HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 4/18/2024
Page 1 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
APRIL 18, 2024
1. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Business Meeting:
Supervisor Crandall, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
2. Roll Call:
Acting Chair Crandall announced election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman will
take place.
A. Election of Chairman
Strand made a motion to elect Ray as Chairman. Pocernich moved for closure of
the nomination and asked that a unanimous ballot be cast on the nomination.
Seconded by Rekemeyer. Motion carried. 5-0
B. Election of Vice-Chairman
Pocernich made a motion to nominate Strand as Vice-Chairman. Crandall
moved to close the nomination and asked that a unanimous ballot also be cast on
this nomination. Seconded by Pocernich. Motion carried. 5-0
3. Adjournment of Planning and Zoning Committee Business Meeting:
Pocernich moved to close and adjourn the Planning and Zoning
Committee Business Meeting. Crandall seconded. Motion Carried. 5-0
Adjourned at 4:03 pm
4. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Ray called the public hearing to order
at 4:03 PM
5. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Strand, Crandall, Rekemeyer: 5-present. 0-absent.
Others present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom, County Administrator-Mark Abeles-
Allison, District 10 Supervisor-Marty Milanowski, District 9 Supervisor-Rich
Nemitz, Tracy Pooler-AZA, Mckenzie Slack-AZA, Alessandro Hall-AZA, Desi
Niewinski-Short Term Rental/Environmental Health Specialist, Franki Gross-
Secretary.
6. Affidavit of Publication: Hulstrom showed the audience the affidavit of
publication for April 2nd and April 9th 2024 and the certified mailing receipts, noting
that no signature card was received from the Town of Pilsen.
Page 2 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
7. Public Comment:
Robert Schierman spoke regarding item 13.(A) on the agenda, short term rental
ordinance language that the department was directed to revise. Schierman raised
concerns about the language presented, noting that he felt it did not address the
Committee’s directive from the prior meeting. He suggested recommending the
proposed language be approved by the full County Board except for section (h)(1)
annual review, and the reference to the arbitrary annual review fee in section (j)(4).
8. Review of Meeting Format – Ray explained the procedure of the meeting.
9. Public Hearing:
A. A petition by Ruth Hulstrom, Director of Planning and Zoning, on
behalf of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee,
requesting amendments to the Bayfield County Zoning Code of
Ordinances, including the following:
• Deleting from the definition of Shipping Container/Intermodal Container
language indicating that more than one container requires a conditional
use permit except for I lots which require a CUP for more than 3
containers
• Creating a new section of the ordinance under 13-1-36 pertaining to
shipping containers to create regulations for shipping containers to
restrict the placement of, appearance of, use of and number of shipping
containers placed on unincorporated lands in Bayfield County, to require
permits for shipping containers, and to prohibit placement of shipping
containers outright on substandard lots and in Metallic Mining and
Conservancy zoning districts
• To amend Section 13-1-43(d)(1) which pertains to Mobile Tower Siting
Regulations to require a conditional use permit for the siting and
construction of any new mobile service support facility prior to a land use
permit being issued
• Amendment to the Classification of Uses set forth in Section 13-1-62 of
the code to create a new land use for mobile towers and a new land use
for mobile tower collocates, to modify the existing use of Shipping
Container/Intermodal container to specify that one container is a
permitted use in the R-4, R-3, R-2, R-1, R-RB and C zoning districts, and
to create a new permissible use of Shipping Container/Intermodal
Container (2 containers or more in all zones except industrial, which is 3
containers or more), and to make this new use a conditional in the C, I,
M, A-1 and A-2, F-1 and F-2 zones.
Ray asked if anyone would like to speak in support.
