Acting 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 – None Schierman read a letter of concern from Glen Cook, Jr, adjacent property owner of Ronald and Shellie Swanson in regards to the automotive repair business. He stated he never had the opportunity to voice whether he was opposed or unopposed. He questioned Dennis Pocernich in regards to the structure and was told it was “just a garage for personal use” now he learned it is to operate a repair facility. He is concerned about noise, traffic and contaminants. 6. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): Rondeau stated the minutes are from the July 21, 2016 meeting. Strand motioned to approve. Silbert seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 7. Public Hearing: A. Petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Code of Ordinances, including the following: Creation of Section 13-1-4(a)(24m) to define the term “Game Farm.” Robert Schierman, Director, Planning and Zoning reviewed the file. He stated that recently there had been an application for a proposed Game Farm in the Town of Oulu. Since there was no definition for “Game Farm” in the current Zoning Ordinance, he felt it was necessary to define the term. He had considered DATCAP’s definition, and then stated he had worked with Corporation Counsel and had come up with the following definition “A farm where a variety of wild animals, including cervids, are kept, raised for meat or available for visitors to observe or hunt for a fee or donation”. Page 2 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor. No one spoke in support regarding the proposal. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition regarding the proposal. Discussion ended. B. Mervyn & Sheila Bergman [0.673–acre parcel (ID# 28850), described as Lots 4-12, Block 4, Okerstrom Heydloff Addition to Port Wing in V. 1155 P. 677, Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield County, WI]. Request a conditional use permit to allow multiple principal structures on property that cannot be subdivided consisting of (2) structures (i.e. a residence and an accessory structure with living quarters). Mervyn Bergman spoke on behalf of the item. He stated that he planned to install kitchen, bath and sleeping facilities into the existing 26 x 64 pole building for his own private use. Another structure exists on the parcel which is rented on a temporary basis. Because of an existing partition wall and plumbing rough-in the requested space is larger than is allowed by the zoning ordinance. Strand asked for clarification on the existing residential structure that is rented and whether the second residential area would be rented out. Bergman stated the second structure would not be for rent. Strand felt that a condition of issuing the conditional use permit would be that the structure never be rented. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor. No one spoke in support regarding Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition regarding Discussion ended. C. Robert & Amanda Vandoorn [0.74–acre parcel (ID# 36770), described as part of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, and the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, in V. 941 P. 939-940, Section 36, Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI. Metes and bounds description(s) available in Planning and Zoning Department]. Petitioning for a zoning district map amendment—Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential- Recreational Business (R-RB). Bob Vandoorn spoke on behalf of the item. He stated that most of his parcel was zoned (R-RB), however a small strip of the parcel is zoned (R-2), He would like the entire parcel to be zoned (R-RB). They would then like to split off three acres to build a residence and have the balance of the parcel to remain as business property. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor. No one spoke in support regarding Page 3 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition regarding Discussion ended. D. Northern Clearing Inc [34.98–acre parcel (ID# 37391), described as Lot 1 of CSM #1962 (located in SE NW; W ½ NE SW & E ½ NW SW) in Vol. 1162 P.389, Section 10, Township 47 North, Range 5 West, Town of Eileen, Bayfield County, WI. (* Note: parcels within one thousand (1,000) feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of navigable lakes, ponds or flowages or within three hundred (300) feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of navigable rivers or streams or to the landward side of the floodplain, whichever distance is greater is deemed a shore land and/or wetland zone). Metes and bounds description(s) available in Planning and Zoning Department.]. Petitioning for a zoning district map amendment—Agricultural-One (Ag-1) to Commercial (C). Rondeau made the clarification that although the agenda stated the rezone district was in the Town of Cable, the official publication in the paper stated the Town of Eileen, which is correct. Brad Gustafson representing Northern Clearing spoke on behalf of the item. He stated that although the firm had received a rezoning for the portion of the parcel located on US HWY 2, which was the original intent for entrance to the parcel, that WIS DOT refused the driveway application. The southern portion of the parcel that adjoins STH 137 will now have to be rezoned to meet the WIS DOT driveway requirement. Strand and Bussey questioned Gustafson regarding the map attachment and asked for definition regarding location of driveways, buildings and other services. Strand asked for further clarification why the DOT rejected the driveway application. Gustafson stated that because this area of highway had the designation of “Scenic Byway”, the driveway would have to be 1000 feet from any existing driveway and due to the configuration and size of their parcel, that was not possible. Strand asked about the appeal process for this rejection and Gustafson stated that it would result in at least another 60 to 90 days of delay for this project, and even then it may be rejected by WIS DOT again. