Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 4/20/2023Page 1 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING APRIL 20, 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, AZA-Tracy Pooler, AZA-Mckenzie Slack via Teams, Corp Counsel John Carlson, and Franki Gross–Secretary 3. Public Comment – Chairman Rondeau stated at this time, we will open a meeting for public comment limited to 3 minutes per citizen. 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. Note* Karl Kastrosky is here to comment on items E & F and will forgo his public comment if allowed to speak during the Business portion of the meeting. Pocernich stated he would suggest that the Committee wait until items E & F are addressed to hear from Mr. Kastrosky. Mr. Larry Smith spoke and commented that since the last meeting the Town of Delta addressed and approved the application. Mr. Smith also commented that he is in attendance to answer any question that the Committee may have. Mr. Smith gave a summary of what they are asking for and described the measures they took to conceal the shipping containers from view and described where on the property they are located and gave measurements from the road & lake. Mr. Rich Nemitz spoke and asked, after hearing that Mr. Kastrosky may speak later during the Business portion of the meeting, if he could have the same consideration and speak during the discussion of item 6., letter B. Ray commented that he would support that request. Mr. Douglas Scheider spoke and asked if he, and the others that are here for the Dalbec campground request, could also wait to talk during the Business portion. Strand commented and said he would prefer to have the comments at this time during the public comment portion. Mr. Scheider spoke and showed a map to the Committee describing the mapped critical habitat area that would be endangered, the ground water contamination potential, and the environmental impact should the applicant’s request be approved. Mr. Brian Johnston spoke in opposition to the Dalbec campground request. Mr. Johnston gave a summary of his college graduation degrees in Geology & Biology and questions the accuracy of the EIA. Mr. Johnston would like it if some kind of mapped plan were put in place showing what exactly is happening on these three acres. Page 2 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 Mr. Richard Buckwalter spoke and voiced concerns for the environmental impact of the discharge of water and waste. Mr. Buckwalter also questions whether the sanitary will be sufficient to manage the discharge at full capacity of the campground. Mr. Buckwalter asked the Committee to consider denying the request. Mrs. Patricia Scheider spoke in opposition to the Dalbec campground proposal. Mrs. Scheider commented that many people in the Robinson Lake community feel that the EIA is completely inadequate and does not address the community’s concerns. Mrs. Scheider read a document not provided to the Committee. Mr. Gary Kearns on behalf of Norbert & Caroline Kearns spoke in opposition to the Dalbec request. Mr. Kearns stated that his parents are the closest neighbors. He commented that the area closest to the lake in his parents’ backyard is where all the runoff from the campground will drain. It does not make sense that a 28-site campground would be allowed to endanger Robinson Lake, the headwater to the Eau Claire Lakes. Mr. Mike Furtak, agent of the Dalbec’s spoke and stated that the Stormwater Management Plan was drafted by a licensed engineer and was reviewed & approved by the WI DNR Stormwater Management expert. Second, stated Furtak, the septic was designed by Rasmussen and meets all requirements per state code, which have been developed and studied by scientists. No one gets sick in Bayfield County due to septic systems. Furtak also stated that as far as the proposed campground site is concerned, best management practices, as required by the state, will be used during all phases of construction. Land & Water Conservation will be involved, post construction, to develop a revegetation plan that will be followed by the Dalbecs as they have already agreed to. Every drop of water that falls on that property will be going into the stormwater retention basin, stated Furtak, and none of it is going into the lake. Mr. Robert Eaton, attorney for the Dalbecs, spoke and stated that he spoke at the last meeting but has some added information to comment on. Attorney Eaton reported that the Town of Barnes Planning Commission approved the request 2 to 1, and the Town Board approved 4 to 1. Eaton read State Statute 59.69 sub 55D: “If an applicant for a Conditional Use Permit needs or agrees to meet all the requirements and conditions specified in the County Ordinance or those imposed by the County Zoning Board, the County shall grant the Conditional Use Permit. Any conditions imposed must be related to the purpose of the ordinance and be based on substantial evidence. The Dalbec’s have met or have agreed to meet all requirements, therefore, the request should be approved, stated Attorney Eaton. 