HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 2/18/2021Page 1 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2021
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order
at 4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call: Ray, Rondeau, Strand and Zepczyk – all present. Silbert – by phone.
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Tracy Pooler-AZA, Todd Norwood-
AZA, and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Schierman showed the audience the affidavit of publication
and the certified mailing receipts.
4. Public Comment – 3 minutes per citizen
5. 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.
6. Public Hearing:
A. Kelly A Lewis / Michael Furtak (Iron River) – reclamation plan [a 40-acre
parcel (Tax ID #19722), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼ in 2017R-568050,
Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield
County, WI]
Furtak spoke on behalf of the request stating the plan was submitted in
September 2020 and approved. The property is now forested, and it will be
reclaimed the same
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the proposal. No one spoke.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition.
Max Lindsey spoke in opposition on behalf of the Pike Chain property owners
pointing out the plan falls short of the standards required by ordinance. There are
no ground water maps, inadequate financial assurance, top soil is supposed to
remain onsite and be used for reclamation but in the plan it stats that it will be for
sale, there is no time table for reclamation just a time table for mining. All these
things are missing but are supposed to be required as part of the plan.
Terry Lundberg – by phone – spoke in opposition asking if there was a letter of
credit filed. Schierman stated no.
Rondeau asked twice if anyone would like to speak in opposition.
Discussion ended.
Page 2 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
B. Kelly A Lewis / Michael Furtak (Iron River) – EIA; non-metallic mine & temp
asphalt plant [a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID #19722), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼
in 2017R-568050, Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron
River, Bayfield County, WI]
Furtak spoke on behalf of the request explaining there is a new EIA on file. This
is a 40-acre piece of land that is 2,000 feet from Hart Lake and adjacent to Mathy
pit. The plan Commission approved this request. The applicant has decided to
remove the asphalt plant from the request. There will be a storm water
management plan submitted once the pit is approved. Al the material that is in
the pit will be used locally for the gravel road which cover about 70 % of Bayfield
County. Primrose Lane is a private drive that the applicant owns half of. That will
be the main road for trucks. Days of operation would be Monday – Friday 7 am to
7 pm. There will be a berm constructed for noise and crushing will not happen
during the months of June through September. South Shore Sand and Gravel is
one of the larger employers in Iron River and this will add 2-3 jobs. There was a
study done and the property values of houses selling around the Pike Lake Chain
have increased 107-248 % of the assessed property value.
Ralph Frostman spoke in support stating he has run a gravel pit for 50 + years.
There are 72 pits in the County but most of them are sand pits and this would be
a gravel pit which would one of the few. Bayfield County recently reclaimed a pit
that was right on Lake Namakagon. Iron River Plan Commission approved this
request.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition.
Andrew Slack spoke in opposition. He owns the property to the South and is
already impacted by the Mathy pit. The Town unanimously denied this request.
This pit is located too close to the lake. Where is the dust control plan? The new
EIA was submitted yesterday morning and is a carbon copy of the first one. Mr
Weyandt (the person who drafted the EIA) is on the Plan Commission, who in
fact approved the application. The Town of Iron River actually bans operating on
weekends unless it is an emergency and they you then have to call the Town
Clerk for approval.
Max Lindsey spoke in opposition with concerns over the fact that Mr. Furtak
submitted the new EIA the day before the meeting. There are no perc tests done
on the property to see where the ground water is going in respect to wells, and
streams, and lakes. There is no list of animals that can be found on the property
or ion the area, which in fact there are a couple bald eagle nests around the Pike
Chain. There is only a list of plants submitted with the application. They stated
that crushing will be happening in the months of April and May which is when
bald eagle nest. This application should be denied based on the fact that it is not
consistent with what is required by ordinance, there is not list of equipment that
will be used in the pit. Ordinance states non-metallic mines are not allowed within
a mile of a lake. Town future land use plan needs to be considered and this isn’t
a part of that plan. Need to also consider the Towns recommendation of denial
and relevant public input.
Terry Lundberg – by phone – spoke in opposition stating the applicant noted this
will create jobs but it’s a low number of jobs (2-3). They also stated that a gravel
Page 3 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
pit will not reduce property value but that is not a credible statement. Mr.
Frostman stated that he owns other property to pull topsoil from when
reclamation happens but who is to say he will still own these properties in 20
years.