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor. Daren Zifko spoke in support regarding the project stating that his firm had done a similar rezoning process that resulted in a positive effect for his business and for the area in terms of services, growth and employment. He believed it was a “good fit” for the area involved. Martin Zifko also spoke in favor stating that the proposed project bordered his parcel on two sides. He said he believed that the firm would be very good neighbors to him and that the effect on the area would be positive. He believed that he could ask for no better neighbors that this firm. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. Ken Raspotnik spoke in opposition regarding the proposed zoning change. He recited his interpretation of the definition of zoning and said he felt that this commercial use was Page 4 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 in violation of the residential and agricultural uses and that it would disrupt the quietness of the area. He believed the truck traffic at all hours would be disturbing to neighboring residential parcels. He wondered why Northern Clearing had not considered the Ag Station parcels which he believed would be more favorable. He stated the rezoning would result in “poor planning, bad zoning and bad government”, and once the rezoning is granted there would be no way to regulate the noise and traffic. Bussey questioned Mr.Raspotnik where in relation to the subject property was his property was located. He stated he is located across the road and “kitty corner” to it. Bussey questioned Gustafson whether the Ag Station property had been considered by Northern Clearing. Gustafson stated that the owners had considered it however the parcel was too compact for their needs. Silbert asked Mr. Raspotnik why he had not attended two prior hearings regarding this project, and stated this is the first time the County has heard any opposition. Raspotnik stated that he had been to all town meetings regarding the proposal and was not opposed until the firm decided to shift the main entrance south to STH 137. Raspotnik stated he felt it resulted in “spot zoning”. Discussion ended. E. Gilbert L. Rasmussen [40–acre parcel (ID# 9939), described as SW ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 1163 P. 338-339, Section 35, Township 43, Range 8 W., Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]. Requesting a conditional use permit to allow multiple principal structures on a property that cannot be subdivided consisting of (2) residences. Gilbert L. Rasmussen spoke on behalf of the item. He stated that he had placed a new dwelling on the parcel and that the old dwelling was uninhabitable. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor. No one spoke in support regarding the proposal. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition regarding the proposal. Silbert asked if the old building was uninhabitable, and why the second structure had been placed. Rasmussen answered that he had never intended to have two dwellings on the parcel, and had always considered the old dwelling as storage. Silbert asked if the old building would be demolished and Rasmussen stated he would like to convert it to a barn. Because the well comes through the old building for use by the entire farm, it would not be practical to demolish it. Discussion ended. 8. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Pocernich made a motion to adjourn, Bussey seconded. Motion carried. Adjourned at 4:36 pm. Page 5 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 9. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the meeting to order at 4:37 pm. 10. Roll Call: Bussey, Pocernich, Rondeau, Silbert and Strand – all present. Others present were: Director-Robert Schierman, Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy-AZA.; Perri Shuga Campbell, Acting Secretary 11. Business: A. Petition by Robert Schierman, Director of Planning and Zoning, on behalf of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, requesting an amendment to the Bayfield County Zoning Code of Ordinances, including the following: Creation of Section 13-1-4(a)(24m) to define the term “Game Farm.” Strand motioned to approve the petition. Silbert seconded. Discussion followed with Bussey wondering if the definition would or could be challenged by possible future legal actions. He believed that attorneys could find holes and or take advantage in situations unknown at this time. He questioned the definition “farm” and further discussed that definition; then questioned the definition “livestock”; he believes a clever attorney could challenge this part of the ordinance on the basis definitions for those items. He also questioned the word “variety” as it pertains to livestock. He proposed the definition be revised to say “Land and any buildings thereon or in which normally wild animals, including cervids, are kept, bred, raised for meat or available for visitors to observe or hunt for