4. Review of Meeting Format – Chairman Rondeau stated there is no Public Hearing so the meeting will move on to Previous Business. 5. Previous Business Page 3 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 (B) Larry & Norma Smith (Delta) – request a conditional use permit (in a shoreland zone) to place two (8’ x 40’) storage/shipping containers on their parcel for storage. Property is an R-1 zoning district; a 1.26–acre parcel (Tax ID# 34160), described as Lot 2, CSM# 1504 in Doc# 2019R- 580133, in Section 2, Township 46 North, Range 8 West, Town of Delta, Bayfield County, WI (tabled January 19, 2023) Hulstrom stated that the Town of Delta Town Board recommended approval of the request. Silbert commented that he appreciated the effort of the Smiths in painting the containers, so they blend in with the surroundings. Silbert made a motion to approve the Smith’s request for two shipping containers based on Town Board approval, Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable laws. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0 (C) Gregory & Kimberly Dalbec (Barnes) – (in a shoreland) request a conditional use permit to construct and operate a [Campground, [Public] (*EIA required)] consisting of a parking lot; 28 RV sites with water and sewer hook-up; storm water infrastructure; dumpster. No structures will be constructed except a well house. Property is (3) parcels in R-RB zoning district. Parcel #1 is a 4.0–acre parcel (Tax ID# 1283), described as a parcel in Gov’t Lot 7 in Doc# 2018R-573264, Section 3 Township 44N, Range 9 W; Parcel #2 is a 0.991- acre parcel (Tax ID# 1339) described as a parcel in the S ½ of Lot 2 in Doc # 2018R573263, in Section 4, Township 44N, Range 9 W and Parcel #3 is a 0.942-acre parcel (Tax ID# 1341) described as CSM# 286 in V. 3 P. 84 in Doc# 2020R-584010 in Section 4, Township 44 North, Range 9 West, all in Town of Barnes, Bayfield County, WI. Included in this request will be the requirement(s) of the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). (postponed March 16, 2023) Hulstrom gave a summary of the request and stated that the Town Board did approve the recommendation but did not indicate that on the form. Hulstrom stated that they signed it but did not finalize it, so Hulstrom referred to John Carlson, Corp Counsel for Bayfield County, who attended the Town of Barnes Town Board meeting. Carlson stated the Town of Barnes Planning Commission voted 2 to 1 and the Town Board voted 4 to 1. Hulstrom stated that an area of concern for the department would be the drive area and possible issues that would arise between the proposed drive for the RV campground and the existing drive for the properties to the south. Hulstrom also stated that there was no real indication, with the plans provided, how much vegetation would be cut and how much might remain so that is one item that we would condition, if the Committee would choose to approve this, that there would be some method to verify that the screening is going to be adequate to meet the Ordinance. Hulstrom stated that the Dalbec’s will have to meet Chapter 79of the state statutes as it relates to campground development, which is where they will look at the access and whether there is any risk for potential safety hazards. As far as the department understands, the site is required to submit permits to the DNR, if they have not already, to verify pre- and post-storm water, stated Hulstrom. There have also been discussions with the Page 4 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 Rasmussen's team regarding the septic design, so that will be something that department reviews and approves related to this proposed development, commented Hulstrom. Pocernich asked if the well house was existing or proposed, and Hulstrom replied that it is proposed, and was included with the request. Silbert read from ATCP 79, stating “this chapter is promulgated under the authority of s. 97.67, Stats., to regulate the maintenance and operation of campgrounds in order to protect the health and safety of the public”. Silbert also stated that Statutes 59.69 (Planning & Zoning Authority) starts off saying “It is the purpose of this section to promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare; to encourage planned and orderly land use development; to protect property values and the property tax base”, therefore it is our responsibility to address all concerns. Silbert also read Statute 79.12 stating “access to a campground shall be designed to minimize congestion and hazards at the entrance and exit” and does not feel that has been addressed adequately. Silbert expressed concern regarding campfires and the amount of smoke produced from 28 sites. Another concern Silbert expressed is regarding the 22% grade of the proposed construction site and the impact leveling that area would create because