Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 11/17/2022Page 1 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2022 1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at 4:00 pm. 2. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Rondeau, Silbert, and Strand – ALL present. Other’s present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom, Mckenzie Slack-AZA, Erica Meulemans-AZA, Heather Doubek-Secretary, and John Carlson- Corp Counsel. 3. Affidavit of Publication: Ruth Hulstrom stated the affidavit of publication was fulfilled. Published November 1, 2022, and November 8, 2022. 4. Public Comment – Elizabeth Holland, Co-Owner with her husband, Mike Choate of Start Line Inn LLC, (Cable) spoke on behalf of their conditional use permit application and are asking for the application to be expedited as they are moving into their busy season. They are primarily a bike and cross-country ski service and retail center. They currently have a special use permit for a home-based business and for an accessory building on their property for inventory. Holland stated that they are looking to upgrade their inventory space to a showroom and add a second short term rental to an existing building of 700 square feet already on their property. Mike Choate added that no money will be exchanging hands in the proposed showroom area and will continue to be handled in the space it has always been. The space will be used to view ski inventory only, they do not sell bikes. Mike Furtak spoke in favor of Start Line Inn LLC. He stated that his understanding is that they have approximately five acres zoned R-RB in the Town of Cable. They have two habitable buildings and the main house. The structures were all placed so that the property could be subdivided since zoned R-RB, if it is a legal lot and they meet all the setbacks. This property would not be classified as a multiple unit development in his opinion. 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. Jeremy & Mindy Mueller (Orienta) are petitioning for a zoning district map amendment consisting of two 40-acre parcels. Parcel #1 is a 40-acre parcel (with wetlands present) (Tax ID# 26001) described as the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE ¼ NW ¼) and Parcel #2, is a 40-acre parcel (with wetlands present) (Tax ID #26002) described as the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼ NW ¼), both in Doc #2008R- 519660 (V. 991 P. 394), Section 20, Township 49 North, Range 9 West, Town of Orienta, Bayfield County, WI from F-1 to Ag-1. Page 2 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 No one was present to speak on behalf of the request. Ruth Hulstrom gave an overview of the request stating the Mueller’s are requesting a zoning amendment from F-1 to Ag-1. Hulstrom stated that the application received showed they were looking to change the zoning from F-1 to farm, which farm is not a zoning option but is allowed under Ag-1 zoning. She added that there were several attempts made to reach the property owners with no success. The Town of Orienta was notified of the rezoning request and they did approve. There is some uncertainty whether or not the Town of Orienta’s future land use map would need to be updated to be in alignment with the proposed rezoning. Mike Furtak asked what the historic use of the property is. Fred Strand stated that there is no evidence of past farming practices, and the property is forestry. Rondeau asked three times if anyone would like to speak in support. No one spoke. Rondeau asked three times if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke. Discussion ended. B. Richard & Kathryn Cochrane, Owner and Mike Furtak, Agent (Hughes) request a conditional use permit (in a shoreland zone / floodplain boundary w/wetlands) to have two multiple principal structures on a parcel (consisting of existing residence with deck (44’x20’) and new residence (44’x24’x13’) with deck (44’x15) Property is an R-1 zoning district; a 7.696–acre parcel (Tax ID# 1399), described as E 238’ of the W 388’ of Govt Lot 7 in V. 919 P. 919, in Section 4, Township 44 North, Range 9 West, Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI. Mike Furtak spoke on behalf of the request. Furtak asked for confirmation from Ruth Hulstrom on her phone conversation with Richard Cochrane today stating that the one structure on the property is not a residence. Hulstrom did confirm that she has been talking with Richard Cochrane over the last few days and she has also been in contact with Corp Counsel. She reviewed the permit, application, and any correspondence from 2006 relating to the existing cabin. After her discussion with Corp Counsel, it was decided that the department was comfortable with the Richard & Kathryn Cochrane moving forward with the existing cabin and deeming it a bunkhouse, based on correspondence between the Cochranes and Department staff that was included with the 2006 permit application. Even though, the Department staff person, at that time, stating that removal of the kitchen would allow it to be deemed a bunkhouse was maybe not the best recommendation. The Department will uphold what was indicated by the staff working for the Department at that time. However, Hulstrom noted that it was indicated to Richard Cochrane that the existing cabin deemed as a bunkhouse will be nonconforming based on the current definition of a bunkhouse. The current code sections that