Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 3/21/2024 Page 1 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 “REVISED” (5/16/2024) MINUTES BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING MARCH 21, 2024 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 – 5 present. 0 – Absent. Others present: Ruth Hulstrom-Director, Tracy Pooler-AZA, Mckenzie Slack-AZA, Alessandro Hall-AZA, Trent Wiesner-Secretary (Acting), Desi Niewinski-Short Term Rental Specialist, and Mark Abeles-Allison-Administrator 3. Affidavit of Publication: Hulstrom showed the audience the affidavit of publication and the certified mailing receipts. Hulstrom stated the publish dates were March 5th & 12th, 2024. Noted that the applicant has withdrawn their application. 4. Public Comment: Robert Schierman spoke in opposition to the request for annual short-term rental permits. Stated that no other activity is required to annually renew permits, suggests a potential snowball effect wherein more businesses would be required to seek annual permits, and that it would unnecessarily burden the department which already is perceived negatively. Suggested focusing on customer service and permit turnaround time. Jennifer Schierman spoke in opposition to annual short term rental permits. Agreed with the points raised by Robert. Stated that the item made no mention of short-term rentals within sanitary districts, which she states zoning has no jurisdiction within. Relayed that her STR is within a sanitary district, and that she already pays an annual fee. Asked how many STRs are within sanitary districts. Suggested a small user fee for STRs which use septic or holding tanks. 5. Review of Meeting Format - Chairman Rondeau explained the procedure of the meeting. Explained that since Todd’s Redi Mix withdrew their permit, there was no public hearing at this meeting, and moved directly on to previous business. 6. Public Hearing: 7. Adjournment of Public Hearing: 8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: 9. Roll Call: 10. Previous Business: (A) Petition to Amend Ord – Title 13-1-35; 13-1-4(a), 13-1-62(a). Page 2 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 File Report: Hulstrom informed the committee that this is the fifth time the ordinance amendment has come before the committee and that it has been revised based on staff, committee, and public feedback. Informed committee of new language changes since last meeting made to better align with state definitions and remove unnecessary definitions that could create confusion. Informed the committee of additional language that could require 2 or more short term rentals to obtain a conditional use permit before issuance of a short-term rental permit if it falls under a multiple residence or multiple unit development. Informed the committee about additional language clarifying that occupant limits are set based on POWTS or the most restrictive state or local regulation and outlined information needed for application. Explained that there were several concerns that were raised by the public and townships pertaining to definitions, occupancy limit, no fireworks, handling of existing valid permits, annual renewal process, and transferability of permits, and that these concerns have been addressed by new language highlighted in blue. Informed the committee that additional language to clarify that existing valid permits will be treated as annual renewal and additional language to allow permit transfer in alignment with state licensing and public health standards. Informed the committee that additional language clarifying that permits issued using the new regulations will be valid for 12 months before a new application needs to be submitted by June 30th of each year. Hulstrom then went over the highlighted changes in the paper packet with the committee. Discussion then occurred and Ray suggested clarification of draft language. Stated that the issuance of fireworks by the town was excluded from the ordinance amendment language and that he found some of the new language regarding expiration dates of permits confusing as described in 13-1-35(6). Stated that the current language made it sound like permits expired June 30th of the same year rather than June 30th of the next year. Reiterated that he supports the department but agreed with Mr. Schierman that it does not make sense for it to be an annual permit and that it will create more work for the department. Hulstrom responded by clarifying the language on expiration dates, informed Ray that the new proposed language provided in the document given to committee members was a deadline of June 30, 2025. Strand clarified that firework ordinance allowed for fireworks only if permitted by the town. Silbert said he has reconsidered the ordinance amendment from last month and thought Mr. Schierman’s argument had merit, and that it is unfair that STR operators be the only ones who need to renew annually. Agreed that it would be a large amount of work for the department. Pocernich agreed with Silbert and asked for clarification about what authority Bayfield County Planning & Zoning has within sanitary districts. Hulstrom stated that if a property was in a sanitary district, the sanitary system would have nothing to do with it. Occupancy would instead be based upon any other regulations that might apply, such as public health limitations. Pocernich asked how many STRs there are in the county. Hulstrom said there are about 380 but the department has no idea how many are currently valid. Stated that the Health Department has about 330. Pocernich asked if the Health Department renews annually. Hulstrom answered