Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 2/16/2023Page 1 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2023 1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Rondeau called the public hearing to order at 4:01 PM 2. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Rondeau, Silbert, and Strand – present. Other’s present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom via Teams; Tracy Pooler, AZA; Erica Meulemans, AZA; Mckenzie Slack, AZA; Franki Gross–Secretary, Mark Abeles- Allison-County Administrator, Marty Milanowski, District #10 Supervisor 3. Affidavit of Publication:Pooler stated the Affidavit of Publication was fulfilled. Published Tuesday, January 31st, and Tuesday, February 7th, 2023. 4. Public Comment – Chairman Rondeau stated at this time, we'll open a meeting for public comment limited to 3 minutes per citizens. If you wish to speak, make sure you come forward. Make sure the microphones are on. The little red light will come on. State your name so we have it for the record. Mr. Bill Bailey spoke and stated he was commenting regarding the solar permitting for Bayfield County. He submitted a public comment in December and those comments still stand, but he wanted to tell a story that happened while he was out looking at Bayfield County garages. He happened to drive by Hwy 2 and saw a solar installation which he thought was the one that brought up the permitting issue. At the time he was with the contractor, he pointed out the solar installation and how close it was to the highway. The person he was driving with stated he installed that, did it correctly, and asked what are you talking about? It just shows to the point he did his due diligence, he thought, but he just didn't know that the state highway had a special setback requirement. I am for some type of oversight, some permitting, but he has only one request and that is to keep it simple. It’s obvious the state law has jurisdiction. The County only has to keep it simple, just keep it so that it is solar friendly. Mr. Cole Rabska from the Bayfield County Economic Development Corporation spoke in favor of the Northern Clearing Inc. Fleet Farm applications. He said the addition of a large retail location will serve our residents, visitors and people surrounding our County by providing goods and services that are not currently being provided in our area. Currently, our residents, people from surrounding areas, and visitors spend money at locations outside of our County, including stores and other online businesses. Their proposed store will create additional value to our County in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, closer options for goods and services, job creation, increase spending, including out of County residents and visitors. Overall, we feel that this would be a valuable addition to Bayfield County. Page 2 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Mr. Kevin Argenbright spoke in opposition to the Northern Clearing Fleet Farm application. He stated as an adjacent property owner he has concerns about putting a gas station & retail store at the proposed location. His concern is that the proposed location’s runoff is all downhill towards the Fish Creek Watershed. Another concern is he doesn’t believe there is enough acreage to facilitate the proposed building & gas station and parking. He also pointed out a concern over the amount of light pollution that will occur due to the gas station canopy and security lighting. Ms. Esther Argenbright spoke in opposition to the Northern Clearing Fleet Farm application. She doesn’t believe that this is the correct place to have a gas station. Ms. Argenbright stated that her concerns are the same as her son, Kevin, who spoke before her. Mr. Nicholas Suminski spoke as an adjacent property owner. He is neither against nor in favor of the Northern Clearing Fleet Farm application. He stated on one hand, he thinks this is very good for the Township. He thinks it's very good for the County to have this type of business here. He’s also on the Planning here in the city of Washburn, so he knows what the give and take is for businesses that are coming and going. He also stated he can completely understand everyone’s concerns as he has them also. Mary Motiff, the tourism director at Bayfield County, spoke in favor of the Northern Clearing Fleet Farm Application. Understanding that there are details to be worked out and obviously assuming that all laws would be followed, the bottom line for tourism is that it would be a tremendous draw to the area because people drive for hours to go to Fleet Farm. It would be an asset regarding people coming, visiting, and spending money in Bayfield County. Mr. Bill Stewart spoke for 7 minutes about his displeasure in Director, Ruth Hulstrom, and the Zoning Department, Corp Council, and the Committee if they allow the Cochrane CUP withdrawal to proceed and permitting to occur administratively instead of requiring a Public Hearing. He believes that the whole process has been done with an element of secrecy and wants Mr. Cochrane to proceed the way anyone else that needs permission for restricted uses and that’s a CUP application and Public Hearing. 