David Ciembronowicz, Chairman of the Town Iron River spoke and stated
he is representing the citizens of Iron River as well as the entire Board of
Supervisors of Iron River, speaking specifically to the amendments to Title
Page 3 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
13 related to shipping containers. Ciembronowicz stated Bayfield County
residential areas will be affected in a negative way by having these
amendments approved. It’s known that shipping containers are cost
effective means of storing possessions, however, they are also unsightly
and when placed within a residential, even a residential business
neighborhood, they dramatically and negatively change the look, the feel,
and the value of the homes in that neighborhood. Ciembronowicz
commented that the Town of Iron River has provided the Committee a
response that includes suggestions to address the above concerns and
photographs of current containers that have been permitted in the Town of
Iron River. Ciembronowicz stated the Town is asking that the Committee
look at all of those and consider whether it is appropriate to extend the 6-
month moratorium and revamp the proposed amendments pertaining to
shipping containers. Ray asked again if anyone would like to speak in
support.
Josh Pearson spoke, advocating for 151 citizens in the Town of Russell,
Town of Bayfield, and Red Cliff Indian Reservation, in favor of the
Conditional Use Permitting process when it comes to cell phone towers
developed in these communities under 13-1-43. The Conditional Use
Permitting process will allow residents to have a voice when it comes to the
placement of these towers inside their communities which can then be
heard at this Committee level, and the Committee can then gauge the
appropriateness of cell phone development in those communities via the
opposition or no opposition that will come from the community that'll have
to live next to the cell phone tower in the future, stated Pearson. Ray asked
if anyone else would like to speak.
Tessa Levins, resident of the Town of Russell, spoke in favor of 13-1-43
amendment to require a CUP for cell phone towers. Levins stated she
believes that the towers have a negative effect in multiple ways like health,
aesthetics, and property values, and that the Committee needs the help of
the public, the ones directly affected, in the form of feedback of what their
concerns are. Ray asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor.
Mike Cariveau of Bayfield Wireless spoke and warned the public to be
careful of what they ask for. In the past, stated Cariveau, the Town of
Russell, the Town of Bayfield, the City of Bayfield, the Town of Bayview, the
Town of Washburn, the Town of Barksdale, and Bayfield County came to
me with a significant need for communication services. Bayfield Wireless
has been investing millions of dollars in Bayfield County to bring broadband
services to the community in areas that had no services before and had a
lack of cell phone capabilities. He shared concerns about changing tower
approvals to a Conditional Use Permit process, noting it will falsely set
community expectations given the Wisconsin State and Federal Statutes
that set limitations on when a tower placement can be denied. Additionally,
it will be more costly and time consuming for applicants. Cariveau stated if
there's a Conditional Use Permit process approved, he will support it, but
Page 4 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
he wants to know the rules because when he made the millions of dollars of
investments to do what he was asked to do, he wasn't expecting the rules
to get changed under his feet. Cariveau commented he hopes the
Committee is very well informed before approving this ordinance
amendment and that the Committee has read the State Statute word for
word and compared it against what's being proposed because there's room
for improvement in the language that has been proposed, and the
Committee should be careful not to set false expectations for the public with
this ordinance change.
Ray asked three times if anyone wanted to speak in favor. No one spoke.
Ray asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition.
Jean Germano spoke in opposition to the ordinance amendment regarding
shipping containers. Stated he does not agree with further regulating
shipping containers on industrial or agricultural zoned properties.
Ciembronowicz clarified that when he spoke earlier, he was speaking in
opposition to the amendments. He noted that Germano’s comment was
further reasoning to support a process where Towns, Villages, and
communities are involved in the permit process.
Ray asked three times if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. No one
spoke.
Discussion ended.
10. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Ray adjourned the public hearing without a motion, second or vote at 4:31
pm.
11. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Business Meeting: Ray
called the meeting to order at 4:31 pm.
12. Roll Call: Pocernich, Ray, Strand, Crandall, Rekemeyer: 5-present. 0-absent.
Others present: Director-Ruth Hulstrom, County Administrator-Mark Abeles-
Allison, District 10 Supervisor-Marty Milanowski, District 9 Supervisor-Rich
Nemitz, Tracy Pooler-AZA, Mckenzie Slack-AZA, Alessandro Hall-AZA, Desi
Niewinski-Short Term Rental/Environmental Health Specialist, Franki Gross-
Secretary.