apply were provided to Richard Cochrane and he was comfortable with this and provided a written statement that he will withdraw his application for a conditional use permit noting that the Department will move forward with the existing cabin as a bunkhouse and allowing him to build the new cabin as a residence. Furtak responded that he was the staff person in the Department in 2006 that issued the permit and at that time there was not a definition for bunkhouses. He states it is essentially a grandfathered in bunkhouse. Furtak confirmed there is no kitchen in the bunkhouse and that the assessor for the Town of Barnes stated there is no Page 3 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 kitchen in the structure. Therefore, a conditional use permit is not needed because there are not two residences on the property. Rondeau asked three times if anyone would like to speak in support. No one spoke. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition Carol LeBreck (Barnes) spoke in opposition of the request. She stated she wants to make it clear that she presents not as a neighbor to Richard & Kathryn Cochrane but as a Town of Barnes resident that is very concerned about the process that has taken place on this property. She provided pictures of the structure on the property to the Committee. LeBreck stated that it is clear the original intent was to put two buildings on this property. Her concern is if not a conditional use permit, what regulations apply to this situation. She further stated that the local land use Committee voted against this request 4-0. The rationale put forward by the property owner saying there were too many constraints for why they could not add on to the current structure that was there and make one dwelling is not clear. There was no clarification provided by the property owner on this. This whole process was inadequate. The issue should be looking at decisions to protect the integrity of our lakes and minimize the density. The withdrawal of this conditional use application is extremely disturbing and failing the town citizens. Lee Wiesner (Barnes) spoke in opposition of the request. He stated that the zoning capabilities in the North along the lakes really took a turn for the worse when some of the acts passed in the past few years stating that county zoning could not be more restrictive than the state standard. One of the few things we have left is R-1 zoning stating that you need to have 150 feet for each principal structure and in this case the property owner does not have this. There is less than 300 feet, and the conditional use permit application states it is for two principal structures. Now being told that one is not a principal structure. Wiesner confirmed that the local planning commission did vote 4-0 to deny but the Town of Barnes voted to permit the request 3-2 after Mike Furtak spoke stating that a conditional use permit is not necessary. Wiesner asked for clarification if a conditional use permit is needed, he hopes it will be denied because there are two principal structures on a lot that is not suited for two principal structures since it does not have the 300 feet. Bill Stewart (Barnes) spoke in opposition of the request. He stated that consideration should be based off the zoning ordinance as it stands today. The permit request, the request for the conditional use permit and the property owner’s sketches were the documents published to neighbors and which the Barnes Planning Commission used to reject the conditional use permit. This is the contract that will bind Richard & Kathryn Cochrane or future owners to the conditions of a conditional use. In the request there is nothing that supports an exception to the zoning ordinance. Stewart further states that no use is specified, no hardship evident in need of relief, it is just the arrangement that the property owner would like. No conditions expressed and notes if approved, both buildings could be fully developed into dwellings with bathrooms and kitchens without any further restrictions. The building proposed clearly violates zoning which limits the lot, which cannot be subdivided, to one principal structure. He thinks this application should be rejected. He added that Mr. Furtak mentioned legal action if this application is not approved, and Stewart feels the same about an approval being legally challenged based on the badly flawed process, altered application, and it not being available for timely public scrutiny. Page 4 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 Rondeau asked three times if anyone else would like to speak in opposition. Discussion ended. C. Across the Pond Veterans Park Inc., Owner and Michael Furtak, Agent (Hughes) request a conditional use permit to operate a Campground with a picnic area; 15 tent sites, 16 RV sites, group campsite; Gulf War & Vietnam Memorial sites; RV dump station, dumpster/recycling center, porta potty; walking trails; (possibly 2nd Memorial Wall) and Welcome Center (consisting of office/retail space/restroom; laundry/mechanical room/showers/garage). Property is F-1 zoning district; a 22.48-acre parcel (Tax ID# 38654), described as Lot 1, CSM #2216, in Section 12, Township 47 N, Range 9 West, Town of Hughes, Bayfield County, WI. Included in this request will be the requirement(s) of the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). Mike Furtak stated that the EIA has been received and reviewed