HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 5/16/2024
Page 1 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
MAY 16, 2024
1. Call to Order of Public Hearing: Chairman Ray called the public hearing to order at 4:00
pm.
2. Roll Call: Crandall, Pocernich, Ray, Rekemeyer, and Strand – 5 Present. 0 – Absent.
Others present: Ruth Hulstrom-Director, Alessandro Hall-AZA, Mary Dougherty-District
2 Supervisor, Anne Marie Coy-Public Health Director, and John Carlson-Corp Counsel.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Hulstrom showed the audience the affidavit of publication for
April 30th and May 7th 2024 for two public hearing items.
4. Public Comment – Chairman Ray explained that this time is for general public comment
not comment on the public hearing items, Todd’s Redi Mix and Everett Fisheries
applications. The public will be invited to comment on these items during the public
hearing. He noted that items on the agenda, later on the agenda, such as the short-term
rentals and towers, could be commented on later as the Committee intends to suspend
the rules and allow the public to comment at that time. He stated that there was no need
to make public comment now on items later on the agenda, although individuals are
welcome to. Asked that individuals use the microphone and state their name clearly.
Lance Bohler shared that he had bought a house in 2007 and recently submitted a permit
for a screened porch on his house. He stated he was told there was no permit for the pole
building to be used for living quarters and a $6700.00 payment was requested.
Mike Furtak reiterated that Lance bought the property in 2007 and stated that there are
two large pole buildings on the property. He noted that two years ago there was a sanitary
permit issued, which was designed for a 1- or 2-bedroom residence. He indicated that this
spring, Lance contacted him to do a screened porch addition. He applied and was told by
the department that there was no approval for the living quarters in the structure and the
department is seeking triple fees for the 3000 square foot building, which equates to
$6750.00. He noted that the property owner is willing to get a permit for the 900 square
foot living quarters but suggested that the department codify an allowance for new owners
who acquire property with unpermitted structures that would allow them to apply within 60
days to acquire permits at today’s cost to address situation, if permittable.
Ray noted there was a discussion later regarding universal waiver of after-the-fact fees for
short-term rentals with conflicting issues similar to this. He noted that the Committee is
aware of these issues, and they do try to address them.
No further public comments.
5. Review of Meeting Format – Chairman Ray explained the procedure of the meeting. He
indicated that there were slips that could be filled out if you wished to speak and it was his
understanding that there is one group that wanted to make comment in a particular order
and he will honor that request when that item is addressed.
Page 2 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
6. Public Hearing:
A. Todd’s Redi Mix Concrete LLC, owner and Jeffery Johnson, Agent requests
an after-the-fact conditional use permit to expand the operation of their [Cement &
Concrete Products Mfg., (Sales, Storage)] operation previously permitted in 2003
Permit #03-0741. The expansion would consist of material stockpiling, equipment
and vehicle parking. The property is in an A-1 zoning district; a 29.10–acre parcel
(Tax ID# 333); described as NE ¼ of the SE ¼ W of Sand Pit Rd less the W 60
Rods of the N 25 Rods of the S 45 Rods in V. 1000, P 670, together with easement
in Section 26, Township 48 North, Range 5 West, Town of Barksdale, Bayfield
County, WI.
Jeff Johnson with ALM Holding Company, agent for Todd’s Redi Mix LLC spoke
on behalf of the request. He summarized the request including that intent is not to
increase operations that occur on Tax ID 332, that no new construction or operation
will occur, and that only two small sections of Tax ID 333 are included in the
conditional use request, the section on the north side would be used for aggregate
material storage for concrete plant and the section on the east side for parking. He
noted that although their plan is to no longer crush at the site, if crushing operations
did occur on Tax ID 332, it would be in accordance with the recent order issued by
the county. He indicated they have posted notice that they will no longer be
accepting concrete from outside sources. Johnson addressed questions and
concerns that had been raised during the application process including air pollution
regulations, control, testing, monitoring, dust mitigation and crystalline silica. He
provided permitting information related to crushing operations and measures taken
to control dust per required regulations. Johnson shared that crystalline silica
monitoring is done per Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and
Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA) requirements and results are
available to their employees. He noted that material storage and parking related to
the proposed request would be covered under existing WDNR environmental
permits. Johnson provided stormwater permit numbers, WI0046507-06-0
associated with maintaining ground water quality and WI-S067857-5 to discharge
stormwater associated with tier 2 industrial facilities. He noted they have
implemented a stormwater management plan to implement best practices. He
shared that truck traffic will decrease since they are no longer accepting recycled
material from outside sources and are locating materials on the north side of the
concrete plant, which will reduce travel by loaders and operators and should
reduce dust and noise. Johnson encouraged neighbors to provide feedback about
dust and noise. He noted that they will comply with the 4000-ton limit outlined in
the conditional use permit record 03-0741 and indicated they do not plan to crush
again at this site. Additionally, he stated they understand that a new conditional
use permit would be required if they wished to exceed this limit.