13. Previous Business:
(A) Petition to Amend Ord (Ord Amnt) – Title 13-1-35; 13-1-4(a), 13-1-62(a)
(tabled/postponed February 15, 2024 & March 21, 2024)
Page 5 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
Hulstrom informed the Committee that this petition to amend the ordinance
was related to regulating short-term rentals. She gave a summary of the
original petition and then shared several proposed modifications based on
input from the Committee and public, as described in the department’s
narrative.
Crandall inquired why there were two copies of the petition. Hulstrom
clarified that the copy of the amendment that does not have red or yellow
was the original petition and the one that does is the amendment with
proposed modifications based on direction from the Committee and public
input. Crandall asked why an annual renewal and fee was needed.
Hulstrom stated that the purpose for the renewal process was to minimize
the possibility of the short-term rental becoming a nuisance. She noted the
Public Health has an annual renewal process and the proposed annual
review process is meant to align with their process. Crandall asked how
someone would provide proof of design capacity for their POWTS.
Hulstrom stated that the department has some sanitary records. If the
department does not have records, the property owner could provide
documentation. If the owner cannot provide documentation, then a system
verification would need to be done. Crandall noted concern over having an
annual review and fee.
Abeles-Allison shared that last year the Planning and Zoning Committee
and Public Health concluded that more coordination between Zoning and
Public Health was needed due to the growing number of short-term rentals
and unlicensed short-term rentals and to better protect the community,
specifically residential neighborhoods. He shared statistics on the income
generated by short-term rentals. Abeles-Allison stated that the purpose of
the annual review is to address any complaints, violations, or septic issues.
Noted that the ordinance amendment and any fees for short-term rentals
are two separate items. He shared that a short-term rental position was
created to have a more coordinated effort between the Zoning and Public
Health Departments, and it was anticipated that both departments’ would
share in the cost of funding the position. Crandall asked whether other
counties do an annual review. Abeles-Allison stated he was unsure.
Hulstrom indicated that she was unsure whether other counties do, but she
was aware that other jurisdictions do. Strand shared that nuisance
concerns had been raised, specifically related to excessive number of
occupants in a structure.
Rekemeyer asked for clarification on when existing valid permits expire.
Hulstrom indicated that any existing valid permits can solely submit a new
application prior to June 30, 2025, and obtain a new permit so long as they
are complaint with the new ordinance language.
Ray asked whether there was any more discussion.
Page 6 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
Strand motioned to forward to the County Board a recommendation
to approve the ordinance amendments to Section 13-1-35, 13-1-4(a), and
13-1-62(a) with amended language as highlighted in yellow and or colored
in red. Rekemeyer seconded. Discussion occurred with Pocernich stating
he agrees with some of the language but the majority he still does not,
including the annual review and ambiguous fee, requiring proof of design
for POWTS, and occupancy limits based on POWTS design. He noted that
the agreement from last meeting was that we were not going to charge an
annual renewal fee but that the Public Health inspection fee may be raised
for the zoning review. Abeles-Allison shared that there may have been a
misunderstanding regarding the fee. The zoning review is not Health
Department related so we cannot increase the Public Health inspection fee
to cover the zoning review. He asked for one of the AZAs to address the
proof of design for POWTS. Pocernich interrupts Abeles-Allison to state
that you must provide proof of pumping. Rekemeyer shared that her
understanding is that the POWTS design for homes is based on the number
of bedrooms. She indicated that she supports annual review because she
has seen occupancy limits of a POWTS exceeded, for example, weddings
being held at a short-term rental. Rekemeyer supported the ambiguous fee
language. Abeles-Allison noted that the ambiguous fee language can be
addressed by stating “as set forth in the fee schedule”. Pocernich indicated
that this change would not change his mind regarding his support of the
ordinance amendment. Crandall reiterated that he was looking for a better
understanding of how an applicant provides proof of design for POWTS.