by Ruth Hulstrom and asked if the committee has any questions. Furtak added that the only thing that possibly changed is in October they got a special use permit for the wayside park to cover the entire property so they could start the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Everything has been updated or corrected to meet any questions that the Zoning Department had. No questions were asked by the Committee. Rondeau asked if anyone would like to speak in support. Joyce Ciembronowicz is the Secretary of the Across the Pond Board of Directors and a Veteran. She stated this park is a very important addition for our county. She handed out to the committee members a chronological list of the permitting process. Ciembronowicz commented that the application process has been a difficult and year-long process with the Zoning Department. She reported that they currently have $250,000 invested in this park with no outstanding bills at this time. This has all been done with volunteers, grants, and fundraisers. It is a constant battle when they get things paid for but can’t get the permitting to move forward with it. Ciembronowicz stated it would be very much appreciated if they can start the spring with a full construction season with all the permitting, they need to move forward. Roger Johnson (Oulu) spoke in favor of request. He stated that they have been working on this process for a year. The Zoning Department keeps adding steps to the process and now the Health Department wants more information. Johnson feels the conditional use permit should have been the first thing issued. He added that they can only build as the donations or agents come in. They want to be ready if they get a large donation or grant such as the welcome center, jeep, or helicopter. They will keep using local contractors and vendors to build the Across the Pond Veterans Park for the world to see. The local support is very strong both physically and financially. David Ciembronowicz (Iron River) is the Town Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the Town of Iron River and spoke in favor of the request and granting the permits they need. He emphasized to the Committee to please take a look at everything that they have done and for the permit to be issued. Page 5 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 Rondeau asked three times if anyone would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke. Discussion ended. 7. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Silbert made a motion to adjourn the public hearing, Ray seconded. Motion carried, 5-0. Adjourned at 4:38 pm. 8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the meeting to order at 4:38 pm. 9. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Rondeau, Silbert, and Strand - ALL present. Other’s present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom, Mckenzie Slack-AZA, Erica Meulemans-AZA, Heather Doubek – Secretary, and John Carlson-Corp Counsel. 10. New Business A. Jeremy & Mindy Mueller (Orienta) – Rezone property from F-1 to Ag-1. File Report: Ruth Hulstrom informed the Committee that the property owners are requesting to rezone their property from forestry to farm. The Department attempted to reach out to get some clarification regarding their request, but to process their application in a timely manner it was publicized as F-1 to Ag-1, which would allow them to utilize the property for farming purposes. This is an 80-acre parcel. There is one semi-adjacent parcel that is zoned Ag-1. The department does not feel that this is a strong case for spot zoning. There are other Ag-1 zoned properties surrounding the property but not directly adjacent. Mostly there is Forestry-1 property, what this property is currently zoned. Hulstrom confirmed that this proposed rezoning is not a clear case of spot zoning. Additionally, the future land use map that the Department has on record indicated that the property is F-1 so essentially their future land use is directly in alignment with the existing zoning districts. On the future land use map there is another adjacent property indicated as Ag-1 as well so there is some support in this case if the town is in support of potentially amending their future land use map to be in alignment with the proposed rezoning. In terms of other options, Hulstrom added they would have the option to seek a Class B Special Use permit for the property to facilitate a farm use without rezoning the property. The staff had hoped to note this information to the property owners for them to determine if they wanted to pursue the rezoning. Silbert asked what kind of agriculture they are proposing to engage in. Hulstrom stated there was not a lot of detail and asked Erica Meulemans-AZA if she had any conversations with the property owners. Meulemans stated that she was not able to make contact with them. She tried calling and left voicemails. Hulstrom verified that the request states they have animals, fencing, and shelter. It is not stated what type of animals but there are existing animals on the property now. Silbert asked if town board approved the rezone. Hulstrom confirmed that the town board recommended approval of the rezoning. Rondeau questioned why the property owners are not reachable. Hulstrom responded that both she and Meulemans tried multiple times to reach them and were unable to do so. She stated that they Page 6 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 