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. Northern Clearing Inc., owner and Frank Steeves, agent, Fleet Farm Group, LLC request a conditional use permit to construct and operate a Gas Station Hut with Gas Canopy. Property is a Commercial zoning district; an existing 50.42-acre/proposed 13.52-acre parcel (existing Tax ID# 37391), described as an existing parcel in Lot 1 CSM#1966 (located in SE NW) in V. 11 P. 315, in Section 10, Township 47 North, Range 5 West, Town of Eileen, Bayfield County, WI. Included in this request will be a Fleet Farm Retail Store, allowed by use through a county land use application. Page 3 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Matt Kocourek, Project Manager on the civil side of this proposed plan spoke from a point that they are the ones that prepared the preliminary site grading, CSM and utility plans that were submitted as part of this application. They've been working with the DOT for access and their site plan has been submitted as part of this application to show that location. The stormwater is located on the northwest corner, as was brought up previously, the site drains from South to North. All the surface water will drain to the wet detention pond, where it will be cleaned, captured, and then discharged into the right of way. They're working with the DOT, DNR, and the County to make sure that we meet all the requirements. They're here to answer any questions from the team; the designers here, the contractor, and then we also have Derrick Hoernke from Fleet Farm. 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. Esther Argenbright stated her opposition. Richard Argenbright stated his opposition. Discussion ended. 7. Adjournment of Public Hearing: Silbert made a motion to adjourn the public hearing, Pocernich seconded. Motion carried, 5-0. Adjourned at 4:26 pm. 8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Rondeau called the meeting to order at 4:27 pm. 9. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Rondeau, Silbert, and Strand - present. Other’s Present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom via Teams; Tracy Pooler, AZA; Erica Meulemans, AZA; Mckenzie Slack, AZA; Franki Gross–Secretary, Mark Abeles- Allison-County Administrator, Marty Milanowski, District #10 Supervisor 10. New Business A. Northern Clearing Inc., owner and Frank Steeves, agent, Fleet Farm Group, LLC request a conditional use permit to construct and operate a Gas Station Hut with Gas Canopy. Property is a Commercial zoning district; an existing 50.42-acre/proposed 13.52-acre parcel (existing Tax ID# 37391), described as an existing parcel in Lot 1 CSM#1966 (located in SE NW) in V. 11 P. 315, in Section 10, Township 47 North, Range 5 West, Town of Eileen, Bayfield County, WI. Included in this request will be a Fleet Farm Retail Store, allowed by use through a county land use application. File Report: AZA Mckenzie Slack informed the committee that the petition for conditional use permit from Northern Clearing Inc., Frank Steeves, Page 4 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Agent, construct a gas station on 13.52 acres of the existing 50.42-acre parcel. The subject property is a commercial zone district. The proposal includes a gas station which is part of a larger commercial development. They will run Monday through Sunday. Operating hours will be Monday through Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM & Sunday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. There will be a total of seven dispensary units. The units will be set for 24 hours Pay at the pump. Six of the proposed dispenser units will be under a 50’ x 80’ canopy, while the other will be remote for kerosene. There will be 11 parking spaces in total, two of them being handicapped accessible. In addition, there will be a 42’ x 65’ gas station marketed for retail sales. Aside from the gas station, the owners wish to construct a larger commercial retail store, Fleet Farm, which is not part of this proposal because that use is allowed with the land use permit in a Commercial Zoning District. A proposed CSM is provided with the application packet showing the proposed 13.52-acre lot to be created where the gas station and retail development will be constructed. The gas station will be connected to its own private on-site wastewater treatment system and environmental impact analysis. EIA is not a requirement for this use. Pocernich asked just for clarification if the retail store portion would need a Conditional Use Permit and Slack replied no, a simple land use application is all that is needed. Rondeau asked if the Town acted on the proposal. Hulstrom replied that yes, the Town approved the request. Marty Milanowski, District #10 Supervisor affirmed the Towns approval while acknowledging the Argenbrights concerns. Slack mentioned that in one of the maps that they provided, there will be, with the overall development, disturbance to some wetlands on the property, but that will come back to the DNR to ensure that they construct some sort of retention pond or whatever it may be to give back to the wetland disturbance. Pocernich asked to hear from the engineer about the retention pond and stuff that they're anticipating. Robert Ponto, the Design Engineer from raSmith, spoke about the plans for the retention pond and stated the retention pond Matt mentioned earlier will be in the northwest corner of the proposed site. It's going to be sized so that preconstruction & post construction discharge flows from the site will be reduced. Flow into the US2 right of way will be reduced in the final condition and the pond on the site will meet County stormwater