Pooler indicated that since 1969, county septic permits have been required
and those permits determine how many bedrooms the system is designed
for. These records should be on file in the zoning office. Crandall inquired
why the homeowner is required to provide proof then. Pooler noted that
there are some systems that are pre-1969 or individuals who installed
systems without permits, which would require documentation or verification.
He goes on to state the reason to verify and not exceed the POWTS design
is to protect the county’s natural resources, such as the lakes and other
waterbodies (Voice from the audience interrupts Pooler). Crandall states
that he understands the concern about failing septic systems, but he does
not believe that this will address failing septics. Pooler notes that this will
set capacity limits on occupancy based on the number of bedrooms the
system is designed for. Pocernich stated that setting a maximum
occupancy based on POWTS design capacity is something that he has
argued against before. Stating if a system is going to fail, it is going to back-
up into your house or basement and you’re going to fix it. Hulstrom
interjected and stated that the state has system design standards to
minimize the possibility of system failure. She indicated to avoid early failure
of the system, the ordinance amendment includes language setting a
maximum occupancy based on the POWTS design. Crandall raised
concerns as to whether setting a maximum occupancy was enforceable.
Hulstrom shared that is was given the new position dedicated to managing
short-term rentals for both Zoning and Public Health. She asked Niewinski
to provide a report of the number of short-term rentals she has reviewed to
Page 7 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
date that are advertising for more occupants then their system is designed
for. Niewinski stated that she is finding that it is not uncommon for people
to advertise for more occupants than what their system is designed for.
Noted that she is currently completing Public Health inspections and will be
doing Zoning inspections and part of the zoning review includes seeing how
many occupants the short-term rental is advertising for. She has found that
8 of the 50 she has reviewed to date exceed the maximum occupancy of
their system. Pocernich asked how many of those systems have failed.
Niewinski stated she was unsure. Further discussion occurred regarding
impacts of short-term rentals, sanitary concerns, and an annual review and
fee. Ray indicated that he was looking for a motion to suspend the rules to
allow Rob Schierman to speak.
Pocernich motioned to suspend the rules to allow Rob Schierman
to speak. Crandall seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Schierman provided housing statistics, raised concerns about DSPS’s lack
of support, and shared concerns about people skimping on septic systems
and turning structures into habitable space without proper permits. He noted
that he frequently had more people over to his home than what is system
was designed for. Abeles-Allison noted that we are not looking to regulate
private homes, only looking to regulate short-term rental businesses.
Pocernich stated that he believed that their original intent was to have
Public Health better coordinate with Zoning by having one person complete
the Public Health and Zoning reviews. Ray asked if there was any further
discussion. No further discussion. Ray stated the motion on the floor from
Strand is to approve the language as posted here with the amendments in
red and highlighted in yellow, second from Rekemeyer. Motion failed, 2-
3.
No further discussion or motions occurred.
14. New Business
A. A petition by Ruth Hulstrom, Director of Planning and Zoning, on
behalf of the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee,
requesting amendments to the Bayfield County Zoning Code of
Ordinances, including the following:
• Deleting from the definition of Shipping Container/Intermodal Container
language indicating that more than one container requires a conditional
use permit except for I lots which require a CUP for more than 3
containers
• Creating a new section of the ordinance under 13-1-36 pertaining to
shipping containers to create regulations for shipping containers to
restrict the placement of, appearance of, use of and number of shipping
containers placed on unincorporated lands in Bayfield County, to require
permits for shipping containers, and to prohibit placement of shipping
Page 8 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
containers outright on substandard lots and in Metallic Mining and
Conservancy zoning districts
• To amend Section 13-1-43(d)(1) which pertains to Mobile Tower Siting
Regulations to require a conditional use permit for the siting and
construction of any new mobile service support facility prior to a land use
permit being issued
• Amendment to the Classification of Uses set forth in Section 13-1-62 of
the code to create a new land use for mobile towers and a new land use
for mobile tower collocates, to modify the existing use of Shipping
Container/Intermodal container to specify that one container is a
permitted use in the R-4, R-3, R-2, R-1, R-RB and C zoning districts, and
to create a new permissible use of Shipping Container/Intermodal
Container (2 containers or more in all zones except industrial, which is 3
containers or more), and to make this new use a conditional in the C, I,
M, A-1 and A-2, F-1 and F-2
File Report: Hulstrom informed the Committee that the ordinance
amendment pertains to mobile towers and shipping containers. She outlined
language to be deleted from Section 13-1-4(a)(57m), creation of Section 13-
1-36 regulating shipping container placement, addition of language to
Section 13-1-43(d)(1) requiring a Conditional Use Permit for new mobile
towers, and additions and deletions to Section 13-1-62(a), further described
in the department’s narrative. Ray requested that the shipping container and
mobile tower language be dealt with separately. Hulstrom indicated that
there is a maximum fee that local jurisdictions can charge for mobile towers
and noted additional language that the Committee can add to the proposed
ordinance amendment to address this. Discussion occurred regarding the
6-month moratorium extension that was approved by the County Board.