were provided a notice regarding their application, requesting them to be here and is unsure why they would not be in attendance. Strand motion to deny the rezoning request based on that the land is forested, I know of no history of agriculture on the property, aerial photo evidence does not indicate any agricultural use and it is not consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan, maintenance of safe and healthful conditions in the community, the general welfare and economic impacts of the proposal seconded by Silbert. Silbert added that he believes there is a wetland on the property as well. Strand confirmed that the map would show there is a fair amount of wetlands on the 40-acres. Silbert commented that he would have a concern that the agricultural activities stay off of the wetlands and questioned why the property owners did not apply for a special use permit instead of a rezone. Strand concurred that a special use application for a limited amount of agriculture on the property would be much more appropriate. Pocernich stated he supports the rezone with the town board approval. Ray stated looking at the aerial photo it appears to him there is a structure on the property with clearing around it and their application states they currently have animals on site. He says this is an example of not a very good system for managing the land where we are asking people to rezone their whole property when a temporary permit would suffice. He states that he tends to defer to the town and if the town is supporting it, he would tend to support it in the interest of getting it taken care of now. Silbert stated he agrees and gives great creditability and credence to the town board. He would have appreciated the applicants being present or had communicated how they intend to farm the property. He would be glad to give them a special use permit. Motion carried, 4- 1. Pocernich questioned if the Zoning Department will reach out to the property owners and inform them that instead of a rezone, they could do a conditional use permit. Hulstrom answered that the Zoning Department will follow up and let the applicants know the official motion of the meeting and what their options are moving forward. Ray clarified with Hulstrom that this application came in the door without any discussion with the applicant. Hulstrom confirmed this was the case and verified with Meulemans and she also confirmed she has no recollection of them coming into the office. B. Richard & Kathryn Cochrane (Barnes) – Two multiple principal structures on a parcel in R-1 zoning district. File Report: Ruth Hulstrom informed the Committee that this one is complicated and when staff were initially reviewing it the existing structure on the site essentially was the principal structure. The Department felt that it was appropriate to have the property owners go through the conditional use permitting process since they were then proposing to place a second residence on the site. The existing cabin was considered the principal structure on the site and did not meet the current definition of a bunkhouse. There was some conversation back and forth with the property owner regarding this prior to them submitting the application. Ultimately the Department felt that it was worth while moving forward with what was known at the time. As more correspondence came in regarding the conditional use permit request, the property owner reached out again and raised concerns about the existing cabin being deemed a bunkhouse and not a residence. It was clear that he really believed that from a permit that was issued in 2006 to construct the now existing cabin that he had created a bunkhouse at that time. When staff reviewed the entirety of the application and the permit that was issued there was nothing Page 7 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 indicating in the permit or the application that deemed the existing cabin a bunkhouse. However, there was correspondence in the file with the application and the permit that indicated department staff at the time had stated through email correspondence to the property owner that if they removed the kitchen in the existing cabin, it would be deemed a bunkhouse. Hulstrom stated that to her knowledge the Department has never considered a bunkhouse a principal structure, it has always been deemed an accessory structure. So, it was surprising to see the correspondence that existed in the file associated with the application. After discussion with Corp Counsel the Department has decided to approve the existing cabin as a non-conforming bunkhouse. The applicant has withdrawn their Conditional Use permit application. The property is situated in three different zoning districts which makes this property unique. Silbert confirmed that the applicant is withdrawing their conditional use application and moving forward with the land use application for the main structure. He also asked for clarification on the requirement for lakeshore width and if the septic will be examined. Hulstrom stated that an approved sanitary is required to issue a land use permit. Rondeau confirmed that there is nothing to act on. Hulstrom responded that there is nothing to act on since the applicants have chosen to withdraw their application. Rondeau asked John Carlson, Corp Counsel if he could clarify. Carlson stated that he does not like the facts, but the Department is stuck with