standards, as well as DNR standards. Pocernich questioned when the pond would be constructed and Ponto replied that it would be constructed during the gas station portion of the build due to it being required for both phases, the gas station & the retail store. Strand asked Ponto if he could elaborate on the conversation with the DOT. Ponto said they had a couple of driveway location options that they proposed, and the DOT had comments regarding distances to existing driveways along US Hwy 2. We came to an agreed upon place where the DOT is happy with the location. It will require a bypass lane on the Westbound side of the road and there will be a right turn lane Eastbound. Silbert asked if there would be a bypass lane on both sides of the Hwy and Ponto said no, only on the westbound side. The Eastbound side will have a newly constructed turning lane. Page 5 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Strand made a motion to approve the CUP for the gas station hut based on the town board recommendation, consistency with Town and County comprehensive plan, and the economic benefits, with the conditions that the project must comply with dot highway access requirements, and it must comply with DNR wetlands, stormwater, and wastewater requirements. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0. 11. Other Business B. Minutes of Previous Meeting – (January 19, 2023) Pocernich made a motion to approve the Minutes, dispense with the reading and approve the Minutes as printed. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0 C. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Bunkhouses File Report: Hulstrom stated the Department has been struggling to apply some standards to what exactly a Bunkhouse is defined, and so that's why we're hoping to get some better clarification as to a definition of a bunkhouse that might be appropriate to implement. The definition is broad related to bunkhouses aside from the fact that it's limited to 500 square feet and can have plumbing or not.In terms of the actual definition, it's not supposed to have a food prep kitchen area, but in terms of the way it had been applied, that wasn't necessarily the case. The Department would like to come up with a reasonable definition, that's something that staff can apply and enforce. We reached out to other counties to try to understand what they were doing in terms of bunkhouse standards, and we did get a wide assortment of responses we felt might better clarify and distinguish a bunkhouse from a residence. We did leave kind of the existing square footage maximum of 500 square feet but know that the Committee had discussed wanting to potentially change that max size. The Department is open to shifting that Max allowable to whatever the committee deems appropriate. Of the Counties that responded to the inquiry the largest allowable was 1000 sq ft. Pooler added that there's just a couple of counties that have bunkhouse ordinances, and when you're talking about sizes that there's quite a variety. One thing popular right now is the ADU's, Accessory Dwelling Units, through in a lot of communities we do allow a second dwelling on a property if it can be legally split in the future. If it cannot, citizens would be coming through us for the Conditional Use, so we do allow second dwellings on properties if they meet certain size criteria. Silbert stated that, like Pocernich stated previously, 24’ x 24’ or 576 sq ft seems more reasonable as that’s a standard garage size building. Silbert stated that he thinks if a Bunkhouse had plumbing & food prep it would be a house/residence. Pooler said that the standards of food prep were established before the modern conveniences that we have today. Microwaves weren't around when the original no food prep was in existence. Since that time, we have all the different personal items that are cooking Page 6 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 facilities, so you can survive a long time without a kitchen. In the past, Pooler stated, our department would say you can have a bathroom, you can have sleeping, but you can't have a sink outside the bathroom, which would be the food prep area. Here we're talking about whether we're going to continue that direction and memorialize it or how does the Committee want the Department to proceed. Ray asked, to clarify, if Pooler stated we allow a second residence in most zoning districts if it's a divisible lot. Pooler stated that we do allow a second dwelling on a parcel if it can be divided to create its own legal parcel. Hulstrom asked Ray to clarify again how you want to define a bunkhouse. If it needs to be a standalone structure, then you'd have to consider the plumbing aspect of it, Hulstrom said. Hulstrom added that right now, essentially you could have a bunkhouse attached to a garage, with or without plumbing under the current definition. We're just looking for directions on better defining bunkhouses in comparison to a residence. The department’s been struggling because of how broad the definition is and then in terms of the enforcement aspect of that. Pocernich asked if a second residence could be placed on a 4.5-acre parcel that couldn’t be split, and Ray replied that you could with a Conditional Use Permit. Pocernich then asked for clarification on how the septic would work with an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit. Pooler stated that after reaching out to the other