Strand also noted that he would like to deal with the shipping containers
and mobile towers separately. Ray inquired why shipping container
placement has been prohibited in the Mining or Conservation Districts. He
referred this question to the representatives from Iron River since that is the
only area in the county where mines exist. Nemitz and Ciembronowicz
indicated they were unsure. Further discussion occurred regarding why
shipping containers have not been allowed to be placed in Mining and
Conservation Districts, the differences between a shipping container and
another structure, and regulating for aesthetics. Ray indicated that he was
looking for a motion to suspend the rules to allow someone from the
audience to speak.
Rekemeyer motioned to suspend the rules and allow them to speak.
Pocernich seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Ken Simone noted he was looking to build a home using shipping
containers and was hoping that the county would lift the moratorium so he
could move forward. Hulstrom indicated that under the moratorium there is
nothing restricting someone from using shipping containers as building
material. She encouraged him to reach out to the Uniform Dwelling Code
Page 9 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
(UDC) agency to verify the proposed design would meet their standards.
Nemitz noted that he motioned to approve the 6-month moratorium
extension to allow the county more time to review the ordinance amendment
language pertaining to shipping containers and address concerns raised by
towns and the public and shared the concerns that Iron River has regarding
shipping container placement.
Strand motioned to forward to the County Board a recommendation
to approve ordinance amendments to Section 13-1-4(a)(57m) and 13-1-36
with the following amendments:
1) 13-1-36(d)(1), Residential Zoning Districts, shipping containers
are allowed in residential zoning districts R-1, R-4, R-RB if the lot
is 43,560 square feet or greater, R-2 if 4.5 acres or greater, and
R-3 if 2 acres or greater. A Conditional Use Permit and Land Use
Permit is required to permanently place a shipping container in R-
1, R-4, R-RB zoning districts. A Land Use Permit is required to
permanently place a shipping container in R-2 and R-3 zoning
districts. Only one shipping container may be placed on a lot.
2) 13-1-36(d)(3), Commercial Zoning District, shipping containers
are allowed in commercial zoning district C if the lot is 30,000
square feet or greater. A Land Use Permit is required to
permanently place a shipping container on a lot. Only one
shipping container may be placed for residential use in these
districts. More than one shipping container on a lot requires a
Conditional Use Permit.
3) 13-1-36(d)(4) Municipal Zoning District, shipping containers are
allowed in municipal zoning district M with a Conditional Use
Permit if the lot is 43,560 square feet or greater. A Land Use
Permit is required to permanently place a shipping container on a
lot. Only one shipping container may be placed for residential use
in these districts. More than one shipping container on a lot
requires a Conditional Use Permit.
4) Update numbering as needed.
5) 13-1-36(d)(5)a. Be painted and maintained neutral in color.
Neutral colors include beige, taupe, gray, cream, and brown.
6) 13-1-62 amend to include the above conditions.