Carrie Hogenstien (sp?) – by phone – stated that her family has owned property
on the lake since 1962 and they purchased it for the peace and quiet not to listen
to the noise of a gravel pit.
John Schauss spoke in opposition stating there are water contamination
susceptibility maps in regard to well in the area. Pits are supposed to have these
on file, why doesn’t this request?
Discussion ended.
C. Alan & Susan Bain (Barnes) – second residence on a parcel [a 5.127-acre
parcel (Tax ID #1846), described as par in Lot 3 in Doc 2018R-575837, Section
11, Township 44 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Alan Bain spoke on behalf of the request stating they recently constructed a
garage on their property and now would like to add a second story with bedrooms
and a bathroom. They are also replacing the septic to accommodate the
additions bedrooms.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of proposal. No one
spoke.
Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke.
Discussion ended.
7. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Zepczyk made a motion to adjourn, Strand seconded. Motion carried.
Adjourned at 5:00 pm.
5-minute break
8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the
meeting to order at 5:06 pm.
9. Roll Call: Ray, Rondeau, Strand and Zepczyk –all present. Silbert – by phone
Others present were: Director-Rob Schierman, Tracy Pooler-AZA, Todd Norwood-AZA,
and Krystal Hagstrom - Secretary.
10. Business:
A. Kelly A Lewis / Michael Furtak (Iron River) – reclamation plan [a 40-acre
parcel (Tax ID #19722), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼ in 2017R-568050,
Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron River, Bayfield
County, WI]
Page 4 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
Strand motioned to receive and place on file the Lewis Mine reclamation
plan. Silbert seconded for discussion. Silbert asked about a well, and a well
closure/abandonment plan. Also, they list the elevation of the water table at 1128
feet and the elevation of the land at 1120-1200 feet., is this accurate or data to
prove this? He questioned if the motion is to receive and place on file the rec plan
that is the bare minimum and has faults to it file this would be his opinion.
Rondeau stated it is not being approved it’s only be received and placed on file.
Ray stated the topography he believes is correct. The range includes the wetland
area which is below the water table and pond which is accurate to his reading.
There is no hydro map and the plan didn’t allow for analysis of the water and
thinks the reclamation costs are at the extreme low end and noted there is no
timetable for reclaiming the site, but there is discussion of the (4) stages of
mining. Schierman stated this was received and approved contingent upon
financial assurance and signed by Travis at Land and Water Conservation.
Unfortunately, this cannot be received and placed on file. The state does require
approval or disapproval at a public hearing prior to approving a conditional use
permit. Rondeau called for question. Motion fails. 0/5. Schierman stated
operation of a nonmetallic mine cannot be approved unless an approved rec plan
is in place. Silbert questioned if this has to be acted on. Schierman stated he
believes so-yes. Strand asked if Committee could approve noting deficiencies.
Schierman stated yes. The State has a checklist that Travis reviews this through
and it met the minimum requirements. Silbert questioned why the committee is
forced to make a decision if no one makes a motion. Schierman stated the State
statute requires the plan be approved or disapproved. Strand moved to approve
Reclamation Plan as submitted with the following noted deficiencies: It does not
include the location of the well, well depth or water volume use, lack of hydrologic
information for the property and adjacent property, Reclamation costs are
insufficient, It does not include a reclamation time schedule. Silbert asked about
financial assurance. Strand added that it lacks specificity on fiscal assurance as
required by the County to the motion. Silbert asked what ground we must stand
on to deny if it meets States requirements. Rondeau said we don’t that is why
Strand crafted the motion with deficiencies. He asked twice if anyone was
prepared to second the motion. Silbert questioned disapproval if it meets the
states minimum standards what ground would the Committee have for
disapprove. Rondeau stated if they met the requirements, how can we not
approve them. Silbert stated it’s hard to approve a reclamation plan that is
deficient. Strand stated part of his position is based on the recommendation
from the County staff and then following that recommendation that the plan does
meets the minimum requirements. Silbert asked if the EIA is approved or
disapproved or placed on file. Schierman stated those can be received and
placed on file. He read a portion of the nonmetallic ordinance language. Silbert
asked if EIA can be placed on file, approved or rejected. Schierman stated we
don’t pass judgement on EIA’s we receive it and place on file to be part of the
record, to be challenged in court or be part of the file permanently. Ray
questioned rec plan, EIA and nonmetallic mine being (2) separate steps.