Ray asked three times if anyone would like to speak in support. No one spoke.
Jim Kreinbring noted that his parents and him own property south of Todd’s. He
stated that he requests the Committee deny the after-the-fact request from Todd’s
Redi Mix and revoke the conditional use permit on Tax ID 332. Jim stated that
Todd’s violated their conditional use permit and expanded without permits. He
raised concerns about unsafe truck traffic, respiratory health issues and
environmental issues caused by dust, and excessive noise.
Page 3 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
Jayson Nohl stated he is a property owner southeast of Todd’s Redi Mix. He noted
concerns about Todd’s exceeding conditional use permit 03-0741, which only
allowed 4000 tons to be crushed every 2-3 years. Nohl shared that a crushing
report from November 2023 indicated they had crushed 11,934 tons, which was a
clear violation of their conditional use permit for Tax ID 332. He noted this crushing
event created a large amount of dust and many neighbors experienced respiratory
distress. Nohl stated that aerial photography indicates that for two decades Todd’s
has illegally operated on Tax ID 333. He believes this is enough evidence to both
support revoking conditional use permit 03-0741 and deny the proposed
conditional use permit for Tax ID 333.
Cherly Nohl shared that she lives north on Highway 13 off Missions Springs Road.
She noted concerns that Todd’s concrete manufacturing operation is an industrial
use that is not consistent with the Ag-1 zoning or the Town of Barksdale rural
character. She noted that Bayfield County established Ag-1 zoning to provide
areas for general agriculture and to prevent the encroachment of scattered
commercial and industrial enterprises, and small lot residential development. Nohl
stated that continuing or expanding Todd’s industrial use is not consistent with the
objective of Ag-1 and is not consistent with the Town of Barksdale Comprehensive
Plan, which states the number one goal is to protect rural character. She raised
concerns about noise from heavy equipment usage, crushing and mixing
operations and truck traffic and she did not feel the proposed berm would be
sufficient to address the noise issues. She stated that is why the Town of Barksdale
Board unanimously voted to recommend denial of the request.
Dave Kreinbring stated he lived at 71165 Sandpit Road in the Town of Barksdale
and raised concerns about safety hazards created by truck traffic. He described
the natural features and rural and residential character of the area and noted that
traffic and noise from Todd’s negatively impacts the area. He fears expansion will
only worsen the situation.
Jayson W Nohl, owner of Mission Springs Resort, shared a brief history and
description of the resort. He indicated that the noise and dust from Todd’s Redi Mix
operations has had a negative impact on his business for the last two decades and
fears the expansion will increase these issues. He shared that he receives
feedback from customers about the noise, traffic and dust created by Todd’s. Nohl
raised concerns about the financial cost of cleaning and maintenance of ventilation
systems due to the dust from Todd’s.
Caren Kreinbring shared that she lives at 71165 Sandpit Road and noted the
negative economic impact that Todd’s has had on Mission Springs Resort, which
was founded long before the concrete plant was opened. She specifically raised
concerns about dust and noise created over the last two decades. Kreinbring also
raised concerns about respiratory distress caused by dust. She stated she did not
feel that it was fair to neighbors to approve the expansion and noted that the
existing conditional use permit for Tax ID 332 should be revoked.
John McCue indicated that he lives at 70390 Range Road in Barksdale and is a
retired physician. He stated that he has concerns about the possible health
ramifications from air and water contamination caused by the concrete
manufacturing occurring in this area. He suggested that individuals living in the
area see their healthcare professional.
Page 4 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
Jim Kreinbring spoke again, stating that the application does not include sufficient
details regarding proper management of dust and stormwater. He noted that proper
stormwater management is important given that wetlands are present on the
property and the property is within 1000 feet of Lake Superior. Additionally, he
noted that the water table is high, and neighbors are concerned that run-off from
Todd’s may contaminate the ground water given that many households have
relatively shallow drinking wells.
Susan Sander who lives 71730 Range Road in Ashland noted her strong
opposition to Todd’s Redi Mix request. She noted her concerns about approval of
another after-the-fact permit and the negative impacts from dust and noise created
by the Todd’s Redi Mix operation on air and water quality and property values.
Sander suggested that the Committee deny the permit application and have
Todd’s consider an alternative location for their operation.
Marsha Sorensen stated she lives at 71210 State Highway 13 southeast of Todd’s
Redi Mix. She shared that she worries about the safety of living in this area. She
noted that her husband suffers from chronic allergies and has had three sinus
surgeries. Sorensen also raised concerns about water quality related to leaching
from chemicals used by concrete manufacturing. She indicated that she does not
support any expansion of this business.
Ray asked three times if any would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke.
Discussion ended.