Crandall seconded. Discussion occurred regarding allowing shipping
containers for residential use outside of Residential Zoning Districts and
treating legally placed shipping containers as non-conforming. Ray clarified
that any newly placed shipping containers would have to adhere to the new
ordinance. Rekemeyer noted concerns regarding regulating the color of
shipping containers given the rural nature of Bayfield County. Pocernich
agreed with Rekemeyer. Nemitz asked how the county shipping container
ordinance would impact the town’s ability to regulate shipping containers.
Noting that this is another reason he had supported the 6-month moratorium
extension. He indicated that he supported Strand’s proposed changes to
the ordinance amendment increasing the lot size requirements. Rekemeyer
Page 10 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
indicated that she would support Strand’s motion if the portion regarding
color was removed. Ray inquired whether Rekemeyer was suggesting an
amendment to the motion to strike 13-1-36(d)(5)a. Rekemeyer indicated
that she was. Pocernich seconded. Ray asked if there was any discussion
regarding Rekemeyer’s amendment to the motion. Pocernich indicated that
he supported Rekemeyer’s amendment and then requested clarification on
what language was included in Strand’s motion. Ray clarified that it included
all sections mentioned in Strand’s motion plus his changes. Further
discussion occurred regarding whether Pocernich wanted to offer an
amendment to the motion and when shipping containers can be used as a
building material. Strand suggested that they deal with the amended motion
on the table. Ray called for a vote on the amendment to the motion on the
table, eliminating the paint color requirement. Motion carried, 5-0. Ray
stated the amendment passes and asked for any further discussion before
voting on Strand’s motion with Rekemeyer’s amendment. Crandall asked
for clarification on whether there were regulations that pertain to shipping
container placement in an Industrial District. Strand clarified that his motion
included regulating placement of shipping containers in the Industrial
District. Further discussion occurred regarding concerns for extensions on
temporary permits associated with construction projects and clarification on
the purpose of the 6-month moratorium extension. Ray called for a vote on
Strand’s motion with Rekemeyer’s amendment. Roll Call: Pocernich-no,
Ray-no, Rekemeyer-yes, Crandall-yes, Strand-yes. Motion carried, 3-2.
Ray noted that there was one more ordinance amendment to address
related to mobile towers. Hulstrom asked if Ray would like her to repeat
the ordinance amendment sections that apply to mobile towers. (Inaudible
comment was made). Ray stated that the ordinance amendment was fairly
straightforward, it was proposing to require a Conditional Use Permit for
towers and a Land Use Permit for collocates.
Strand motioned to forward to the County Board with a
recommendation to approve ordinance amendments to Sections 13-1-
43(d)(1) and 13-1-62(a) for mobile tower and mobile tower collocates and
amend Section 13-1-43(d)(6) by removing $3000.00 from fees and
replacing it with “the fee for the permit is set forth on the fee schedule in
Reference Document A, on file at the Bayfield County Planning and Zoning
Department”. Rekemeyer asked for Strand to clarify whether it was a
Conditional Use Permit or a Land Use Permit. Strand stated it was a
Conditional Use Permit. Ray asked for a second three times without a
response. Motion died.
Pocernich asked if Corp Counsel had reviewed the proposed ordinance
language and verified it falls within the State and Federal Statutes allowed.
Hulstrom stated that Corp Counsel has reviewed the language and is
confident it meets State and Federal requirements. She noted that there are
limitations on decision making for the Conditional Use requests. Pocernich
indicated that he believed they had been previously informed that there
Page 11 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
were limited options for regulating towers and was confused why they were
changing to a Conditional Use process. Strand noted that there is little
public notice and input acquired during the Land Use Permit process. He
shared that having this input might lead the applicant to voluntarily change
their plans. Further discussion occurred regarding tower placement case
law, clarification that the ordinance amendment was requested to allow for
community input on new towers and to remove inconsistences in the code,
and the impact of State and Federal Statutes on local jurisdictions ability to
regulate towers. Ray inquired whether there was further discussion or a
motion, otherwise the item will be considered in the future.