it. You cannot have a bunkhouse without a primary structure, but the bigger problem is the correspondence from the Department at the time stating that it can be a bunkhouse. Back in the day the Department did not have a definition for bunkhouses. C. Across the Pond Veterans Park Inc (Hughes) – EIA / Campground with a Welcome Center (consisting of office/retail space/restroom; laundry/mechanical room/showers/garage); picnic area; 15 tent sites, 16 RV sites, group campsite; Gulf War & Vietnam Memorial sites; RV dump station, dumpster/recycling center, porta potty; walking trails; (possibly 2nd Memorial Wall) File Report: Ruth Hulstrom informed the Committee that the applicants have submitted all the necessary paperwork and the EIA is included. She added that she included for the Committee the section of code that pertains to campground development to show that all the terms will be met through the land use application. The EIA did come in at a later date from the original submittal and this did slow the application process a bit. Additionally, there were some initial calculations in the EIA that raised concerns as to whether the sanitary requirement could be met. The Zoning Department did have a discussion with the Public Health Department and the information was shared with the applicant so that any concerns would be noted at the front end versus later down the road. There were updates made to the site drawing addressing the concerns of the sanitation. This was received on September 23rd and is the most up to date at this time. Rondeau confirmed that the Committee is going to act on the EIA and the conditional use permit tonight. Hulstrom confirmed this is anticipated. Rondeau asked if the EIA has been looked at and approved. Hulstrom stated she has looked at it and made some general suggestions for corrections. The applicant indicated to move forward with the one submitted on September 23rd. Hulstrom added that the one thing that would be helpful for the Department to have clarification on is the uses of the welcome center which is a multi-use building. She wants the Committee to be aware of all the potential accessory uses associated with the building. Rondeau asked if the town has approved this. Hulstrom confirmed the town has approved. Rondeau stated his support for this project and granting the conditional use permit. Page 8 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 Strand motion to receive and replace on file the EIA based upon consistency with the town’s comprehensive plan, town board recommendation, maintenance of safe and healthful conditions in the community, the general welfare and economic impacts of the proposal seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0. Strand motion to approve the Across the Pond Veterans Campground project on 17 acres, which includes: 32 campsites, two stormwater basins, a welcome center which includes: shower rooms, restrooms, office, retail space, laundry space, mechanical room, garage/maintenance area, also a dump station, dumpster/recycling center, picnic area, porta potties, walking trails, Veteran Memorial and Gulf War Memorial based upon consistency with the town’s comprehensive plan, town board recommendation, maintenance of safe and healthful conditions in the community, the general welfare and economic impacts of the proposal seconded by Silbert. Silbert commented that he also supports this project and is sorry there has been complications. He added let’s move forward in a positive manner and enjoy this facility for years to come. Motion carried, 5-0. Agenda Review and Alteration D. Christopher & Megan Weeden (Russell) (Tax ID 37985) – hobby-farm in R-RB zoning district (consisting of apple trees, 4-6 horses, 20 chickens) [maybe ducks, goat and/or alpacas] File Report: Ruth Hulstrom informed the Committee that this is just under a 20- acre parcel in the Town of Russell. The applicant outlined their proposed usage and have indicated the existing structures and the livestock area. Generally speaking, they meet any of the potential requirements. There is an intermittent stream on the property, which has not been deemed as navigable or not but the area where the livestock would be located seems to meet the required setbacks if deemed navigable. Staff have limited concerns on this one. Silbert asked if town board has approved. Hulstrom replied that town board approval has been received. Silbert motion to approve this special use B permit for Christopher & Megan Weeden’s hobby farm in the Town of Russell based upon consistency with the town’s comprehensive plan, town board recommendation, maintenance of safe and healthful conditions in the community, the general welfare and economic impacts of the proposal seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0. 11. Other Business E. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s): (June 28, 2022 (Spcl Mtg) and Sept 15, 2022) Strand motion to approve the minutes from June 28, 2022 (Spcl Mtg), as presented, seconded by Pocernich. Motion carried, 5-0. Silbert motion to approve minutes from September 15, 2022, as presented, seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0. Page 9 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 F. Discussion and possible action regarding interpretation of classification list regarding gas pumps/canopy (Byrd request) Ruth Hulstrom gave a summary on the property and stated that the individual is requesting to install 24-hour pay at the pump type of use. Property is zoned R-RB. The Department is looking for clarification and input from the Committee on how this request would be classified based on the current classification list of uses under Sec. 13-1-62. Staff determined that the closest classification for what the individual is proposing to do is the gasoline/fuel oil bulk storage tank and related facilities which are only allowed with a conditional use permit in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Ray asked if this was the only business use proposed on the property. McKenzie Slack confirmed that there is an existing structure on the property that used to be a bar/restaurant and the property owners will purchase the property if he can do this or not. He is pressing the Department on how other establishments that are not zoned industrial are able to have gas pumps in the area. Silbert asked for Corp Counsel input. John Carlson gave some background on the property and stated the Committee’s options are to do a rezone or amend the classification of uses to include this type of use. The Committee discussed different options for this use and other local businesses that currently have this use with gas pumps on their property zoned R-RB. It was noted that there are farms that have gas pumps on their property as well. The committee agreed that there is an option for this individual currently with requesting a rezone of the property. It was also discussed to look at amending the classification list of uses in the future to address this type of use. G. Discussion and possible action regarding Short-term Rental draft ordinance amendment John Carlson stated that he agrees with Strand and he will add property manager or entity so it will include partnerships, LLCs, corporations or whatever it might be. Carlson states if everyone is comfortable with this version it is time to send it out to the towns and villages for comments with a cover letter indicating why we are doing this and what the current state of the law is that is prompting this. There are several towns that already have their own short-term rental ordinance on top of this and this will have no impact on what the local towns want to do. But it will streamline the process within the Department. Silbert asked for clarification on the number of occupants and how that is determined with the sanitary. Carlson confirmed that this is done through the sanitary permit, and it is classified as two occupants per bedroom. Rondeau asked the Committee if they are content with what Carlson has so far. Strand confirmed he is and particularly appreciates the wording regarding additional recreational vehicles and tents. The Committee agreed to have Carlson proceed. Carlson stated the plan is that once this is in place, the properties that are already permitted will not be required to get new permits. H. Discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amendment to Sec. 13-1-62 - Class A Special Use permit for dwelling in A-1/F-1 Hulstrom stated that one of the ongoing things for staff facilitating the land use applications is the additional step that applicants have to go through to get a Class A Special Use permit if they are in a F-1 or A-1 zoning district. Hulstrom noted that looking back at the Class A applications there are only two that have ever been denied. It seemed this should be brought to the Committee’s attention on whether or not there is support to do away with this requirement. Strand agreed with Hulstrom and confirmed with Rondeau that these applications are routinely approved. He added that he is not sure this is a change we want to do now but could address at the time we look at all the ordinances. Page 10 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 Hulstrom confirmed that the Department just wants to bring to the Committee’s attention since there is not a high level of town denials and just looking at the necessity of this and the direction the Committee would like to go with the how and when. Hulstrom did add that existing staff mentioned that some of the towns do like knowing about these residences being placed in these zoning districts in case they have concerns about road maintenance to these sites. Ray motion to suspend the rules to allow Mike Furtak to comment. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0. Furtak stated that he does not think this should be overturned due to the responsibility the town has to provide emergency services, school busses and road maintenance. Pocernich commented that the towns are to provide the services there but are not required to provide the access to the structure and supports this change. Hulstrom clarified that the Department is looking for direction and how the Committee would like to proceed with this. This could be added to the ordinance rewrite or amend the ordinance. Pocernich stated he would like to see the ordinance amended now to help the Department expedite these applications and add the amended ordinance into the rewrite. Ray stated that he does agree with comments made by Furtak and that this can be taxing on the towns. But he does support the change. The Committee is in agreement to move forward with this change. Hulstrom stated that she will work on an official draft for an ordinance amendment. I. Discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amendment to Sec. 13-1-62(b) Hulstrom explained