B. Everett Fisheries, Inc, owner and Jeff Johnson, agent request a conditional use
permit to allow operation of a Fish or Meat (Wholesale, Storage, or Curing)
business that includes two existing buildings (2,200 sq ft and 8,300 sq ft) with
parking and storage area and to construct a new storage building (3,200 sq ft) for
storage of fish. Property consists of (2) parcels (with wetlands present). Parcel #1
is a Commercial zoning district; a 2.96–acre parcel (Tax ID# 28442), described as
a parcel in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 406 P. 229. Parcel #2 is a Commercial
zoning district; a 1.94-acres parcel (Tax ID# 28445), described as a parcel in SE
¼ of the SW ¼ and the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 255 P. 284; both parcels are in
Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield
County, WI.
No one spoke on behalf of the request.
Ray asked three times if anyone would like to speak in support. No one spoke.
Ray asked three times if any would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke.
Discussion ended.
7. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Pocernich made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Strand seconded.
Motion carried, 5-0. Adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Page 5 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Ray called the meeting to
order at 5:00 pm.
9. Roll Call: Crandall, Pocernich, Ray, Rekemeyer, and Strand - All present.
Others present: Ruth Hulstrom-Director, Alessandro Hall-AZA, Mary Dougherty-District
2 Supervisor, Anne Marie Coy-Public Health Director, and John Carlson-Corp Counsel.
10. New Business
A. Todd’s Redi Mix Concrete LLC, owner and Jeffery Johnson, Agent requests
an after-the-fact conditional use permit to expand the operation of their [Cement &
Concrete Products Mfg., (Sales, Storage)] operation previously permitted in 2003
Permit #03-0741. The expansion would consist of material stockpiling, equipment
and vehicle parking. The property is in an A-1 zoning district; a 29.10–acre parcel
(Tax ID# 333); described as NE ¼ of the SE ¼ W of Sand Pit Rd less the W 60
Rods of the N 25 Rods of the S 45 Rods in V. 1000, P 670, together with easement
in Section 26, Township 48 North, Range 5 West, Town of Barksdale, Bayfield
County, WI.
File Report: Hulstrom informed the committee that the item consists of an after-
the-fact conditional use permit for a cement and concretes products manufacturing
use consisting of an expansion for material stockpiling and vehicle and equipment
parking on Tax ID 333. The property is a 29.10-acre parcel zoned Agricultural-1
located in the shoreland zone with wetlands present. She noted that this expansion
is not associated with conditional use permit 03-0741 for temporary crushing, which
allowed 4000 tons of concrete to be crushed every 2-3 years. Hulstrom stated that
conditional use permit 97-6357 was granted for the Redi Mix cement plant to be
located on Tax ID 332 and is what is proposed to be expanded onto Tax ID 333.
She noted that the town recommended disapproval and that there was
correspondence opposed to the item and a request to have Dennis Pocernich
recuse himself from the decision-making process.
Pocernich stated he would not be recusing himself because there was no conflict
of interest. Strand noted that the application request did not include a request for
any crushing. Ray asked whether the ongoing correspondence with Todd’s Redi
Mix was related to this permit request or the conditional use permit on the other
parcel. Hulstrom stated that the correspondence provided to the Committee at the
meeting was in response to questions the department had asked Todd’s related to
silica dust, stored materials that might contaminate water, and noise.
Strand motioned to approve the After-The-Fact permit for the CUP or the
Conditional Use Permit for Todd’s Redi Mix, Tax ID parcel 333 for material
stockpiling and equipment and vehicle parking only on 2.81 acres in the northern
portion and 0.92 acres in the eastern portion of the parcel as shown on Figure 2 of
the application with these conditions:
1. That an 8-foot natural earthen berm shown on Figure 2 of the
application be installed by October 31, 2024.
2. Approve for a 10-year duration.
Crandall seconded. Discussion occurred. Crandall noted he understands the
request is just for stockpiling and parking but is concerned about the impact of the
Page 6 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
dust on the neighbors but unsure whether any conditions could be added related
to dust control given that crushing seems to cause dust to fly everywhere.
Pocernich motioned to suspend the rules and allow Jeff Johnson
representative to answer that question at this time. Rekemeyer second. Motion
passed, 5-0.
Jeff Johnson with ALM Holding Company and agent for Todd’s Redi Mix, asked
Crandall to repeat the question. Crandall asked, based on concerns raised by the
public tonight, whether there were additional measures that could be taken to
control dust when doing crushing or other operations. Johnson noted that they
were not planning to crush anymore, and Wisconsin DNR requires fugitive dust
control and best practices, which they do comply with. He stated that he is not
aware of any other conditions to recommend. Crandall asked if the crushing was
associated with the concrete that was being accepted. Johnson noted that
concrete crushed was both Todd’s recycled concrete and other recycled concrete.
Carlson asked whether Todd’s was willing to forfeit the CUP for crushing on the
other parcel if they were not going to crush anymore. Johnson indicated that he
would have to reconvene with the company, but it is a potential. Rekemeyer asked
whether a condition that no crushing could occur on Tax ID 332 was appropriate.