it is not addressed in the EIA. Silbert mentioned another area for concern is whether the road is built to sustain RV traffic and the amount of dust travel will generate. Pocernich asked if the Committee was going to address the EIA and Strand stated he was ready to make a motion on that. Strand made a motion to receive and place on file the EIA. Seconded by Pocernich. Motion carried, 5-0 Strand move to approve the CUP for the Dalbec campground based on the following, the Town Plan Commission and Town Board recommendation, that it is consistent with both the Town’s and County’s Comprehensive Plan, that it is consistent with the zoning district with the following conditions: 1) The applicant provides updated site drawings to the Department showing amount of vegetation to be removed and to remain so Department can verify that the proposed development will meet screening requirements of Sec. 13-1- 28(b)(6) and the applicant contact the Department upon completion of the project so staff can verify the screening requirements of 13-1-28(b)(6) have been met. 2) The applicant obtains an ingress/egress or private road access easement giving adequate access to lots located south of the proposed campground development. The easement is to be reviewed and approved by the Department to verify that the location will limit congestion and/or traffic hazards between the proposed campground and the existing private road access to the lots south of the proposed development. 3) The applicant obtains and provides the Department with appropriate permits from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Bayfield County Public Health Department. 4) The applicant provides updated site drawings to the Department that show the location of the dumpster once it has been approved by the vendor and Bayfield County Public Health Department. Page 5 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 5) The applicant provides updated site drawings eliminating the additional parking lot since adequate parking space is provided within each proposed camping site, as per the ordinance. 6) Camping units are restricted to thirty feet in length. 7) The applicant shall upgrade Fahrner Road to standards that will meet the traffic loads that will be generated by the campground before the campground is opened. 8) Campfires must be extinguished by 10pm daily. Seconded by Silbert. Pocenich asked for clarification on what Strand expected from the Dalbecs regarding upgrading Fahrner Rd, as he believes it to be a town responsibility and cannot be placed as a condition for an individual to meet. Strand stated that the Dalbecs would have to work with the Town to upgrade Fahrner Rd, and Pocernich stated he agrees with everything Strand motioned but cannot support the motion based on that one point. Hulstrom stated she had been in contact with the town regarding the road and the town chairperson said he did check with their road staff and the road staff did not seem to have concerns about the added level of traffic related to the proposed campground development. Strand moved to amend his motion to delete #7 from his list of conditions. Seconded by Ray. Amended Motion carried. 5-0 Silbert asked if Strand would consider a noise condition and Strand stated his motion did not contain one but yes, he would consider adding it as an amendment to his motion. Silbert stated that people sitting around a campfire, drinking beer, and laughing until midnight could disturb the neighbors so he would like to see a noise ordinance at 10:00 o’clock and put conditions in place. Silbert moved to amend the original motion to include quiet hours from 10PM to 7AM (supervised by campground) and no fireworks. Seconded by Ray. Pocernich stated that there is no noise ordinance and cannot be enforced. Also, Pocernich commented, it is a camping experience and with that comes campfires, noise, music, and everything else, so he cannot support all these additional restrictions & conditions being placed on the applicant. Pocernich stated that there is a tavern just down the road and will generate noise after 10 PM and asked the Committee if conditions were going to be placed on them for noise. Silbert stated that it is a quiet neighborhood that the people have spoken to, and he thinks they deserve some rights along with the applicant. Corp Counsel Carlson commented that by adding a condition on noise the Committee needs to provide some guidance on how to measure and where to measure noise so the condition can be enforced. Carlson also noted that noise violations are not something that the permit can be revoked because of. Strand noted the amendment related to quiet hours would be enforced by the campground manager or owner. Amended Motion carried, 4-1. Original Motion with amendments carried, 5-0. 