that this section states that a lot created by a subdivision by a parcel of land in a F-1 zoning district into three lots or more of less than ten acres each within a five year period regardless of any changes in ownership during such period may not be improved with a single family dwelling or duplex unless the subdivision has been approved as a conservation subdivision meeting the requirements of Sec.13-1-29(a) or an alternative development meeting the requirements of Sec.13-1-63(e). So, this specifically pertains to F-1 zoning districts. Staff is not completely clear on why this section of code was added. Ray asked if the purpose of this code is to avoid subdividing of forestry land. Hulstrom responded that after talking with existing staff it is her understanding that it was potentially meant to slow down the process. But in that case, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense. This takes a high level of research and staff time to make sure this particular ordinance section is met. If there is a concern about subdividing forestry land staff feel that it is more appropriate to potentially look at altering the zoning dimensional requirements for forestry properties not create standards that seem to slow the subdivision of forestry land but not necessarily stop it. Silbert questioned the language stating it has been approved as conservation subdivision or alternative development. Conservation subdivision has parameters that are different from other developments. Hulstrom confirmed that there are some additional standards related to conservation subdivisions. With this code section only applying to F-1 zoning districts it makes it its own special thing. So, property owners looking to subdivide property in an F-1 zoning district are being asked to meet the three lots or more less than ten acres within a five-year period unless there is a conservation subdivision that has been established to the contrary, they would have to wait the time-period to build for single family or duplex use. Silbert asked to clarify that the plan is to do away with this ordinance. Hulstrom confirmed the Department is looking to do away with it if the Committee agrees. Rondeau confirmed with the Committee and there is agreement to do away with this ordinance. Page 11 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 J. Discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amendment to Sec. 13-1-21(e) – Fees Hulstrom discussed the impervious surface calculation form that is required to be submitted with any shoreland applications and the current fee of $100.00 associated with it. The form is completed by the property owner and then the department reviews it. Recommended fee change is to $25.00. Hulstrom added that changing the fees will affect Department revenue. Another fee change would be to add a fee for open record requests to cover the costs associated with these requests. Strand asked if there is a county wide open record request fee and Hulstrom responded that she has been told there is not. The Committee agreed that it would be easier to have an open record request fee county wide for consistency. Pocernich suggested that this be brought to Mark Abeles-Allison to bring to the Executive Committee to establish a county wide open record request fee. K. Discussion and possible action regarding ordinance amendment to Sec. 13-1-29 – Multiple Unit Developments – additional waiver/exemptions for properties within sanitary district Hulstrom explained that this has been noted a couple of times and the Department is looking for the Committee’s input. A minor ordinance amendment can be done to allow for some flexibility in areas where there are existing sanitary districts to support the Committee to waive or reduce the open space requirements. In anticipation that a more thorough update would be made to the multi-unit development code section next year. Strand asked for this to be restated for clarity. Rondeau explained that there will be additional waivers/exemptions for properties hooked up to city sewer. Hulstrom confirmed that when the multi-unit developments come before the Committee the property owners could request a waiver for open space requirements if they are in a sanitary district. The Committee was in agreement on this change. L. Discussion and possible action regarding violations/compliance issues Hulstrom stated that currently it is the Department’s standard to not issue new land use permits if there are active/current violations on a site. However, in terms of the shoreland properties there are instances where staff are reviewing applications and the property owners have made alterations to their site and need to reestablish vegetation. In these instances, it has been the standard for staff to not issue a land use permit during this time. It could take one year to remedy and reestablish the vegetation buffer. Ray asked if there is any history or tradition of issuing a suspended permit or a conditional permit. Hulstrom stated that there is not. These instances were strict and if there was an existing violation on the site additional permits were not issued. Hulstrom added that because of the length of time reestablishing vegetation can take it is limiting the property owner from moving forward with a land use application and staff is looking for input from the Committee on this current standard. Ray agreed that this could be a real problem for the