Johnson stated that he would have to go back to the company to determine if this
would be acceptable for Tax ID 332, but no crushing operations will occur on Tax
ID 333. Further discussion occurred regarding dust issues and Todd’s commitment
to being a good neighbor such as adding filtering equipment for further dust control.
Strand indicated that he did not believe they could impose conditions on previous
permits that were issued that are not on the agenda. Ray asked whether the
department was continuing conversations with the applicant regarding their
operations on Tax ID 332, noting that the property owner has agreed to comply
with the existing conditional use permit to not exceed 4000 tons. Hulstrom stated
that the department has been in contact with Todd’s to make sure they comply with
the existing conditional use permit that had been issued.
Pocernich motioned to suspend the rules and allow Jayson Nohl to
comment, and we limit to that, at this time. Strand seconded. Motion passed, 5-
0.
Jayson Nohl alleged that dust is created when recycled concrete is stockpiled and
moved and indicated they use nothing to mitigate this dust.
Pocernich motioned to amend Strand’s motion to require, in addition to the
8-foot earthen berm, that native shrubs and conifers be established on the top of
that berm. Crandall seconded. Discussion occurred regarding when the shrubs
and conifers needed to be installed and it was determined to be immediately
following construction of the berm. Vote: Crandall – Yes, Pocernich – Yes, Ray –
Yes, Rekemeyer – No, Strand – Yes. Motion passed, 4-1.
Ray reiterated Stand’s original motion, which is to approve the after-the-fact CUP
with the condition of an 8-foot earthen berm being established by October 31, 2024,
and a 10 duration year duration on that CUP with the amendment. Vote: Crandall
– Yes, Pocernich – Yes, Ray – Yes, Rekemeyer – No, Strand – Yes. Motion
passed, 4-1.
Page 7 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
B. Everett Fisheries, Inc, owner and Jeff Johnson, agent request a conditional use
permit to allow operation of a Fish or Meat (Wholesale, Storage, or Curing)
business that includes two existing buildings (2,200 sq ft and 8,300 sq ft) with
parking and storage area and to construct a new storage building (3,200 sq ft) for
storage of fish. Property consists of (2) parcels (with wetlands present). Parcel #1
is a Commercial zoning district; a 2.96–acre parcel (Tax ID# 28442), described as
a parcel in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 406 P. 229. Parcel #2 is a Commercial
zoning district; a 1.94-acres parcel (Tax ID# 28445), described as a parcel in SE
¼ of the SW ¼ and the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, in V. 255 P. 284; both parcels are in
Section 28, Township 50 North, Range 8 West, Town of Port Wing, Bayfield
County, WI.
File Report: Hall informed the committee that the item includes a request from
Everett Fisheries and Jeff Johnson, authorized agent, for a conditional use permit
to construct a 3,200 square foot pole shed for storing fish, salt and other materials
associated with the business. He noted that the subject property is comprised of
two tax parcels collectively totaling 5 acres and located in the Town of Port Wing.
Hall stated that the subject property is zoned commercial, and the lot is currently
developed with two buildings associated with the existing business. He also noted
that the Town of Port Wing recommended approval of the request.
Pocernich asked whether the building met wetland setbacks. Hall indicated that it
did.
Pocernich motioned to approve the conditional use permit for Everett
Fisheries, Inc. for operation of fish and meat business and to construct a storage
structure for the storage of fish in a commercial zoning district in the
comprehensive plan and consideration of the town board recommendation, and
that’s it. Rekemeyer seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
11. Previous Business:
(A) Petition to Amend Ord - [Ord Amnt] - Title 13-1-35; 13-l-4(a), 13-l-62(a)
(tabled/postponed February 15, 2024 & March 21, 2024 & April 18, 2024) – short-
term rentals
Ray noted that the committee had held a public hearing on the short-term rental
ordinance amendment and discussed it at length but apparently there is new
information.
Hulstrom informed the committee that the item has been before the committee
many times and the department and Corp Counsel have been working on it for at
least a year and a half. She noted that questions and concerns were raised at the
April 18th meeting related to annual review, annual fees, and maximum occupancy
being set by the Private On-site Wastewater Treatment System (POWTS) design.
She shared that using the POWTS design to set maximum occupancy will limit
excessive occupancy in rural residential areas and decrease parking, traffic, and
noise complaints, early failure of systems, and uphold state and county POWTS
regulations. She also noted that current short-term rental permits issued include a
condition that sets maximum occupancy based on the POWTS design. Hulstrom
indicated that the reason to have this language in the proposed ordinance is to be
transparent with short-term rental operators about how maximum occupancy will
Page 8 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
be set. She shared that other surrounding counties including Sawyer, Oneida,
Walworth, Iron, Vilas, Douglas, and Ashland all set maximum occupancy based on
the size of the POWTS. Additionally, she noted that all but Ashland and Douglas
Counties have a short-term rental ordinance. Hulstrom indicated all surrounding
counties have an annual review and fee. She shared that Bayfield County has a
hire percentage of seasonal housing usage when compared to the national
average based on 2015-2019 Census data and noted that this has increased in
the last several years. She indicated that this may have led to the increased
number of complaints about short-term rentals the department has received. She
noted that the annual review and fee will allow the department to better manage
complaints regarding short-term rentals. Hulstrom shared that all other counties
in the surrounding area have an annual review and fee, ranging from $250 to $100.