a fee or donation”. Schierman offered the ordinance definitions of “farm” and “livestock”. Bussey moved to amend the motion as such. Silbert seconded the amended motion. More discussion followed with Pocernich wondering about enclosures and fences. Schierman interjected that fencing is regulated by Wisconsin Statute 90. Pocernich further wondered if simple deer food plots would be considered a “Deer Farm”. Bussey felt that parties would need to be keeping and breeding them as well as just feeding them; as well as hunting them or allowing them to be observed for a fee. Bussey offered that it should be run again by Corporation Counsel prior to the County Board adopting the ordinance revision. Strand offered that a simple food plot does not involve “keeping” animals as they are allowed to come and go as they please. Strand also posed that the DNR regulates fencing of wildlife and that the ordinance would not have to cover that practice. Rondeau called for more discussion on the AMENDED motion. Motion Carried Rondeau then returned to the original motion (as amended): More discussion followed. Strand asked that prior to the item coming before the full county board he would like it reviewed first by Corporation Counsel. Pocernich used the old Dupont property in the Town of Barksdale as an example of fencing in wildlife. Schierman noted that the fencing is not in place for the purpose of retaining the genetic quality of the deer herd. Motion carried. B. Mervyn & Shiela Bergman [0.673–acre parcel (ID# 28850), described as Lots 4-12, Block 4, Okerstrom Heydloff Addition to Port Wing in V. 1155 P. 677, Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield County, WI]. Page 6 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Request a conditional use permit to allow multiple principal structures on property that cannot be subdivided consisting of (2) structures (i.e. a residence and an accessory structure with living quarters). Schierman spoke. He stated the Town Board approved and the proposal was consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan. He further added that the town felt it was a positive influence on the economy. He noted that nothing else was received in the file in support of or in opposition to the request. Croonborg-Murphy stated that if there would be further rentals created on the parcel, there would need to be another permit applied for and the process would begin again. Strand motioned to approve the request with the condition that the second principal residence not be used as a rental. Bussey seconded. Pocernich questioned the sanitary situation and it was confirmed that the parcel is on town water and sewer. No further discussion. Motion carried. C. Robert & Amanda Vandoorn [0.74–acre parcel (ID# 36770), described as part of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼, and the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, in V. 941 P. 939-940, Section 36, Township 45 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI. Metes and bounds description(s) available in Planning and Zoning Department]. Petitioning for a zoning district map amendment—Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential- Recreational Business (R-RB). Schierman spoke. He stated the matter had originally come to his attention when he was reviewing a survey for approval and noticed the two zoning districts on the same parcel and notified the surveyor of the issue. He stated the Vandoorns needed to get the issue resolved prior to the survey being approved by the Zoning Department. The town has reviewed the item and it is consistent with their Comprehensive Plan; the town further recommends the petition be approved. Pocernich motioned to approve the rezone of the parcel from (R-2) to (R-RB) Silbert seconded. Strand wished to clarify that the Town Board approved that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. No further discussion. Motion carried. D. Northern Clearing Inc. [34.98–acre parcel (ID# 37391), described as Lot 1 of CSM #1962 (located in SE NW; W ½ NE SW & E ½ NW SW) in Vol. 1162 P.389, Section 10, Township 47 North, Range 5 West, Town of Eileen, Bayfield County, WI. (* Note: parcels within one thousand (1,000) feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of navigable lakes, ponds or flowages or within three hundred (300) feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of navigable rivers or streams or to the landward side of the floodplain, whichever distance is greater is deemed a shore land and/or wetland zone). Metes and bounds description(s) available in Planning and Zoning Department.]. Petitioning for a zoning district map amendment—Agricultural-One (Ag-1) to Commercial (C). Schierman spoke. He stated the Town of Eileen had passed resolution Number 101 in favor the of rezoning, and that the Town has also amended their Comprehensive Plan to include the rezoning of the land for the purpose of Norther Clearing’s proposal. There is a letter of opposition on file from neighboring property owner Bill Erickson; there is also a letter on file from neighboring property owners James Zorn and Rebecca Campbell in opposition to the rezoning. Page 7 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Bussey asked Schierman to recap what had been done with the Northern Clearing proposals at prior meetings, which Schierman stated was rezoning of the parcel closest to US HWY 2 to Commercial. The southern part of the property was previously approved for a contractor business along with equipment and materials storage. Those