yes. Pocernich asked what their calendar is like, and Hulstrom deferred to Niewinski. Niewinski clarified that inspections need to be carried out sometime during the year before June 30th for renewal. Silbert stated that there is an in-person visit from the Health Department involved. Niewinski agreed. Rondeau agreed with Niewinski about the annual Health Department inspections. Pocernich referred back to Silbert’s question about annual renewal. Asked if this was the only CUP that would require annual renewal. Hulstrom outlined the current process, but Pocernich stated that he does not understand, and asked if, after issuance, the use was permitted by right. He explained what he Page 3 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 meant by “by right,” explaining that once a permit is obtained one does not need to obtain any others after that. Strand explained the process to him, explaining that currently they have to get a special use permit. Hulstrom stated that this is the only permit that needs annual renewal. Pooler corrected her and stated that gravel pits also need them, Hulstrom conceded. Strand asked if, in reconsidering the annual renewal fee, it would be a separate process and if they would have to look at the Planning & Zoning Department’s fee schedule. Ray suggested that the language requiring annual renewal could be stripped out of the amendment without revisiting the fee schedule. Another choice would be to leave language requiring annual renewal but remove the fee. Rondeau asks if both the Zoning Department and Health Department would be inspecting. Hulstrom explained that Desi Niewinski would be conducting one inspection for both departments, and the fee would be divided between those departments. Ray stated that it was previously discussed that towns would be notified as they currently are with the CUP process, and asked if an internal policy is being developed to notify towns of STR permits. Hulstrom agreed and said that STRs have increased significantly in numbers over the years. She explained the new town notification process and the motivation behind the new ordinance and position, with the objective being to better manage the growing number of STRs. Hulstrom informed the committee that the Department would, under the proposed ordinance, submit both the public health license and the short- term rental zoning permit to the town. Pocernich asked if there is any existing list of STRs. Niewinski believed that there were internal lists but not any available to the public. Said she will have to check if there are internal ones. Abeles-Allison informed the committee that, last year, the Planning and Zoning Department requested that the short-term rental process be streamlined and expressed concern that the current process was very confusing. Stated that oftentimes, after being permitted for a short-term rental by the Health Department, applicants failed to go through the process with Planning and Zoning, resulting in citations and sometimes halting of business until they received additional permits. Explained that this confusion and lengthy process is not only the reason for the proposed changes but also for the Short-term Rental Specialist position. Silbert asked if there is currently a CUP process in place for a new short-term rental. Hulstrom clarified that it depends on the number of units. Silbert asked if these currently need an annual renewal. Hulstrom answered no unless a condition is placed on the permit. Silbert suggested removal of annual renewal language and indicated that another option would need to be developed to pay for the other half of the position. He noted that the Short-term Rental Specialist position would be busy. Abeles-Allison agreed that it would still have a lot of work to do. Stated that without the new fees, the position would be paid for through general fund monies instead of permit fees. Shared his opinion that rental-owners sharing the inspection costs is not undue hardship. Rondeau stated that towns charge a fee for short-term rentals. Abeles- Allison noted that somebody told him that the City of Bayfield charges $700/year for short-term rentals and does not know what kind of services the city provides, whereas the county has specific services that it is providing. Rondeau stated that he is not comfortable with an annual fee and that it is the only one we charge for in the Planning & Zoning Department. Brief discussion about how to go about changing language. Pocernich suggested sending it back to the Planning & Zoning Department to revise and present it again next month. Rondeau asked the committee if they were satisfied with Pocernich’s suggestion. Strand stated that an annual fee should not be out of the question in his opinion because the Planning & Zoning Department incurs time and expense for it on a regular basis. Pocernich asked what the annual fee for the Health Department inspections is. Niewinski Page 4 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 answered $275. Abeles-Allison asked if that also included water testing. Niewinski affirmed. Strand stated that it is really a state license administered by the county in that case. Pocernich stated that there are aspects of the ordinance amendment that he agreed with, but the annual renewal and fee were not one of those. Also did not understand the need for the fireworks language, as it is already in state statute that anybody intending to light off fireworks needs permission from their township, that is in the state statute. Ray noted that many people do not know that, and including language about fireworks in the ordinance gives people one more chance to see the