Anne Marie Coy from Bayfield County Public Health noted that the Health
Department would support the zoning ordinance for setting occupancy based on
POWTS. She shared that their code, ATCP 72, uses square foot of cubic air space
to set maximum occupancy, which would typically exceed maximum occupancy of
the POWTS. Coy noted that the fees their department collects are for the State of
Wisconsin contract and the fees collected can only be used for enforcing state
code so they could not enforce local ordinances.
Pocernich asked Coy to clarify fees collected. Coy noted that they retain a portion
of the fee collected, 11 percent goes to the state, but those fees can only be used
to enforce ATCP 72, they cannot use it to enforce a local code. She shared that
the fees collected cover staff time and mileage. Ray asked whether Public Health
would set maximum occupancy for short-term rentals not on private septic
systems. Coy stated that they would unless the local municipality set a lesser
maximum occupancy if they had their own code. Crandall asked where the
information for the sizing of the POWTS could be found. Coy stated that she
believes it is set by zoning at the time the house is built and if zoning did not have
a record a system verification could be done. Further discussion occurred
regarding how a system verification could be completed if no record of the system
existed. Ray noted that the department had previously shared that they have
records for systems installed post 1970. Hall noted that there are provisions in the
code that require a system verification if a change of use occurs, which would
include change to a short-term rental use. He noted that the homeowner would be
required to have a master plumber submit paperwork to the county for review.
Crandall asked how Public Health fees for short-term rentals are charged. Coy
indicated that they have an annual license fee that is due by June 30th which covers
Public Health review under ATCP 72, but it cannot be used to enforce other codes.
She stated that Desi can still complete the zoning review, but the fee associated
cannot be covered by Public Health fees.
Pocernich motioned to allow Carla Burst to address the Committee at this
time. Rekemeyer seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Carla Burst noted concerns about the difference between Public Health and
Zoning standards related to short-term rentals. She stated that water quality
concerns are irrelevant related to setting maximum occupancy based on POWTS
for short-term rentals. She went on to state that when a septic tank is full, it has an
alarm, and you pump it, and the service provider notifies the Zoning Department.
Burst noted that Public Health tests the water every year. She shared that
Page 9 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
rescinding existing permits is unjust and burdensome and she does not believe the
applicant should have to provide documentation that Zoning Department already
has record of. She noted that increasing fees would inhibit her from operating.
Crandall asked for clarification on why Public Health and Zoning have different
standards. Ray tried to clarify why Public Health and Zoning have different
occupancy standards. Coy stated that there are already two different systems for
calculating occupancy based on the jurisdiction. Carlson noted that general zoning
only applies to unincorporated jurisdictions and the Cities of Bayfield and
Washburn and Village of Mason are incorporated so general zoning does not apply
to them. Additionally, he noted that the Town of Pilsen never adopted county
zoning so general zoning would not apply to them. Coy indicated that she believes
Ms. Burst was referring to the different standards that Zoning and Public Health
used to have regarding Bed and Breakfasts. Further discussion occurred regarding
why the proposed short-term rental ordinance amendment was developed
including addressing complaints about excessive occupancy, inconsistencies
between Public Health and Zoning, and lengthy and unnecessary permitting
process. Strand clarified that the proposed language would have two standards
for setting occupancy, either based on POWTS or ATCP 72 standards. Pocernich
asked if this would be overruling state standards. Hulstrom stated she could not
speak to overruling, but Zoning would be setting standards based on the POWTS
design. Coy noted that Public Health does not set occupancy but a section of the
code states occupants for a sleeping room cannot exceed 400 cubic feet for an
adult and 200 cubic feet for a child. She stated this would allow them to require
someone to remove beds from a room if the number in the room exceeds this
standard, but they would not set an occupancy for the house. Pocernich asked if
Public Health concerns themselves with the septic system. Coy noted that the state
code does not cover the septic system but would allow other local ordinances to
set occupancy under other standards. Carlson confirmed that local jurisdictions
can be more restrictive than ATCP 72 related to setting maximum occupancy.