items were allowed by the issuance for a Special Use Permit. Bussey further wondered why additional action is required at this time, and why rezoning is necessary rather than just relying on the Special Use. Schierman responded that by moving up to the Commercial zoning classification it would allow for the firm to construct a “professional’ style office building which would enhance the value of their parcel. Bussey further stated that the option of amending the Special Use Permit would be allowable under the Zoning Ordinance. This option was confirmed by zoning personnel, however is not recommended by them. It was further stated by Silbert that in issuing the Special Use for storage buildings it was assumed that the heavy truck traffic would be from STH 137 and the light traffic would be off US HWY 2 to the office building. Pocernich wondered if conditions could be placed as far as lighting and hours of heavy vehicle traffic. Zoning personnel said the rezone would not allow for conditions. Schierman stated that no special conditions had been placed when the Special Use Permit was issued because of the nature of the business. They stated that no previous opposition to the storage buildings has been received prior to this meeting. Silbert brought up the issue that the Town of Eileen notice stated that the property to be rezoned was located on US Hwy 2. He expressed concern about an error on the town level that may carry forth into the approval of this request by the County. Schierman stated that the property had been surveyed into one parcel which had frontage on both roads. So although vague in stating the location, the town was not entirely incorrect. Pocernich questioned the allowable uses for Agricultural and as well as Commercial and hoped that the applicant was aware of the limited uses under Commercial Zoning. Pocernich moved that the Committee recommend to the full County Board that the parcel of Northern Clearing be rezoned from Agricultural 1 to Commercial as it is consistent with the town’s Comprehensive Plan and has the approval of the Town of Eileen. He believes their study has covered all of the topographical and vegetation issues and the location is correct in relation to floodplains and rivers and streams. Seconded by Strand. Bussey added to the discussion that he is going to vote to approve but is concerned about the deficiencies in the legal notice by the Town, however whether there was defects in the town’s process they still forward to the county their approval. He stated that he is sympathetic to the concerns of Mr. Raspotnik however feels obligated to take all positions into consideration, and he believes it is to the benefit of the general public to approve this rezoning request. Silbert added that he is also in favor of the rezoning, and there has been plenty of opportunity for public input prior to this meeting. Bussey added that even if the rezoning was denied the plan could be implemented with prior approvals on record. Silbert added that he would request that the Northern Clearing organization do everything possible to keep the neighborhood intact and to make it as accommodating as possible to the neighbors. Motion carried. Page 8 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 E. Gilbert L. Rasmussen [40–acre parcel (ID# 9939), described as SW ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 1163 P. 338-339, Section 35, Township 43, Range 8 W., Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]. Requesting a conditional use permit to allow multiple principal structures on a property that cannot be subdivided consisting of (2) residences. Schierman spoke. He stated the Town of Cable has not sent in their approval papers, but Rondeau stated that he was at the town meeting and they did approve of the Conditional Use with the condition that the old farm house be removed within two years. Schierman believed that that stipulation could be facilitated with the conversion of the old farm house to an accessory structure. It was also noted that the Zoning Office has not received a sanitary permit application and the approval of this Conditional Use would be contingent upon receiving and approving that permit. Schierman also stated that Mr. Rasmussen had been extremely cooperative throughout this process. The question of the conversion fee was discussed. Bussey moved to suspend the rules to allow Mr. Rasmussen to speak, seconded by Silbert. Motion carried. Bussey asked Mr. Rasmussen how long he needed to convert the old farm house into an accessory structure. Mr. Rasmussen stated that it had already been converted; kitchen and plumbing had been removed and it is uninhabitable at this moment. Schierman recommended that the committee require an application for conversion of the old farm house to an accessory structure prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and the sanitary permit. Bussey motioned to approve, on all of the above discussed requirements with the additional requirement that the farm house never be used for human habitation. Strand seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. It is also to be noted that this is an after-the-fact permit and double fees have been paid. F. Mark Johnson [1.52-acre parcel (ID# 14450), described as Lot 1, CSM #779 in V. 1157 P.571, Section 32, Township 45N, Range 7W, Town of Drummond, Bayfield County, WI]. Requesting hobby farm (horses will be brought on the shore land property zoned R-RB occasionally for 24 - 72hours. Mike Furtak, acting as agent for Mark Johnson spoke. He