Rondeau asked if everyone understood Strand’s motion, approved with County
employee input and list deficiencies, but agreed it met the minimum standards of
the state. Silbert asked if rec plan is approved (reluctantly) can conditions be put
into the CUP to rectify the deficiencies? Schierman stated he doesn’t see why
not. Strand asked if those would be on the permit itself? Schierman correct.
Silbert stated on the basis on the Land and Water employee’s approval of the
Page 5 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
reclamation plan by bare minimum standards he seconded the motion
(reluctantly). Rondeau reviewed the motion by Strand and second by Silbert
with the noted deficiencies as presented by Strand. No further discussion.
Motion carried. 4/1 (Zepczyk opposed).
B. Kelly A Lewis / Michael Furtak (Iron River) – EIA; non-metallic mine & temp
asphalt plant [a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID #19722), described as NE ¼ of the NE ¼
in 2017R-568050, Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 8 West, Town of Iron
River, Bayfield County, WI]
Strand stated that in December he advised the Co zoning administrator
that the EIA was inadequate and requested the zoning administrator to so
advise the applicant (this was done). Today received a revised EIA and the
Committee nor the public had not had time to review. The County Zoning
ordinance 13-1-42 states the purpose of an EIA is as follows: quote: ‘The
purpose of an Environmental Impact Analysis is to evaluate proposed actions
very carefully in order to assure safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically
pleasing surroundings and to discourage ecologically unsound practices. An EIA
should inform public decision makers and private individuals of the
environmental and economic effects of actions that have been proposed,
increase the exchange of information among interested parties, lead to
environmentally and economically sound projects, and be used as a planning
tool for broad aspects of decision making.’ End quote. Based on the EIA
submitted with the permit application: I move to receive and place on file the EIA
noting the following deficiencies which are required in an EIA by zoning
ordinance section 13-1-42 (d) as follows:
• It does not include the required soils map
• It does not include the required percolation test and core samples
• It contains very limited information on the water resources of the property
and does not contain any information on the water resources of the region,
including the Pike Lake Chain.
• It does not include the required vegetation type map
• The summarized present land use information does not include any
information about the residential land use in the surrounding area.
• The provided map does not show the required locations of proposed
roads, buildings, or well.
• It does not include the required topographic map with contour intervals and
proposed alterations. Nor does it delineate the boundary for protection of
the wetland on the property
• It does not provide any information about how water run-off will be
managed under the DNR management plan.
• It does not provide any information about the well location or water volume
use.
• It does not provide any information about how solid and liquid waste will be
disposed
• It does not address impacts to area residents, including noise, and actions
that will be taken to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts. Silbert
seconded noting deficiencies and he commented that he was very
surprised of the inadequacies and simplicity of the EIA, there is a lot of
conjectures and speculations without data for an operation of this
Page 6 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
magnitude he expected much more scientific detail. Nothing addresses
acidity of runoff. No further discussion. Motion carried. 4/1 (Zepczyk
opposed)
Silbert stated he was prepared to make a motion on the CUP. Rondeau stated
he wanted a file report first. Schierman stated the Town reviewed this with their
comprehensive plan and recommended denial: Properties outside the mining
overlay of the future land use map, proximity to pike lake chain residents,
proximity to the pike lake chain and potential environmental impact, and
significant opposition to the public. There are 41 letters of opposition with
concerns about the reclamation plan lacks detail of hydrology, cost of plantings,
timetable for restoration, and conflicts with the topsoil usage. EIA lacks detail.
Inconsistency with the town comp plan outside the mining overlay. Unanimous
action by the Town to deny. Significant opposition from the public. Concerns
about dust, noise, erosion, potential pollution of lake and ground water.
Decreased property values. Too close to pike chain and residential areas.
Inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent land uses in residential areas.
Increased wear and tear on Town roads (truck traffic). Loss of natural vegetation.
Would encroach on buffer parcels between mining overlay and residential
shoreland properties.