Hulstrom noted that short-term rentals fall under the hotel/motel licensing program
as a tourist rooming house. She stated that a hotel or motel on a POWTS would
have to be designed per state requirements, so the Zoning Department supports
the proposed ordinance language for short-term rentals because it creates
occupancy standards based on state regulations. Dougherty noted that she
represents constituents in Bayfield and the town and City and believes that the
department has agreed to inform the town or neighbors when a new short-term
rental is approved. She asked whether this could be codified in the proposed
ordinance language. Ray stated that department policy would be to inform the town
and neighbors about short-term rentals applications. Hulstrom clarified that it
would be the town only and upon approval of the application. Further discussion
occurred regarding language that required the department to inform towns when a
new short-term rental is approved. Coy noted that the state has a list of
establishments with licenses on their website that is updated quarterly. Strand
asked for the definition of “Occupant” to be clearer in case they were to set
maximum occupancy standards. He stated that his view is that an occupant is
someone who spends the night or sleeps there. Further discussion occurred
regarding what an occupant would or should be and whether to let the towns
regulate short-term rentals instead of the county Zoning Department. Dougherty
shared that the county has the Granicus program, which tracks the number of
occupants booking a short-term rental and could be used to help verify the short-
term rental is compliant with the maximum occupancy set. Hulstrom stated that
the department is currently placing a maximum occupancy on short-term rental
Page 10 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
permits based on the POWTS design and Desi has identified two or three as she
has been setting up the database that are exceeding the maximum occupancy.
She noted the intention of including it in the proposed ordinance language is to be
transparent with and set consistent standards for short-term rental operators.
Strand stated that he would like to postpone action until the next meeting to get
clarification on the definition of “Occupant” and have time to digest the new
information the department provided. Discussion occurred regarding how
maximum occupancy with the proposed ordinance would be set. Rekemeyer
asked whether they could make a recommendation with amended language
highlighted and or colored with a definition of “Occupant” now or would they have
to wait until the next meeting. Further discussion occurred regarding whether there
was or was not a motion on the table and Strand indicated that he had made a
statement and not a motion.
Pocernich motioned to postpone this short-term rental until next month.
Discussion occurred and Pocernich clarified that postponement was for further
discussion of occupancy. Strand seconded. Motion passed, 4-1.
Pocernich asked staff to provide new information ASAP. Carlson stated that he
would work with Fred. Rekemeyer noted that another reason it would be good to
have a maximum occupancy set is for safety, so Fire and EMS service know how
many people are in the house.
No further discussion.
A. Petition to Amend Ord - [Ord Amnt] - Title 13-l-4(a)(57m); 13-1-36; 13-l-43(d)(l),
13- l-62(a) – only addressing mobile towers, shipping containers addressed on
April 18, 2024, meeting (tabled/postponed April 18, 2024)
Ray noted that he would like to address this item before taking a break because
he knows that several people are present who are interested in addressing it.
Carlson informed the committee that the item was amending the ordinance related
to mobile towers. He stated that the matrix in 13-1-62(a) does not specifically
include mobile towers, only telecommunication towers, which are only allowed in
certain districts with a conditional use permit. He noted that the matrix must not
have been updated when Section 13-1-43 was added because this section only
requires a land use permit for new towers. Carlson stated that at this past
February’s meeting the Committee asked staff to address this conflict and
ambiguity in the ordinance. He indicated that the proposed language would
definitively require a conditional use permit for all new towers. He noted that the
proposed language is compliant with Wisconsin Statute 66.0404 and other
jurisdictions require a conditional use permit for towers.
Strand motioned to forward to the County Board with a recommendation to
approve ordinance amendments to Section 13-1-43(d)(1) and 13-1-62(a) for
mobile towers and mobile tower collocates and amend Section 13-1-43(d)(6) by
removing $3000 from the fees and replacing it with “the fee for the permit is as set
forth on the fee schedule in Reference Document A on file at the Bayfield County
Planning and Zoning Department”. Strand summarized the motion stating that it
would require new towers get both a conditional use permit and land use permit,
which would allow the public and town to engage in the process. He noted that only
Page 11 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
a land use permit would be required for a collocate. Rekemeyer seconded.
Discussion occurred regarding the difference between a tower, collocate 1, and
collocate 2. Staff clarified that a collocate 1 was a substantial modification, as
defined in Wisconsin Statute 66.0404, to an existing tower and a collocate 2 could
be the addition of another mobile service provider or other equipment. Pocernich
asked if it was a substantial modification whether they would have to go through
the whole process. Carlson stated they would have to go through the whole
process of getting a land use under 13-1-43 but also noted that collocation 1 was
being amended to require a CUP. Pocernich inquired whether the Committee
could deny a tower under the proposed change. Carlson stated that you must have
substantial evidence to deny a CUP. Motion passed, 5-0.
Pocernich motioned to suspend the rules to allow Esme Martinson to
speak. Crandall seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Esme Martinson shared that she has been following the Committee meetings for
a couple of months and this item is a personal and community issue for individuals
in the room. She indicated that she has hired Mr. Lysiak, an independent FCC
expert, who typically works for local jurisdictions and encouraged the county to
utilize his expertise after the meeting. Ray stated that they had a motion on the
floor and a second and are looking at the CUP process for towers and Class 1
collocates.
Rekemeyer noted that there was someone online with their hand raised. Joe
Cincotta identified himself as an attorney that had been retained by Ms. Martinson
and asked to speak.
Pocernich motioned to suspend the rules to allow Joe Cincotta to speak.