6. Other Business A. Minutes of Previous Minutes: (March 16, 2023) Pocernich moved to approve the Minutes of the March 16th, 2023, Planning and Zoning Committee meeting. Seconded by Ray. Silbert added a correction to the minutes stating he wanted it added to the record that he cited Page 6 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 13-1-61 Commercial Districts “This district is intended to provide for the orderly and attractive grouping, at convenient locations, of retail stores, shops, offices, and establishments serving the daily needs of the area.” Motion carried, 5-0 B. Discussion and possible action: response to the Town of Iron River regarding the Merritt shipping container CUP decision located and identified as Tax ID# 20362 Silbert moved to suspend the rule to allow Mr. Nemitz to speak. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0. Hulstrom stated that the Department received correspondence from the Town of Iron River regarding the approval of the Merritt shipping containers. A drafted response letter is included in the Committees packet and the Department is looking to verify that the draft letter is an appropriate response to the correspondence received by the town. Mr. Rich Nemitz spoke on behalf of the Town of Iron River and stated that the Town was surprised that the Committee decided to go against the recommendation of the Town Board and approve the request for shipping containers to be allowed. Mr. Nemitz stated that Mr. Merritt is a serial violator and is not using the Commercial zoned property commercially. Further, Mr. Nemitz stated that the town feels that there are more appropriate areas to have shipping containers placed and will be consulting with Mr. Carlson to see what can be done regarding Statutes & Ordinances to deal with this situation in the future. Mr. Nemitz also stated that this issue will only get worse as people realize that having a shipping container is cheap storage and the County needs to get a handle on it before it gets out of hand. Mr. Nemitz asked the Committee if they had any questions for him. Mr. Nemitz added that the Town is investigating where the current fence is located because it may be on a Town platted alley, so Mr. Merritt may be trespassing on Town property. Strand commented that when the first shipping container was placed, the County had limited ordinance language regarding shipping containers. Mr. Nemitz suggested more expansive language elements because currently the language is broad based. Strand commented that when the first container was placed there were no conditions for screening of that container, but when the Committee approved the CUP, they placed conditions that both shipping containers be screened and hidden from view completely from the highway.Mr. Nemitz questions if screening will be enough and asked the Committee if there will be any oversight from the Department. The Committee thanked Mr. Nemitz for his insight and comments pertaining to this issue. Ray asked for the shipping containers to be placed on the docket for the Department to consult with Corp Counsel to get better language in the Ordinance to allow the Committee to deny a CUP if it is not appropriate to place them as requested. Ray also mentioned that they are useful and functional, placed appropriately, and directed the Department to get it on the agenda quickly and clearly. Silbert questioned if the conditions placed surrounded the property and Strand read from the approved minutes from the March meeting stating that “motion to include parameters of the buffer so it’s high enough and deep enough into the property Page 7 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 that the shipping containers are invisible to the highway and that the buffer needs to be acceptable with the dept with a deadline of 1 year to install.” Strand made a motion to send the letter drafted by Hulstrom on behalf of the Committee, with the addition of a sentence by Strand, be sent to the Town of Iron River in response to the email received. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0. C. Discussion and possible action regarding environmental impact analysis (EIA) Hulstrom stated that the Department does its absolute best to review the EIAs that are presented but finds it exceedingly difficult because the scope of what is included in the EIAs is broad, including economic, traffic, and more. Hulstrom would like some direction from the Committee on who would be acceptable to put together an EIA. Hulstrom suggested possibly requiring that a licensed engineer or other credentialled professional stamp the submitted EIA. Strand & Ray expressed concern on EIA submittals and stated that the Department needs to look at the proposed developments and determine if an EIA should be required. Pocernich asked who fills out the EIA and Hulstrom stated that currently anyone can fill it out since there is no requirement for an outside certified professional to do it. Pocernich commented that the Department may want to look at the option to require a licensed professional to draft the EIA for more in-depth requests and not for simple requests. Hulstrom