Silbert noted he read every letter and has considered them carefully and
appreciates the time contributed to this dialogue and to stand up for your
neighborhood. He moved to deny based on the zoning ordinance 13-1-41,
consistency with the property not being in the Town mining overlay. Inconsistent
with town comp plan and future land use map. Consideration of the Town Board
recommendation of denial based on property is outside the mine overlay of Iron
River land use map, proximity to the residential areas around the Pike Lake
Chain, proximity to Pike Lake Chain and potential environmental impacts, and
significant opposition by public, inconsistent with County comprehensive plan
land use map, relevant and substantial public input, maintenance of safe and
healthful conditions, adverse effects to the community and general welfare and
economic impacts of the proposal, impacts the area water resources and noise
pollution, proximity to and the impacts to the water resources of the pike lake
chain and potential impact of the proposed use on other lands and land uses
especially residential land in the vicinity and the extent to which it would be
incompatible. Ray seconded. No further discussion. Motion carried. 5/0
C. Alan & Susan Bain (Barnes) – second residence on a parcel [a 5.127-acre
parcel (Tax ID #1846), described as par in Lot 3 in Doc 2018R-575837, Section
11, Township 44 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI]
Schierman stated there is Town Board approval after review of their comp plan
nothing excludes it from the Town plan.
Silbert motioned to approve with the restriction that there be no short-
term rental and based on town board recommendation, community or general
welfare and economic impacts of the proposal. Zepczyk seconded. Ray has the
understanding that they are limiting the short-term rental to the entire parcel or
just to the new construction? Schierman unless specified then applies to
property in whole. Strand stated it says (2) bedrooms, bathroom and living
space, it does not say anything about kitchen food preparation so if approved
Page 7 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
motion as stated does that exclude kitchen and food prep? Schierman stated it
would not. Strand amended motion to exclude kitchen or any food preparation
facilities in this space. Dies for lack of second. Rondeau stated it will go back to
the original motion and he called for a motion. Silbert asked if there is a new
sanitary system to address the new structure? Schierman stated yes in receipt of
a new sanitary application. Silbert asked if it will accommodate both structures?
Schierman yes sir both structures. Ray asked if additional structures be allowed
such as garage or two garages. Schierman if they meet setback requirements
for garages, we will issue garages and impervious surface standards would be
looked at. Original motion carried. 5/0
D. Bonney / Bayfield Properties LLC (Bayfield) – building contractor
(equipment and material storage) in Ag-1 zone with lean-to addition [a 9.77-
acre parcel (Tax ID #4605), described as par in NW ¼ of the SE ¼ in Doc
2020R-584541 Lying W of Dal Blvd, Section 12, Township 50 North, Range 4
West, Town of Bayfield, Bayfield County, WI]
Schierman stated the Town tabled and he spoke with the applicant and asked
that he not come to the meeting.
Ray motioned to table until March. Zepczyk seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried. 4/1 (Silbert opposed)
E. Kevin McKinney, Kurt Dvorak, & Michael Best / Michael Furtak (Cable) –
convert commercial building to residence to be used as a 1-unit short-term
rental in a Commercial zone [a 2.85-acre parcel (Tax ID #10126), described as
Assessor’s Plat No 2 Lot 4 Block 15 in Doc 2019R-579211, Section 18, Township
43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County, WI]
Schierman stated there is Town Board approval and reviewed with comp plan.
The department has concerns about the existing septic and would like the
committee to entertain a motion to approve with required septic system
inspection and upgrade to meet today’s code based on number of bedrooms and
secure uniform dwelling code permit for conversion of commercial building to
residential building.
Strand motioned to approve based on town board recommendation with 3
conditions that the septic system must be inspected and brought up to code if
needed based on number of bedrooms, there be UDC permit must be obtained
for the conversion and they obtain a permit from the Bayfield County Health
Department for short-term rentals prior to use. Ray seconded. No further
discussion. Motion carried. 5/0
F. Discussion and possible action regard Town of Namakagon letter
Schierman announced he emailed the sequence of letters out yesterday.