law. Silbert asked Pocernich why he wanted to delay the ordinance amendment another month. Pocernich answered that he wanted to send it back to the Department so that the Committee has an opportunity to review the final language. Otherwise, he stated that the language we see on Tuesday, in 5 or 6 days, it will be new to us. Abeles-Allison noted that he does not believe this would be on the agenda for next Tuesday. Hulstrom confirmed, clarified that it would be on the April Board agenda at the earliest. Pocernich reiterated that the amendment should be sent back to the Planning & Zoning Department for further iteration so it can be voted on next month. Rondeau asked if the committee was happy with Pocernich’s proposal. Hulstrom asked for clarification that the main objective of the committee was to have the annual renewal fee removed while preserving the initial application fee. Silbert responded that it is more than the fee being stripped but they would not have to apply annually. Hulstrom asked whether that meant there would be no annual zoning review. Silbert asked if there was an annual short-term rental application; Hulstrom answered no. Silbert asked where in the amendment it says that there is an annual fee. Hulstrom explained that the language in the amendment states that “an annual renewal application shall be submitted to the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Department by June 30th of each calendar year unless renewed. If a renewal application is not received by the deadline, an initial application and fee shall be required before a permit is issued.” Suggested adding “an annual application and fee shall be submitted.” Clarified that adding this language would make it more clear that both would apply, and renewal would continue until a change of ownership occurred. Silbert asked for the language about renewals to be removed. Rondeau agreed with Pocernich that the proposed amendment should be sent back to the Planning & Zoning Department. Ray agreed with Rondeau, saying they are asking Zoning to drop the annual renewal requirement but they like the rest of it. Reasoned that if revenue is needed, the County has the annual fee and inspection from the Health Department which could be increased. Noted that he had heard consensus to strip out the annual renewal and fee. Hulstrom asked if there would then be no annual review at all of the zoning permit issued. Ray stated that the Short-term Rental Specialist could still work with Health Department and could still help with inspections, and that the original intent of the Short-term Rental Specialist was to help share the workload with the Health Department. Hulstrom explained that currently, conditional and special uses run with the land unless conditions are placed or if the use ceases for 36 consecutive months it becomes invalid but stripping out the renewal would make it so it would stay valid unless ownership changes. Ray asked if that was an existing code. Hulstrom answered that it was. Ray stated that that part of the code should stay. Noted that a permit to build a house works the same way, if construction is not started within a certain window, the permit expires. Strand stated that some motivation behind the new amendment is POWTS violations and occupancy violations and that annual renewal would help address these violations. Asked what the process would be to ensure POWTS violations and occupancy violations haven’t occurred if annual renewal is removed from the ordinance amendment. Expressed Page 5 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 concern that there would be no accountability for POWTS violations without annual renewal. Silbert asked if that would not be taken care of by the Short-term Rental Specialist. Strand stated that when the Health Department did it in the past, they had said that their jurisdiction was not POWTS or occupancy, so it was not checked or controlled. Hoped that the new position, with or without the fee, would be checking those items when the yearly health inspection was done. Silbert stated that that was his assumption since the position still represents Planning and Zoning. Hulstrom stated that, with the proposed changes to the amendment with no annual zoning review, the position would not be looking at the zoning standards, the inspection would exclusively pertain to public health standards. Pocernich disagreed and said that the position was created to help complete annual public health review but is under the assumption that they would be looking at capacity and septic and everything else. The position takes care of annual renewal, that the fee for health inspections can be raised, and that the annual renewal application is unnecessary. Asked if termination could still happen without an annual renewal application. Hulstrom said that the new language would encompass the needs of both departments, which is why there is an annual renewal application. Abeles- Allison asked if what Pocernich wanted was for there to be no annual renewal and for health and zoning checks to be done on an annual basis. Pocernich said yes, doesn’t see the need for applications. Abeles-Allison said he believed that that language can be figured out. Rondeau agreed, recommended taking no action on it. The committee agreed, and no action was taken. Discussion ended. 