Rekemeyer seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Joe Cincotta noted that he is the attorney for Ms. Martinson and practices land
use development including non-industry cell tower siting. He stated that his opinion
is that the Committee should recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment for requiring a CUP for towers, however, he indicated current
ordinance could be applied to require a CUP. Cincotta noted that this could be
applied to the current TowerNorth application and if they disagreed with being
required to seek a CUP, they could appeal to the Board of Adjustment. He noted
the following four points; 1) current county ordinances already require a CUP for
towers, 2) per Section 13-1-20, the comprehensive plan should apply to all land
use permit reviews including cell towers, 3) support for proposed cell tower
amendment because it makes CUP requirement more explicit, and 4)
consideration by the county regarding placing a moratorium on cell towers so a
more detailed cell tower ordinance beyond just requiring a CUP can be drafted.
Cincotta noted that communities deny CUPs when towers are not a good fit for a
community. He also stated that tower companies want towers, but state statute
favors collocation and it’s important to determine whether a new tower is needed.
No further discussion. Ray called for a roll call vote on Strand’s motion. Vote:
Crandall – Yes, Pocernich – Yes, Ray – Yes, Rekemeyer – Yes, Strand – Yes.
Motion passed, 5-0.
Ray called adjournment for 5-minute break at 6:35 pm.
Page 12 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
Ray reconvened the meeting at 6:47 pm.
12. Other Business
C. Minutes of Previous Meeting: (April 18, 2024) and (revised March 21, 2024)
Ray asked for a motion on April 18th meeting minutes.
Strand noted that one correction is needed on page 9 of the minutes, motion
should be corrected to state 13-1-36 instead of 13-4-36.
Strand motioned to approve the minutes with that correction. Discussion
occurred regarding who the second was to the inaudible second in drafted minutes.
Pocernich stated he was the second on the inaudible second in the April 18th
drafted minutes. Ray noted that there are two corrections to Strand’s motion to
approve the minutes, including that Pocernich was the second to Rekemeyer’s
motion to suspend the rules. Pocernich seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Ray introduced Item D and asked Carlson to give a summary of the request, but
Hulstrom interjected noting that there were revised March 21, 2024 meeting
minutes for the Committee to address.
Pocernich motioned to approve the revised minutes from the March 21st
meeting. Strand seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
D. Discussion and Possible Action regarding whether Sec. 13-1-21(c)(2) applies to
land use permit review of Mobile Towers.
Carlson informed the committee that Section 13-1-21(c)(2) contains decision
making considerations for all land use permits including consistency with County
Comprehensive and Land Use Plan. He indicated that if this was applied literally it
would require staff to apply the 250-page comprehensive plan and determine if
each application is consistent with that plan. Carlson stated that theoretically the
comprehensive plan is used to inform the zoning ordinances. He indicated that the
question is how the committee wants the department to apply this section to all the
applications that come in.
Crandall stated he supported getting rid of (2)d because the ordinance should
have been constructed in compliance with the plan. Carlson noted this item arose
because of a tower application. He also indicated that the county had adopted a
new comprehensive plan a couple of months ago, but no new zoning code exists
yet. Dougherty stated that she understands department workload but believes the
recent comprehensive plan should be utilized for all applications reviewed.
Carlson noted concerns about applying the comprehensive plan to every
application review because staff or anyone could pick parts of it to support or not
the application. Further discussion occurred regarding interpretation of
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance language. Strand noted that the
comprehensive plan and zoning code are not aligned and suggested using the
Classification List and if a special or conditional use permit is needed then utilize
the comprehensive plan for review. Ray asked about what to do if one part of the
code stated a use was conditional and another permitted. Pocernich noted that
Page 13 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
his understanding of a comprehensive plan is it is a guide or tool not a zoning
ordinance and indicated that he supported removing this language in the
ordinance. Carlson reiterated that this is why the committee is being asked to
provide their input at this time, to determine whether the department should apply
this section to application review. Further discussion occurred about what could or
could not be considered at this time given how the item was described on the
agenda and the difference between town and county comprehensive plans.
Hulstrom noted the difference between a Zoning District Map and Future Land
Use Map. Crandall noted that the town comprehensive plan or recommendation
would not apply to every application so why would it make sense to apply the
county comprehensive plan to every application, but Carlson noted that all
applications do not go to the town for review. Ray noted that there were requests
from citizens to speak and asked for a motion to suspend the rules to allow for
public comment. No committee members motioned to suspend the rules. Ray
asked for a motion to provide direction to the department on this item. Strand noted
it was not a motion, but he wished to reiterate that he supports applying the
comprehensive plan when a conditional or special permit is required. Ray again
asked for a motion to suspend the rules to allow for public comment. Pocernich
clarified that during this portion of the meeting, a motion to suspend the rules is
required each time someone from the public wishes to speak. He indicated that a
separate motion is required each time someone wishes to speak. Further
discussion occurred related to the current application review for mobile towers, and
it was made clear that only a land use review is required for mobile towers at this
time. Additionally, it was noted that the large audience is present because of
concerns about a particular tower proposed in the Town of Russell going through
a land use versus conditional use permitting process.