Rondeau stated when the Committee started getting the letters they were all
dealing with the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Adjustment acts
separately than this Committee, so he doesn’t understand why the emails are
being sent and Krueger wanting to know how come they aren’t getting the red
reports/paper for Board of Adjustment. Schierman stated this Committee
oversees the Dept. and our dept is the office for the Board of Adjustment, so that
Page 8 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
is how it impacts together. He explained the letter (multiple letters) between the
department and the Town of Namakagon. They are having heartburn about the
amount of time between when they get the notice and their meetings are and
making claims that they are not getting notices; our records will show they are
getting notice of everything they are required to get noticed on. He stated there
was a specific variance request that had a delayed notification and that was due
to the dept being accommodating to the applicant and their agent, Mike Furtak
and their challenges of getting us a completed application. He spoke about
letters and the shortest period ever experienced in notification from the dept to
the town was in the specific (Fogarty) variance request. The information was
mailed to the Town on May 2, 2019 for a hearing on May 30th; that is 28 days
prior to our public hearing; ordinance requires a 7-day notification. He stated the
dept is leaps and bounds above and beyond what is required by ordinance giving
them notice—(so apparently that is not satisfactory). Strand stated that deals
with the Board of Adjustment notification, but they also raised the issue about
receiving the pink pieces of paper for a special use. He asked whose
responsibility is it to get it to the Town? Schierman stated the Zoning
Department. Strand asked again if they were mailed in a timely fashion.
Schierman stated absolutely. Rondeau stated they always have theirs’s at the
town because the plan commission meets the night before the Town Board (so
they always got them and forwarded on to us). He stated the few years he has
been on; they always have them, but we don’t get a lot of Zoning issues.
Schierman stated you can go back through our records and every one of our
mailings has gone out well in advance of our ordinance requirements. Strand
stated part of the timing seems to be is when we send them out doesn’t always
jive with their plan timed meetings? Schierman stated correct he believes their
plan meeting is two weeks before their board meeting. Rondeau asked if that is
where the problem is because they meet (it’s all about dates). Schierman noted
other Townships if there is a request that comes through, they will hold a special
meeting or they accommodate. He stated we have 28 townships to deal with, if
we had to move this Planning and Zoning Committee schedule based on
everybody’s township, we would never have a set meeting. Our meeting has
been the 3rd Thursday of the month before he started at the office (18 yrs ago).
Rondeau said twice a year Zoning meets before the Town does, whenever the
1st falls on a Thursday. Ray stated in a scenario where the town’s typically are
the 2nd Tuesday of the month, if their planning group is meeting 2 weeks before
then they are meeting the month before; so if we send a notice out affirming
earlier in the month; it would be the end of the month before their planning
committee could review it. He asked if the Committee would typically defer action
on something until their planning commission and town board has time to look at
it. Rondeau stated yes. Ray stated then it’s a moot point and they are getting
worked up because their plan commission gets a permit the same month they
might be scheduled. Rondeau stated the problem is they are 2 weeks out
between their planning commission and town board (they don’t get it soon
enough). Schierman stated Hagstrom typically has the mailings out the last
week of the month (occasionally it may be the 1st or 2nd day of month the meeting
is in (but rarely), he stated tomorrow we do our public hearing and next week
Hagstrom does the mailing. Strand stated to reiterate what Ray said that in his
experience if the town requests that we postpone for a month, we have not
denied it. Rondeau agreed. Strand said he is reiterating Ray comment and if
the town can’t meet, he would like them to request that we postpone and he will
honor that. Rondeau agreed or they can move their planning commission closer
Page 9 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
to the Town Board. He stated his planning commission meets the 3rd Tuesday of
the month and the town board meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month and if there
is an issue or something comes in late they hold a special meeting because we
understand building or something like that we only have so many months to do
that stuff, postponing pushes backup 2 months so the planning commission will
usually have a special meeting so it gets on the board to accommodate (it costs
the town a little bit). Silbert stated he read all the letters Schierman wrote and he
thinks he has been very patient, courteous and tried to explain things, so it
sounds like they have a misunderstanding of the need for a variance. He asked if
it seems if they need approval or disapproval of a variance and if that is not true.
Schierman stated correct. He stated perhaps Schierman can once try to explain
to them that they want to be notified but they don’t have approval or disapproval
authority on that issue. He said he doesn’t know how Schierman could attend
every meeting of their planning committee or their town board and do that
throughout the County (that is an unreasonable expectation). He thanked
Schierman for his patients and courteous approach. Strand agreed and said he
is satisfied with the performance of the dept and the explanation. Rondeau
reminded the Committee that when Kastrosky was the Chair/Head, he lived in
Cable and he thinks he went to a lot and probably went to Namakagon on issues
they were going to face (that wasn’t a problem because he lives there) but
Schierman lives half way across the County. Schierman stated it’s not out of the
question to go if requested but were not going to every meeting because there is
a meeting. Ray asked the Committee and Schierman if this rises to the level
where Schierman should draft up a letter explaining/clarifying their understanding
of the variances and reiterate that we discussed it and reviewed the file.