property owner and be out of their control depending on the acts of a previous property owner, honest misunderstanding, weather events and high lake levels could extend the one-year time frame to reestablish vegetation. Hulstrom confirmed that as long as the Department has a process in place that is reasonable. Committee members discussed the process of revegetation and their thoughts on expectations. McKenzie Slack stated how previous counties she worked for handled this when they came across a shoreland violation. They would work with land conservation to write a mitigation plan, the property owners would sign a legal affidavit which tied them to the mitigation plan, and then the land use permit was conditioned that the mitigation plan must be established within one year of permit issuance. This was documented on a shared calendar in the office so that a follow up Page 12 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 could be done. If the mitigation plan was not established, then legal action was taken. The Committee was in favor of this process. M. Discussion and possible action regarding review procedure for subdivision and condominium plats Hulstrom stated the fee schedule does not reference a fee for review of subdivision plats. She suggested a fee of $250.00 based on the level of review per Rob Schierman’s recommendation and the Committee agreed. N. Discussion and possible action regarding residential solar installations ® Hulstrom noted to the Committee that the packet did not get uploaded until late last night and she requests to withdraw letter N for discussion at a later meeting to make sure the 24-hour open meetings requirement is met at the recommendation of Mark Abeles-Allison. O. Discussion and possible action regarding bunkhouses ® Hulstrom noted to the Committee that the packet did not get uploaded until late last night and she requests to withdraw letter O for discussion at a later meeting to make sure the 24-hour open meetings requirement is met at the recommendation of Mark Abeles-Allison. P. Committee Members discussion(s) regarding matters of the P & Z Dept. Pocernich questioned the concern for solar installations and where the Committee is headed with it and if they need to be permitted or not. Rondeau added that he thought the concern was if they are considered a structure or not. The Committee discussed if this is their concern and if permitting should be required. Silbert stated he discussed this with Bill Bailey today and Bailey recommends not to just regulate them on residences but on all buildings. They don’t need much approval since they are already approved under the utilities agreement and the state inspects solar installations. But, to make sure they have proper setbacks as any other structure on the property. Hulstrom added that the primary concern for the Department is for the ground mounted systems in shoreland zones. As setbacks would apply and impervious surface. Ray suggests that we do not regulate residential solar as a structure except for maybe in shoreland zones. Discussion continued by the Committee. Hulstrom asked the Committee if they would like the Department to reach out to some other counties on how they handle solar. The Committee was fine with this but noted not to spend too much time on it. Pocernich asked about windmills and hunting stands. He stated that within the ordinance it should state a list of what does NOT apply to zoning. Hulstrom did confirm with the Committee that there are requirements for certain types of windmills in certain types of zoning districts. Pocernich asked if he is required to apply for a permit to enclose the fourth side of his three-sided structure over 200 square feet to use as storage in an Ag-1 zoning district. Hulstrom confirmed that a permit application would be required. Pocernich questioned who decided on the 200 square feet to require a permit. Rondeau could not recall. Silbert stated that he would like to see the word etcetera removed from the classification of land uses on the second page under the irrigation facilities, canals, dams, reservoirs, etc. since etcetera is not defined. The Committee is in agreement on this change. Page 13 of 13 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – November 17, 2022 12. Monthly Report / Budget and Revenue Ruth Hulstrom stated that monthly reports for August, September and October were all submitted. The Department is still behind last year’s numbers for sanitary and land use applications. New land use and sanitary applications continue to come in, people are still building. Strand asked how the Department is doing on backlog. Hulstrom updated the Committee that the Department is in good shape on the land use applications and processing any new conditional and special use permit applications. But are still working through the backlog for previous special class B and conditional use applications. Ray clarified that we are not behind last year permit numbers since we are not trying to beat last year permits. Ray made a motion to receive the monthly reports for October, September, and August and place on file. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0. 13. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 6:35 pm. Prepared by HRD on 12/8/22; given to REH on 12/8/22 Reviewed by REH on 12/13/22 Sent to PZC on 12/13/22 Final Approval on 12/15/22 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2022/#11 Nov