11. New Business: B. Northern States Power Co, owner/Sarah Schwartz, agent (Oulu) – Request a Special Use Permit for an Electric Light & Power Company Substations consisting of rebuilding and expanding substation. Property is an Ag-1 zoning district; a 5-acre parcel (Tax ID# 27094), described as a parcel in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ in Doc# 303353; in Section 26, Township 48 North, Range 9 West, Town of Oulu, Bayfield County, WI. File Report: Hall informed the committee that Northern States Power Company, owner and Sarah Schwartz, agent are seeking a Class B Special Use Permit to rebuild and expand a substation at 71925 Airport Rd. Currently developed with a substation. Stated dimensions and proposed dimensions. Clarified that there are wetlands on either side. A wetland delineation was completed but no impact to the wetlands would occur with the proposed project. Town of Oulu recommended approval with two conditions: 1) No change to the electrical substation rebuilding and expansion proposal is allowed without review by the Town Plan Commission and approval of the Town Board. 2) The Town may periodically review the Special Use Permit to assure compliance with the permit conditions and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The department has not received any public correspondence regarding the project. Pocernich asks Hall to repeat the first condition. Hall does so. Strand clarified why the Town of Oulu stipulated the condition, that being because in the past there was a Special Use Permit where the location of the proposed structure was changed after the town had already approved it, and the County said that since it Page 6 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 had already been approved there was nothing they could do, so the town was very unhappy about that. Strand motioned to approve based on Plan Commission and Town Board recommendation, and community welfare and economic impacts. Pocernich seconded. Rondeau reiterated the motion to approve the Northern States Power Co, owner/Sarah Schwartz, agent Oulu electric light and power company substation consisting of rebuilding and expanding substation in an A-1 zoning district. Discussion occurred as to whether the two town conditions were included in the motion and Strand confirmed that it did. Pocernich confirmed that his second to the motion was still applicable with the two town conditions included. Motion carried, 5-0. 12. Other Business C. Minutes of Previous Meeting: Rondeau stated there are two sets of minutes, the first being the revised January 18th, 2024. Ray motioned to approve minutes from the January 18, 2024. Pocernich seconded. Discussion occurred and Strand asked for clarification about number of dogs, 20 or 24. Ray said that 24 dogs should be 20, it was an error. Ray amended his motion to clarify the amount of dogs should be 20 at the home-based business. Hulstrom explained that she believed that 24 had been mistakenly mentioned in the discussion and the Chair mistakenly repeated this when he reiterated the amendment. Rondeau stated he was okay changing to 20 dogs and wanted his motion with amendments updated to reflect this. No further discussion. Motion carried, 5-0. Silbert motioned to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2024 meeting. Ray seconded. Motion carried, 5-0. D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding State mandated sanitary maintenance notifications. Hulstrom stated that the department has received feedback on the proposal to send out a large amount of sanitary maintenance letters and explained why it needs to be done. Stated that the department received feedback from Committee members and pumpers related to the maintenance notifications needing to be sent. Noted that service providers have expressed concern about pumping with road bans in place. Explained that the department wanted to ensure compliance with state laws. Stated that typically postcard notices have been sent first followed by a violation letter, but violation letters have not been sent for 8 months due to staffing issues, but a new office personnel started this year and the department now has the staff to send them out. Stated that Committee members and pumpers were sent the draft of the violation letter that will be going out to all out-of-compliance POWTS owners. There is a large backlog, and letters are to be sent out to ensure compliance by May 1st. Abeles-Allison asked Petzel from the Wisconsin DSPS for a quick review. Petzel reiterated that the maintenance program is found not only in code but state statutes too. On the topic of notification, it is a requirement of the inventory and maintenance program that counties notify folks who are delinquent in submitting their reports and doing their management, inspection, etc. Abeles-Allison stated that the county has moved Page 7 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 away from the courtesy postcards and that they are only doing delinquency notices now. Rondeau asked if the pumpers had reached out to get a listing and find out what and where they need to be. Hulstrom answered that that responsibility is up to the property owner to reach out to their service provider to get their system maintenance completed properly. Noted that a few service providers send out notifications, a vast majority relied on the postcard notifications. Added that the department is trying to set up an email notification system, but it will take time to be implemented. Ray stated that the program seemed like it was not thought through when the postcards were halted. Believed that there was a replacement system in place when the end of the postcard system was approved. Stated people pump when they get the postcards, and they haven’t gotten the postcards. Worried that the huge volume will overwhelm the capacity of the county to pump. Trying to transition out of being the babysitter, but being babysitter did work, new system does not work