Rondeau agreed with sending a letter back letting them know it was discussed.
He stated he thinks the biggest thing is the timing with it (the 2 weeks before) and
most of the letters he, Crandall and Schierman got it all dealt with the Board of
Adjustment (it’s part of Zoning, but basically separate) and as Silbert stated they
don’t have any input anyway. He asked Schierman if he would be ok with writing
another letter to them and trying. Ray questioned if it should have Rondeau’s
signature. Rondeau was agreeable. Ray stated it should state we elevated it
and talked about it and here is reality (we will work with them). Rondeau stated
again if staff creates the letter, he will sign off on it. Zepczyk asked if this is the
only Township that has a problem. Schierman stated yes. Rondeau said
Namakagon. Schierman stated there are items they think they should be
involved in and our ordinance doesn’t require involvement, he gave an example
(why they didn’t get to review a garage). This is permitted administratively; they
just want to be involved in more decisions than ordinance provides for their
involvement. Rondeau gave a talk of things that go on regarding previous
building and paying fines versus now where the County is making them tear it
down and move it for compliance, he stated Barnes has some of these issues
too.
G. Discussion and possible action regarding probable creation / revision of
upcoming ordinance language
Schierman stated he sent out draft language regarding several things that came
up over the past year (Town of Iron River, shipping containers and evolution of
farm stores) new definitions, allowable uses in Ag areas, removing moratorium
language, deter violations by raising the minimum fine (1934 it was $10 a day
and in 2021 it is still $10 a day), included is a dam failure analysis, and clarified
Page 10 of 10
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – February 18, 2021
the sale or exchange of parcels between landowners. He stated Strand made
suggestions on a few (Section 3), Schierman would not like to see that change.
There was a discussion regarding farm store(s) / specialty store(s). Schierman
stated he personally doesn’t support the Forestry-1 or getting rid of on-the-farm.
Ray spoke about maple sugar/syrup. Schierman stated on his time in the office
no one has come in have a store in the forest. Silbert questioned if it was the
type of products. Schierman stated that will be handled under the new
definitions. Silbert asked if an existing store would have to update to a curio
store. Schierman stated existing would be considered non-conforming and if
they wanted to do something in the future, they may need to come in for a
conditional use permit to expand the operation. It’s not stopping any legally
established businesses. Schierman stated he didn’t have any concerns on
Strand’s change regarding definition of equestrian campground. Strand, Ray
and Schierman talked about balsam wreath making in a Forestry zone. Silbert
questioned the shipping containers. Schierman stated a permit was required in
certain zoning districts and multiple containers requiring a conditional use
(exception Industrial). Silbert questioned if the looks of a shipping container
would have any contingencies. Schierman stated that would be suggestive and
the County stays away from suggestive. Ray questioned a couple existing
stores, bottling plants, and public water facilities he is aware of. Schierman
reiterated the nonconforming use. Ray questioned addressing the error regarding
nonmetallic mining ordinance. Schierman stated ordinance online was amended
in 2019 to not allow nonmetallic mining within a mile of navigable lakes.
Committee agreed to move forward with the amendment for next month.
H. Committee members discussion regarding matters of the Planning and
Zoning Department
Mark Abeles-Allison commended the Department on how well the meeting was
ran with all the technological difficulties. Kudos to the Dept.
11. Minutes from the previous meeting (December 17, 2020)
Silbert motioned to approve. Ray seconded. No further discussion.
Motion carried. 5/0
12. Monthly Report
No report
13. Adjournment
Rondeau called adjournment at 6:25 pm.
Prepared by KMH on 2/19/2021 & 3/11/2021; given to RDS 2/22/2021 & 3/31/2021(dak)
Approved by RDS on (was never given back to KMH) Sent to ZC on (RDS gave to committee on 5/20/21)
Final Approval on 5/20/21
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin./Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2021/#2 February