stated the applicant desired a “temporary” hobby farm permit. The applicant desires to bring their horses a few weekends a year and use the designated trail system to ride their horses on National Forest Property. The horses will be kept in a corral while on the property and manure will be disposed of property. He provided a map which delineated shoreline area, wetland area, and the proposed corral area. Bussey questioned Furtak regarding the distance of the proposed corral to Drummond Lake. Silbert asked how close the subject property is to the public park and swimming beach. Furtak replied that the parcel is adjacent. Schierman stated he had a letter in the file from Jim Brakken, who is opposed due to concerns about disposal of manure. The Town of Drummond Plan Commission has recommended denial on the basis that it is not within the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board recommended approval of the Special Use, however. The Town Board approved on the basis that it be only for the present land owners and be reviewed one year from approval. Furtak further explained why the Plan Commission may have rejected the idea and offered several reasons most of which Page 9 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 involved a lack of communication. Bussey questioned how many horses would be on site at one time, how long a period of time; Patty Harmon, co-owner of the horses explained that they would bring horses to the property once or twice a month, but not every month due to weather concerns, fly and insect concerns, and the general comfort of the animals. She explained the horses would never be on the property permanently because it is inadequate space for their comfort, which is their prime concern. Bussey questioned further regarding manure and its disposal. Strand questioned whether there had been a precedent for large animals around a lake or stream that could be used as a guideline. Croonborg-Murphy offered that conditions can be placed based on the individual property. Rondeau questioned who would monitor any conditions placed on the manure situation. Pocernich offered that he has horses and it is common practice to remove manure from corrals twice a day for the health and wellbeing of the horses. He also stated and agreed the horse manure is a valuable commodity for people who garden and it does not “sit around” long. People want it and haul it away. The issue of the number of horses allowed was then discussed. At times there may be more than a pair of horses on the property due to friends and family visiting but not for long periods of time. Harmon stated that four to six horses may be on the parcel at one time but that would be the maximum. Bussey motioned to approve the Special Use Permit with the stipulation that only three horses be allowed on the parcel at one time; no more than 72 hours at one time; no more than twice per month; that the horses be corralled when not being ridden or led; that the corral be located outside the designated floodplain area on the map submitted by Mike Furtak and that the manure be disposed of daily in a properly constructed concrete or cement block storage structure, and that the town’s request that the permit be reviewed one year from approval. Silbert seconded. Motion made by Bussey to suspend the rules and allow Mr. Johnson to discuss further. Seconded by Pocernich, Motion carried. Johnson came forward and stated that he did not agree with the restriction of only three horses at one time; he would prefer six but would settle at four. Silbert stated he was experienced with horses and did not agree with many stipulations on the motion. Bussey further discussed and moved to amend the motion to four horses with all other stipulations in place. Silbert Seconded. Rondeau interjected that he is against the entire proposal because he believes horses do not belong next to a lake. Pocernich respectfully disagreed with Rondeau. Silbert interjected that he believes it is a bad precedent to have any type of livestock on lakeshore property. Silbert further questioned regarding the review process and the permit revocation process if necessary. Bussey stated it will be up to the Zoning Department to place this item on the agenda in one year for the review process. No further discussion on the motion to amend. Motion carried, four to one with Rondeau dissenting. Discussion resumed on the original motion, as amended. Silbert further wanted to amend the motion to include mandatory review in one year by the Zoning Committee. Bussey concurred. Motion carried. Back to original motion to with two amendments. Strand stated he is still concerned about the limits and the manure storage. Motion carried three to two with Strand and Rondeau dissenting. G. Clarence & Galen Peterson, owners and Michael Furtak, agent [0.172-acre parcel (ID# 20551), described as Lots 14-16, Block 1, Pettingills Second Addition to Iron River in V. 1162 P.33, Section 7, Township 47N, Range 8W, Town of Iron River, Bayfield County, WI]. Applicant is requesting to use existing home in commercial zone and to build a 14x24 [private] garage in a commercial zone. Page 10 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Mike Furtak spoke on behalf of the Petersons. He stated that the parcel had been purchased from the County at a recent public auction. The parcel had an older home on it which the Petersons are presently upgrading with the intent of creating a rental property. The issue is having a residence in a commercial zoning district and the need to reapply