leading to huge backlog amounting to 10% of the entire county’s systems being out of compliance. Suggests a slower trickle approach rather than sending out 1,400 letters at the same time, such as going alphabetically or randomly. Raised concerns about road bans. Hulstrom stated that she had reached out to Petzel about the situation, and the main goal was coming into compliance. Suggested potentially moving deadline out to June 1st from May 1st. Urged the importance of starting asap now that we have the personnel to do so. Ray asked what a typical lack of compliance rate was before the stopping of postcards and if many people simply haven’t reported their pumping. Hulstrom stated that most people will call their service providers upon getting letters. Explained that it will take a great deal of work to make sure the county’s septic systems are serviced in a timely manner. Reiterated the urgency of getting people into compliance. Explained that such a large number accumulated over time, shared the example of there being a very small number of out-of-compliance individuals as recently as the summer of 2022. Ray said the office should have set up the email system when the postcard system was discontinued. Hulstrom stated that without notifications individuals struggle to know when their systems are due for service, even though ultimately the responsibility falls on them. Stated that some level of notification must occur per state mandate and that current focus is on that. Abeles-Allison asked for recommendations to bring people into compliance without being a nuisance from Petzel. Petzel said the old compliance rate was very impressive and that she has faith that the rate will once again be very low. Suggests an initial notice followed by another notice. Hulstrom suggested moving the deadline to June 1st. Verbal agreement on new deadline. Pocernich said that discontinuation of sanitary notifications was to relieve the pressure on zoning, pumpers were unaware that the postcards were discontinued and that is the reason why they weren’t sending out postcards. Ray suggested delegating the process of notification to the septic pumpers. The Committee agreed that the department should reach out to the service providers and suggest they send postcards to their clients. E. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Conditional Use Permits for Brett Rondeau and Jeff Silbert of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee to recognize their service to the Committee. Silbert congratulated Rondeau on a very good career and diligence. Rondeau recalled his experience as the chair of the committee. Page 8 of 8 ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – March 21, 2024 Strand moved to approve the conditional use permit based on the committed dedicated service by Brett and Jeff to the County’s Planning and Zoning program. Ray seconded. Motion carried, 5-0. F. Committee members discussion regarding matters of the Planning and Zoning Department Silbert stated an Environmental Impact Analysis should be drafted for Todd’s Redi- Mix if it hasn’t been already. Stated the county should look at whether Chapter 8 human health hazards might apply to the concrete crushing. Ray asked that the next agenda include tower ordinance amendments because he had heard there was the possibility of several permits making their way through the system. Rondeau stated that it will be on the agenda for next time. Pocernich concurred with Silbert. Asked why Todd’s Redi Mix ATF and CUP applications were submitted together instead of separately. Hulstrom said that that was how the applicant submitted it. Pocernich asked why the Planning & Zoning Department did not make them submit them separately so that the town would have had the chance to pick and choose what they approve or deny. Stated he had never seen a permit like that. Ray stated that the dog kennel application was like that. Pocernich asked why the Department was not pursuing the ATF. Hulstrom stated that ATF will be pursued by the department, including the expansion onto the other parcel. Stated that Todd’s Redi-Mix is aware that, even after withdrawing, they need to remedy the situation. Pocernich asked how long they get if they’re out of compliance. Hulstrom answered that if they’re actively working with the department and are trying to get on the next agenda, which would be May. Pocernich says Todd’s has far exceeded its allotted crushing limit and asked if the department is pursuing Todd’s for that. Hulstrom says the department is researching this and is aware there is some evidence that a crushing limit exists. Pocernich says he saw it. Hulstrom says the department will thoroughly research the matter and follow up with the property owner. Pocernich says it should be pursued sooner rather than later. Silbert says Todd’s Redi Mix has made unsubstantiated claims about how safe their operation is, reiterates need for measurable things. Worried about safety of workers. Discussion ended. 13. Monthly Report Hulstrom stated that the monthly report reflects the months of January and February, that the amount of work keeps increasing and the department is staying very busy. Pocernich made a motion to receive and place on file the Monthly Report. Silbert seconded. Motion carried, 5-0. 14. Adjournment Rondeau called adjournment at 5:33 pm. Prepared by TW on 3/28/24; given to REH on 3/28/24 Reviewed and prepared by REH on 4/4/24; Revised by REH on 5/1/2024 Sent to PZC on 4/4/24 Uploaded to Drop Box on 4/4/24 Final Approval on 4/18/2024 Final Approval of revised 5/16/2024 cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web k/zc/minutes/2024/Mar