No further discussion or motion(s).
Agenda Review/Alteration: Ray asked if anyone had any alterations and
indicated that this item should be at the top of the agenda.
15. Other Business
B. Minutes of Previous Meeting: Ray asked for a motion to approve March
21, 2024 minutes.
Pocernich motioned to approve as printed. Strand seconded. No
discussion. Motion carried, 5-0.
C. Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Bayfield County
Comprehensive Plan implementation matrix.
Hulstrom informed the Committee that she wanted to introduce the
Committee to planning. She summarized the process of creation and
adoption of the most recent comprehensive plan and shared the
implementation matrix the department put together to better track progress.
Rekemeyer asked how frequently the department would be providing
updates. Hulstrom indicated at least twice a year but more frequently
depending on the progress made.
D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Zoning Code Rewrite RFP
Abeles-Allison shared that the county drafted the RFP and would like to
get it published since there is a June submission deadline for proposals. He
noted that the zoning code re-write is needed to address the housing supply
and some funding opportunities to help with housing supply. Abeles-
Allison suggested a $80,000 maximum on the budget for the zoning code
re-write and requested approval of the RFP.
Rekemeyer motioned to approve the Strategic Zoning Code
Modernization and Streamlining Request for Proposal 2024-2025 and a
budget not to exceed $80,000. Strand seconded. Motion carried, 5-0.
Page 12 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
E. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Fee Schedule Update for
Short-Term Rental Fees and Mobile Tower/Collocation Fees.
Ray indicated that no action had been taken on the ordinance amendments
related to these fees. Hulstrom indicated that she was unsure whether fees
needed to be dealt with given the lack of action on the ordinance
amendments. Abeles-Allison indicated that the short-term rental renewal
fee should be changed from $150 to $0.
Pocernich motioned to postpone the fee schedule update for short-
term rental fees and mobile tower/collocation fees until our next meeting
date. Rekemeyer seconded. Motion carried, 5-0.
F. Discussion regarding Welcoming new Planning and Zoning Committee
members and Outlining Roles and Responsibilities.
Hulstrom welcomed the new and veteran members to the Committee. She
outlined the roles and responsibilities of the department and the Committee.
Hulstrom encouraged the Committee members to connect with the
department if they have questions or concerns. She shared relevant
planning and zoning resources including Bayfield County zoning ordinances
and the comprehensive plan and UW-Extension learning modules geared
to Planning and Zoning Committee members. Ray requested that the
department send links to the resources and noted that he had attended a
UW-Extension training.
16. Monthly Report
Hulstrom stated that Land Use Permit issuance is up 25% and Sanitary Permit
issuance is up slightly from last year. She indicated that this past winter was not
slow, and staff are staying very busy. Ray asked how permit issuance was going.
Gross indicated she only has 8 permits currently in for issuance and only 1 week
out on issuance based on when she received the applications.
Pocernich motioned to receive and place on file the monthly report.
Crandall seconded. Motion carried, 5-0.
Crandall noted that he was not against short-term rental changes and not for
sanitary system failures but feels that the approach should be on regulating the
troublemakers. He suggested bringing back a proposal that focuses on the issue
areas. Ray noted that Public Health typically allows for more occupancy than the
sanitary system design. He indicated that Public Health should look at further
regulating occupancy so short-term rental operators cannot rent for large parties,
like weddings, that create nuisances. Abeles-Allison shared that this is not
possible under the Public Health regulating authority. He indicated it could be done
under Zoning and this is what was included in the proposed ordinance amendment.
Further discussion occurred regarding setting maximum occupancy based on the
POWTS design (some of the discussion was inaudible).
Page 13 of 13
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – April 18, 2024
17. Adjournment
Ray called adjournment at 6:26 pm.
Prepared by FIG on 4/24/2024 and REH on 5/6/2024
Reviewed by REH on 5/7/2024
Sent to PZC on 5/7/2024
Uploaded to Drop Box on 5/7/2024
Final Approval on 5/16/2024
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2024/#4 April