for a permit every few years. Schierman spoke and stated there are no letters on file in favor of or against the proposal. He also stated there is Town Board approval, and it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He then turned the matter over to Jennifer Croonborg-Murphy, AZA, who had visited the site. She stated there was an issue with the garage slab being poured prior to issuance of a permit for either the slab or the garage. It is considered an after-the fact permit and fees have not been paid for that. Silbert questioned whether the slab had been poured with anchor bolts, which Croonborg-Murphy confirmed. She also confirmed there had been a survey conducted and the setback for the garage met requirements. Pocernich motioned to approve the residence in a commercial zone and also the garage permit request with the ATF fee for the garage slab. Bussey Seconded. Bussey discussed the conversion of Commercial Zoning to Residential and hoped the applicants understood the uses that would no longer be permitted. No further discussion. Motion carried. H. Steven J Prevost, Sr. [5.63-acre parcel (ID# 36494), described as S 495’ of W 495’ of the NW NE in V. 1085 P. 368, Section 12, Township 50N, Range 4W, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]. Applicant is requesting two (2) home-based businesses. (1) Home Maintenance/Repairs (e.g. snow removal, landscaping) and (2) Firearm Sales. Steven Prevost Sr. Spoke. He stated he had been doing the home maintenance and repair business for a number of years and had moved to this parcel due to a divorce. He stated he recently applied to the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for a permit to purchase and sell guns. He also had been doing this for a number of years but due to new rules regarding background checks he felt it necessary to have a license. The ATF requires him to have a Special Use Permit for his Firearms business. Schierman spoke and said the Town Board approves of the request and said it was consistent with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Town Plan Commission also approved. He had no correspondence for or against the permit application. Bussey motioned to approve. Silbert seconded. Strand asked if there is adequate parking for the business and Prevost Sr. stated yes. Pocernich asked about hours open and Prevost stated he would be open nine to five six days a week, closed on Sunday. Silbert wondered if this will be the final permit requested for. He also expressed concerns regarding shooting in the area, and no public shooting would be allowed. Pocernich agreed with the concern regarding shooting. Bussey proposed an amendment to the motion that no public shooting is allowed and that all shooting be done within the confines of the stated business hours. Silbert Seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Back to the original motion as amended. Motion carried. I. Committee Members Discussion regarding Matters of the P & Z Dept.: Page 11 of 11 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – August 18, 2016 Strand questioned whether there is an update on the Deer Farm Appeal. Schierman stated that the transcript is now being produced and after that the appellant has not more than four weeks to file a brief. Following that the County has not more than four week to file a brief. Following that the appellant has not more than two weeks to file another brief, and following that the appeal can be scheduled. Bussey expressed concern regarding the letter filed with the ZA administrator from Glen Cook regarding the Swanson permit in Barksdale for a home based business. There was a glitch is the system that did not allow the system to give out the proper list of names when neighboring parcels were queried. The repair is in the works with Land Records; however the money may not have been budgeted. Schierman asked the Board Members for assistance with this matter when the budget process is reviewed. Silbert brought up the Northern Clearing issue and the lack of transparency on the town level. The other members believed it was out of the County’s control and was a town issue. If there was an open meeting law violation, Mr. Raspotnik can contact the District Attorney and proceed in that manner. 12. Monthly Report / Budget and Revenue Schierman gave the monthly report and explained the figures Pocernich motioned to approve and place on file. Bussey seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. Schierman gave the committee his projected Budget figures for 2017. He stated that he would like the Committee to review the proposed budget, and also stated that it is very upsetting when he works diligently to propose accurate figures for his department’s needs and then has administrative changes with no chance of recall. After some discussion regarding the budget items, and also the purchase of a drone to inspect many difficult areas, it was moved by Bussey and seconded by Strand to pass the proposed budget on to the County Administrator. Motion carried. At the time the acting secretary left the meeting and passed the responsibility of the minutes along to Schierman. 13. The committed elected not to enter closed session as it was believed the agenda did not accurately reflect the nature of business to be discussed. 14. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 6:40 pm. Prepared by psc on 08/16-08/18; given to RDS 08/18 Approved by RDS on 8/26/2016 Sent to ZC on Final Approval on 9/15/2016 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2016/#8aug