concurred. Silbert commented that the Department has the power to waive an EIA and has done so in the past. D. Discussion and possible action on state statute requiring all structures in a shoreland zone requiring permits as it pertains to solar installation. Hulstrom stated the Department staff discussed this situation and feel very strongly about having some level of oversight related to placement of solar installations in the shoreline zone as it's appropriate to do so. Hulstrom stated that an e-mail was sent to the DNR Shoreland Specialist for our area to get their input and that correspondence has been provided to the Committee. Hulstrom commented that the DNR responded clearly that solar installations are not an exempt structure in a shoreland zone and would require a level of oversight to verify that they meet the required setbacks and height limitations. The Department wants the Committee to make clear whether they feel it is appropriate to go against what the state regulations require us to verify, related to structures located in the shoreland zone. Ray asked for confirmation if Hulstrom is asking the Committee to direct the Department to go against state regulations. Hulstrom confirmed that is what she is asking. Ray stated that the Committee does not want the Department to override or go against the state as it pertains to shoreland property. Questions arose regarding impervious surface and Pocernich stated impervious surface is only applicable with a shoreland property. The Committee directed the Department to follow state statutes for shoreland properties. Strand commented that his position on non-shoreland solar installations should be considered accessory structures and be required Page 8 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 to obtain a permit. Pocernich commented that he disagrees with Strands position. E. Discussion and possible action regarding boathouses and existing ordinance language application Pocernich moved to suspend the rule to allow Mr. Kastrosky to speak. Seconded by Silbert. Motion carried, 5-0. Mr. Kastrosky provided a handout to the Committee on steps for drafting code language in which he added a note stating the Planning & Zoning Department is trying to regulate their intent and implementation by opinion, not the language in the code. Kastrosky stated he does not always agree with the Department but tries to get along. The Department is hung up on this one-story language because it was deemed a second story, not by definition in any way, but by a decision of the Department. I just need to resolve this issue, commented Kastrosky, and hope the Committee, in your meeting tonight, tells me that this whole house is applicable to the code and my client can put his ceiling and stairs back in. Hulstrom asked the Committee for clarification on the interpretation of boathouse Ordinance language because this issue has come up before in the past, in 2019, and some of this has to do with the way the code is written versus the way it is applied. In this case the code states very clearly how a boathouse shall not exceed one story. The way that that has been applied by the Department, consistently, has been that that means no additional upper anything, whether that is a loft or attic. Hulstrom stated there are two options, to either delete the language of “Boathouse shall not exceed one story” and leave the remaining stating max height from boathouse floor to top of the side wall not to exceed 10 feet and the footprint cannot exceed 400 square feet or the Committee could add some additional language stating that it would not exceed one story including no lofts, attics, et cetera. Rondeau asked what the definition of a second story is and if an attic in a garage is considered a second story. Hulstrom stated there was no definition in the Ordinance for a second story. Hulstrom went on to note that boathouses are unique structures because they are allowed to be closer than 75 feet to the water, but they are solely meant for boathouse use, which can be very difficult to maintain given individuals constructing boathouses like the example the Committee was provided. The Department feels like one of the ways to minimize the possibility that someone would utilize a boathouse for unintended purposes is to make it clear that there should be no lofts or attics in those upper areas, that it should be open rafters. Ray commented that the examples they were provided clearly show someone trying to cheat the system by placing floor joists, and guardrails and not just rafters and such. Rondeau stated he agrees with Ray about what is being shown in the picture, but stated throwing some plywood up in the rafters and storing equipment up there should be allowed. Ray stated that this is why you must have stupid zoning laws because people will push it right off the cliff and so maybe the Department sees stuff like this and I can imagine our staff struggles with what do you do, what