Counties on how they handle that question they responded with the main residence must have a sanitary system that would support the additional bedrooms. Strand commented that he finds this all to be confusing and that the definition of a bunkhouse is muddy at best. Pocernich asked if we have ADU’s in our Ordinance and Hulstrom replied no, not right now. An accessory dwelling unit is really meant to provide essentially a second residence on a parcel, and we already allow that to occur. The requirements related to that vary depending on obviously if the lot can be split and meet the zoning dimensional requirements. Now if we want to look at making some updates related to ADU’s or second residences, we can have that discussion in the future. But yes, essentially you would treat an accessory dwelling unit like a second residence, which there are allowances for already in our ordinance. Ray asked might it be clearer to just eliminate bunkhouses as an option and have more robust language in our code that would explain how you can add bedrooms or sleeping quarters or accessory dwelling units to a property. Ray stated that it seems like there's two issues. One is your simple basic, we just want to have some overflow sleeping space, and then we have a much bigger question and reality of people needing and wanting additional space that's basically living space or residential space, and it seems that our code is limited and not very creative on the second home living space. It's focused on single family residence and so people are flocking to this bunkhouse part of our Zoning and you guys are in the difficult position of trying to enforce it. Silbert stated he agrees with Strand that it’s unclear what a bunkhouse is exactly. This is this is a muddy, murky thing but we're here to clarify it. There are probably some things we could agree on like you don't make a boathouse into a bunkhouse, and then we either say you can have plumbing, or you cannot have plumbing. I think we would say you cannot Page 7 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 have plumbing because if you have plumbing then it's a residence. When somebody applies for a bunkhouse, you show them the rules stating no plumbing. It's just the sleeping quarters. Silbert also stated that setbacks need to be recognized and asked for clarification on if there are different setback requirements and how it’s classified. Hulstrom stated that a bunkhouse is considered an accessory structure and the setbacks differ from a residence and there lies another issue when folks build a bunkhouse and want to convert it to a 2nd residence it’s too close to the property line. Pocernich stated he agrees with Silbert and Ray and thinks that maybe doing away with the definition of a bunkhouse and develop language for ADU’s because they can be converted to 2nd residences because it meets all the requirements for a residence. Pocernich commented that he thinks the Committee should nip the problem in the bud and do away with the bunkhouse term and develop language for auxiliary dwelling units that are all built to code, and you never have to revisit the application because it fits the standard. Silbert spoke but was unheard because the mic was off. Ray reiterated that the Committee could eliminate bunkhouse as a category altogether and just have an ADU. Hulstrom noted that Bayfield County does not have ADU language in the Ordinance, there are allowances to have someone build a second residence on a parcel either through just a standard land use permit if the parcel can be split or through a conditional use permit if it cannot. Ray commented that maybe an interim step would be as Silbert suggested, going through and picking up things that we agree on because there's already bunkhouse rules in our code. Try to make it clear for our staff to enforce but I think the real issue is having additional housing on our properties and maybe developing ADU language and getting rid of this whole bunkhouse category and allowing people with existing historic bunkhouses to apply for an ADU. Rondeau stated he does not know how we deal with that mess except by making it a lot simpler and less muddy. Strand commented that he would like us to explore further the ADU option. He thinks it makes a lot of sense and hopefully it could avoid a lot of problems for future landowners as well as the department and us. Silbert asked if there is a difference in UDC standard for a bunkhouse vs a residence. Hulstrom replied that if it’s for human habitation UDC standards are applied and the Department advises that the applicant reach out to UDC. Ray asked if Hulstrom knew offhand if people are being required to finish a simple structure to comply with UTC. Hulstrom replied that it isn’t the Departments roll. We just condition the permits for if it's a bunkhouse or residence we indicate that they need to get UDC. Pocernich asked if the small she shed type structures needed a permit. Ray responded that it would if it’s over 200 sqft and if there was human habitation. Slack stated that habitation was defined as sleeping and/or living quarters. Pocernich asked if a permit was needed for a shipping container or two. Meulemans stated that shipping containers, whether shoreland property or not, need a permit. Pocernich suggested that the 200 sqft requirement needs to be addressed and possibly enlarged to say maybe 400 sqft as he has concerns that the Inspectors time & resources could be better utilized by not sending Page 8 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 them out to look at 200 sqft structures and Hulstrom replied that the issue can be put on the agenda for discussion. Pocernich was in favor of that. D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Residential Solar Installations File Report: Pooler stated after looking at the different solar laws and regulations out there he had a discussion with Mark Abeles-Allison about the best way to address it. Bayfield County fit under the silver standard of the Solar Smart documents. Basically, if we would address solar as being an accessory structure, meeting the accessory setbacks and just requiring the basic land use permit, which right now is a $75 permit, for any solar installation. That would be the ground mounted or roof mounted. The roof mount, we'd be looking at not to exceed the height of structures and then with the ground mount, making sure we don't have something that's offensive, such as it was talked about earlier with road setbacks and too close to septic and things like that. Pooler also stated the idea was to keep tabs of where solar is being placed and other information depending upon what we ask. Silbert asked if the types of properties Pooler were referring to were Residential or Commercial. Pooler stated this would be for all residential solar. Once you get to a certain size, Pooler said, it's my understanding that it turns into Commercial which the state regulates, and we don't have any authority over. It’s all about the size of the solar wattage whether the State regulates it. Abeles-Allison added that the County wrestled with this a little bit because we want to keep it very simple, but we also want to make sure that they're building this not too close to the state highway right away or not over the height limitation, and so we said basically, take out a land use permit and we'll verify that it meets those setbacks. Keep it simple. Ray stated that he is predisposed to not regulate this. He sees that it could be an issue where we have height considerations and in lakeshore areas. Ray stated he thinks the idea of setbacks is a good idea. He also is opposed to Solar ground mounts being considered impervious surfaces. Hulstrom commented that the decision to consider solar ground mounts as impervious surfaces comes down from the state and we don’t have the authority to go against what the state requirements are. Pocernich moved to suspend the rules to allow expert, Bill Bailey to talk. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0 Bill Bailey spoke and stated that the zoning ordinance could be simplified by applying to ground mounts only as rooftop mounts are inspected by the state, and the Ordinance applies to all solar, not just residential. Your main concern is setbacks and the 35-foot height restriction. Mr. Bailey advised that all the Committee needs to be concerned about is setbacks. Everything else is taken care of through other departments, through the Department of Public Safety and through the Electric code. You don't need to be redundant about this, you just need to make sure it's on the property that people say it's on and it's pulled back away from the property lines stated Bailey. That makes it simple. Abeles-Allison suggested the Department add to the website solar standards and that everyone must abide by setbacks. We haven't required Page 9 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 permitting in the past, but then we saw some of these violations and the Department has concerns. The state could come and tell this property owner to move these 30 panels, which is a substantial cost just because they didn't go through that $75 permit fee. We're kind of protecting our residents also when we're doing this because they are making a sizable investment so just make sure that you're meeting the laws Abeles-Allison stated. Rondeau asked if the Department had a direction they wanted to head, and Hulstrom replied the Department feels that these smaller solar installations essentially meet the accessory structure set back requirements but with shoreland property it’s different. The impervious surface requirements would apply and there's a max height limitation of 35 feet. Strand voiced his support of Hulstroms summary of the direction she would like to take this issue. Pocernich asked for confirmation that the height restriction applies to shoreland property only and Hulstrom confirmed that was correct. E. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Cochrane CUP withdrawal. File Report: Mark Abeles-Allison stated that John Carlson, Corp Counsel, joined by Teams and would like to comment on the Cochrane CUP withdrawal. Mr. Carlson stated that he believes the Committee has his analysis and response to attorney Durocher letter and where this is right now. Mr. Cochran submitted a CUP application. We then later determined that a CUP was not needed. He then withdrew his application. The Committee doesn't have to take any action. Anyone can withdraw an application after they've made it. I don't think the Board needs to do anything. I don't think the Committee needs to do anything. The recourse right now for Mr. Stewart is if he does not agree with our determination, he can appeal to the Board of Adjustments. Strand stated he had some comments and concerns. He said it appears that in 2006, the information that was provided to Mr. Cochrane was correct at that time. 14 years later they attempted to act on that information, but regulations changed and are different in 2022. For example, 50 years ago, if I inquired of the County do I need a land use permit to build a residence and was told no, the County is not zoned. 