do you call this. Ray concluded with the Committee needs to discuss whether the Department continues to argue with Page 9 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 people about this or do we go the dumb way and eliminate everything and tell people they can have just the structure. Silbert agrees with Ray about the example shown but disagrees with the floor joists’ comment. Something is needed to keep the walls spread, stated Silbert. Carlson recommended that the direction should be that boathouses should be allowed to be permitted with conditions that any upper area will be for boathouse related equipment and purposes only, no sleeping or habitation. Carlson also recommended eliminating the language “shall not exceed one story”. Pooler stated that the definition of story in Webster, it is a horizontal plane above another horizontal plane. Rondeau stated that the Department cannot go around telling everyone who has an attic that it is a second story therefore they must remove it, because they are all over Namakagon. Hulstrom clarified that the Department is concerned with direction for new boathouses and not existing ones. Pocernich stated he agrees with Carlson and the language “shall not exceed one story” should be eliminated. Pocernich added that the Department cannot assume everyone is creating habitable space above when told it is for storage only. Ray stated that the Committee is not interested in a police enforcement Zoning Department, going around inspecting places, but people apply for a permit, they apply for a short-term rental and the Department finds that they have an upstairs being lived in. That is like one of the only times that the Department has some leverage in this situation,” stated Ray, and he thinks it is appropriate for staff to say no if it appears that there is a second story. The Committee agrees with the example given; they do not believe it is a second story. Carlson stated we must either draft the definition of a story so that we can say no, this is not permitted, or we need to take out the one-story language. Silbert agrees with taking out the one-story language. Ray made a motion to draft Ordinance language eliminating the language “shall not exceed one-story” and present it to the Committee next month. Seconded by Silbert. Kastrosky asked if his client can put his floor back in and request it in writing. Pocernich advised him to wait until the language changed. Carlson stated that he would not pursue a violation if it were done right away and Pocernich added that he thinks Kastrosky should advise his client to wait. Motion carried, 5-0 Discussion occurred about Mr. Kastrosky’s client, but everyone was speaking at once, so it was not able to be understood. Strand noted that the Committee did not have the authority to advise anyone to go against the Department’s decision and replace what was ordered to be removed until such a time that the Ordinance language changes. Kastrosky raised an issue with the nasty gram the Department sends with an order to correct but does not send out a notice of violation correction acknowledgement and he does not think that is appropriate. Rondeau agreed. Ray disagreed because the permit was issued. Pooler stated the permit was not issued because another violation was found, and the Department is waiting for that to be corrected. F. Committee Members discussion(s) regarding matters of the P & Z Dept No discussion occurred. Page 10 of 10 Planning and Zoning Committee Public Hearing and Meeting – April 20, 2023 7. Monthly Report / Budget and Revenue Hulstrom stated the Committee should have received the monthly report for February & March 2023 in their packet in Dropbox. Hulstrom also stated that land use permits & sanitary permits are both up compared to last year and the Department continues to be busy. AZA, Erica Meulemans is leaving the Department and so there is an active search going on to fill that position. Hulstrom noted that the Department has chosen to move forward by no longer accepting new applications through the online portal that previously existed. The Department is actively researching other software programs that would allow us to better facilitate the applications we receive, stated Hulstrom, as we are having significant issues related to use of that online portal and the existing software. There is a new land use application provided on the website, both in a PDF and PDF fillable form, and applicants will be able to submit electronically, via e-mail, or they can print and submit it by mail, or drop it off at the office. Silbert made a motion to receive and place on file the Monthly Report for February & March 2023. Seconded by Ray. Motion carried, 5-0 8. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 6:21 pm. Prepared by FIG on 4/29/2023; given to RH 5/1/2023 Approved by RH on 5/5/2023 Sent to PZC on 5/8/2023 Final Approval on 5/18/2023 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2023/April