50 years later can I build a residence and say I don't need a land use permit. Another concern is that if an employee gives incorrect information, either intentionally or unintentionally, where does the buck stop. When does it end if somebody tries to act upon incorrect information? Carlson responded stating the difference is when the bad advice is acted upon. You end up with a vested interest. That's the problem. That's the distinction between the two cases that attorney Durocher and I were referring to. In the case he referred to, the landowner had not acted in reliance upon the bad advice. This case, Mr. Cochran had acted. He built the bunkhouse. Strand stated given that information, he still has a displeasure that the Department could move ahead and issue a permit without it requiring a CUP application. Mr. Carlson agreed. Mr. Carlson also stated that if Mr. Stewart appeals to the Board of Adjustment and the board of Adjustments sides with him, then it's coming back to this Page 10 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Committee for a CUP, assuming that the lot cannot be divided which is an exception to the second residence. Strand asked if the Committee asked for a CUP and if Mr. Cochrane doesn’t agree could he appeal to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Carlson replied yes, he could. It comes down to whether this parcel could be divided or not, and he has not seen any surveyor go through the analysis to figure that part out. It’s a little bit unique because there's 3 different types of zoning on this one parcel stated Carlson. Ray moved to suspend the rules and allow Mr. Stewart to respond to Mr. Carlson. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried; 5-0 Mr. Stewart stated he has no intention of taking this matter to the Board of Adjustments. He believes the responsibility lies with the Committee, right here, right now. Mr. Stewart said his issue is not specifically the construction, it's that this peculiar but hardly unique situation is going to be issued with an administrative permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Stewart also stated that the Committee appears prepared to give Mr. Cochrane essentially what he wants through a Conditional Use Permit why are you, Ms. Hulstrom, and Mr. Cochran, so intent on secrecy. Mr. Stewart asked what needs to be secret about this and why can't this be a Conditional Use Permit. He can get the building he wants if the Committee approves his Conditional Use Permit, but you won't let them do that. Silbert questions whether the Committee has the right to compel him to reapply. Mr. Carlson replied that it is dependent upon the Ordinances and State law that restricts when CUPs can be denied and what restrictions can be placed upon them. Mr. Stewart replied that he believes the Ordinance is very plain with Mr. Cochrane requiring a CUP. Ms. Hulstrom’ s letter told him the building didn't and doesn't comply as a bunkhouse, yet she's going to call it a bunkhouse. That certainly is issuing a permit in a non-compliant structure. Mr. Carlson replied that the CUP would be for the dwelling, not for the bunkhouse that is there. The bunkhouse that is there is too big relative to our current definition. Mr. Stewart replied that was correct, it’s a second residence, which he can't have. Mr. Carlson stated whether it's a second residence or not is the issue we're not in agreement on. What we're disagreeing on is whether what is there now is or is not a bunkhouse, that's the problem that we have. Mr. Carlson stated that the e-mail from Mr. Furtak in 2006 says as long as you don't have a kitchen, it's a bunkhouse. Mr. Stewart stated that at the Barns Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Cochrane told the Planning Commission that they do dishes there and there's a sink to do dishes. By Mr. Pooler's definition, that's a residence, not a bunkhouse. Strand read aloud the motion made at the last P & Z Committee meeting and stated that having consulted with Corp Counsel he was ready to make a motion. Strand moved to direct that the Zoning Department shall not issue a land use permit for a new residence on the Cochrane property without a CUP approved by the Zoning Committee. Seconded by Ray. Pocenich asked the Chair if the Committee could wait until Silbert returned to have discussions regarding the motion. Rondeau stated yes of course. Strand reread the motion when Silbert returned and Silbert asked for clarification Page 11 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 that the Cochranes would not be allowed to proceed with the new residence. Strand stated that if the motion passes, they would have to apply for a CUP which would become before the Committee, and if the Committee approved it then it could be a second residence and could be constructed. Silbert asked Mr. Carlson if that was legal, to which Mr. Carlson replied yes, it is but Mr. Cochrane can appeal this motion right now to the Board of Adjustments. Motion carried, 5-0 F. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Short Term Rental Ordinance Amendment File Report:Hulstrom updated the Committee on the progress of the Ordinance Amendment.The Department sent out a copy of the proposed changes to all the Towns with a letter from Corp Council, noting why the changes were being made. We've gotten some responses back and have not had a chance to really sort through all of those and decide whether there's any changes that need to be made to the draft before moving it on to Public Hearing. Hulstrom added that the goal is to bring it before the Committee for a final look and then, ideally, in April put it on as a Public Hearing item. Ray commented on the 7-day minimum STR requirement that Bayfield County has and was wondering if it is enforced. Silber joined the discussion and stated that 7 days to 29 days is the range accepted by the State. Silbert said the State doesn’t want you renting it more than 29 days because then you're competing with actual rental units and the 7-day thing is you can have somebody stay there for 2 days, but then it must be vacant for the next 5 days, and that's hardly enforceable. G. Discussion and Possible Action regarding an EIA (Environmental Impact Analysis) File Report:Hulstrom stated that this is an issue that the Department staff have been struggling with. The Department questions what the Committee’s understanding is as to the level of review that’s occurring. Within the Zoning Department, there's an uncertainty as to the level of review that that staff are supposed to be doing before bringing the EIAs to the Committees attention. Strand commented that the Committee has received in the past incomplete and in some cases very incomplete EIAs. Strand also mentioned that he believes the Zoning Department staff should review to make sure all the items in the ordinance have been addressed, and if some of the items don't apply, the applicant indicates that they don't apply. I'm looking for a complete EIA submittal, and then it could be up to the committee to judge whether it's accurate and good enough to receive and place on file. Ray spoke and concurred with Strand and stated his disbelief in how the code is structured. We had an EIA for a campground permit recently that was a couple of campsites scratched into the woods and here we just approved a massive 10 thousands of square feet of impermeable surface Commercial development with a gas station and there's no environmental impact requirement. Ray stated that it doesn’t make sense Page 12 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 and would like the Department staff to review it completely before bringing it to the Committee. Slack commented that in her review of what is required for an EIA, she was surprised to find out that anyone can submit it. There are no credentials or standards for a person to draw up and submit an EIA. Silbert spoke and requested that the EIAs need to be more detailed and if it involves water, lakes, or flowing water, that Land & Water Conservation review it. Rondeau asked Hulstrom if that clarified what they are looking for in an EIA, which Hulstrom responded not really. Hulstrom stated that she knows that staff do the best job that they can, but in terms of making a determination when it might be appropriate to refer the EIA to a third party or Land & Water, or the DNR, it'd be good to have some better parameters from the Committee by which we could make that determination. Ray stated that he believes that it is a department determination in asking for a third party review not the Committees. Hulstrom stated what she is asking for is guidance from the Committee on when the Committee might deem it appropriate to have an alternative individual or department look at these EIA's. Ray said when the property is in a shoreland zone. Ray stated that the Committee is looking to you to make a judgment call on the scope of the project and the likelihood of the impacts that would determine whether it's a situation that gets elevated in its analysis, or if it doesn't require as thorough an analysis. Ask for help if you think you need help analyzing it because you think it has a potential impact Ray stated. Pooler commented that EIAs are quite an encompassing document. There's a lot of questions with a lot of different professionalism depending upon what you're looking for. Abeles- Allison stated that his recommendation would be for the department staff to review this and come back with a summary for further discussion at the next meeting. H. Committee Members discussion(s) regarding matters of the P & Z Department Pocernich questioned if he was to build a 10 x 20 accessory building with a loft does the loft space count as square footage and would he need a permit. Ray said no but he would have to shave off some because the requirement is under 200 sqft to not require a permit. Hulstrom added as long as he isn’t sleeping in it. 12. Monthly Report / Budget and Revenue Hulstrom stated the Committee should have received the monthly report for January 2023 in their packet in Dropbox. Pocernich made a motion to receive and place on file the Monthly Report for January 2023. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0 13. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 6:17 pm. Page 13 of 13 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – February 16, 2023 Prepared by FIG on 3/6/2023; given to RH 3/7/2023 Approved by RH on 3/10/2023 Sent to PZC on 3/10/2023 Final Approval on 3/16/2023 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2023/Feb