Pocernich motioned to allow one person, Esme Martinson, to represent
the people. Rekemeyer seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
Esme Martinson noted how unfair she feels trying to speak on behalf of everyone
present. She shared that there is an attorney and FCC expert present at the
meeting. She stated concerns about allowing the Town of Russell tower through a
land use permit and indicated that other governing bodies require a conditional use
permit. She indicated her opinion is that county ordinance supports requiring a
conditional use process for new towers. Martinson noted concerns about the
impact the proposed 300-foot tower would have on her farm, the scenic byway,
and the national park and the application lacking a study or documentation to justify
the need for the tower.
Ray asked for direction from the committee, otherwise he noted the department
would just be taking the discussion under advisement. Carlson and Hulstrom
noted that the department has 90 days upon receival of a complete application to
make a decision on the application and noted it was deemed complete
approximately a month prior. Ray noted that the committee will generally suspend
the rules to allow individuals to speak.
Pocernich motioned to allow 15 minutes of discussion on this matter in
relation to the towers, 3 minutes per person. Ray noted that this is what is allowed
during the public comment portion of the meeting. Strand seconded. Motion
passed, 5-0.
Page 14 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
Ray requested that individual’s line-up, not repeat what other individuals have said,
and state name and address for the record.
Garrett Lysiak, President of Owl Engineering, a communications consulting firm
out of Minneapolis, stated he is a registered professional engineer in Wisconsin
and Minnesota and reviews applications for counties. Lysiak noted that over the
last 35 years of reviewing tower applications most jurisdictions require a conditional
use permit, aside from towers under 50 feet with 5G, because they are all different.
He indicated that he reviewed the Town of Russell tower application and felt it was
incomplete because they did not provide documentation to justify the need for the
tower. He noted coverage information was not supplied. He stated that if he was
reviewing this tower application, he would deny it. Lysiak stated that it might still
be accepted but more information would be needed first. He suggested rejecting
the application, placing a moratorium on towers, and then getting the ordinance
amendment passed to require a conditional use process.
Carla Burst noted her concern about not allowing individuals who have built their
lives over the last 30 years in the area adequate time to speak. She raised
concerns about the negative impact the tower would have on the adjacent historic
farm site and noted that the Town of Russell comprehensive plan supports
agriculture, preservation of historical sites, and having a light imprint on the
environment. She also raised the question as to who the tower would serve. She
provided traffic count data which indicated that since 2006 traffic on the road the
tower is proposed off has steadily decreased and is the lowest of any traffic count
data collected for all roads in the county. Burst asked to have the comprehensive
plan vision statement upheld, which states rural landscapes will be maintained.
She also noted a study from 2008 that indicated that 82% of residents wanted
better cell service in developed towns. She asked to have the county not approve
the permit for the tower on the Weidinger property on Tax ID 29400.
Ted Gephart stated he lives in Bayfield and agrees with Ms. Burst’s statements.
He noted he opposes the approval of this tower.
Peter Schau with Terra Consulting Group who represents TowerNorth and Verizon
stated that they submitted an application based upon the department’s direction,
which was a land use permit process. He noted that the application requirements
were clear and concise, and their application was deemed complete by staff. He
raised concern about the possibility of applying the comprehensive plan to some
but not all applications. Schau stated that there was a need for the tower, and they
supplied the information.
Josh Pearson indicated that he lived on the historic home site adjacent to the
proposed tower site. He requested to have the county utilize the conditional use
process already in place for review of the tower and allow staff to utilize the
comprehensive plan to make their decision to approve or deny towers. He stated
that he can see nine cellphone towers from his farm that are within 3 miles and
noted three are lit 24/7 with white strobes and amber. He alleged that many of
these are vacant and have space for additional carriers. Pearson indicated that he
was a 1st generation farmer focused on sustainable agriculture and described his
impact on the community. He reiterated his support for the use of the
comprehensive plan to make a decision on tower applications. He also noted the
importance of reviewing proliferation zones and elevation studies when siting
Page 15 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
towers. He stated that the tower proposed on Turner Road will not even clear the
first ridge which is 3 miles away.
Julie Casper asked the committee to consider the negative impact that towers
have on property values, noting that she has been unable to sell her property
because there is a tower so close. She indicated that she has listed it three times
over the years and never received one viewing because of the tower.
Joe Cincotta reiterated that he is representing Esme. He stated that the county
ordinances already require this tower to get a CUP. He indicated that not
considering a cell tower a telecommunications tower, as outlined in the zoning
matrix, is misinterpreted. He noted that the zoning matrix indicates that a
telecommunications tower requires a CUP in the agriculture district. Cincotta
noted that 13-1-21 requires that staff consider the comprehensive plan when
reviewing all permits. He indicated that it may apply, minimally apply, or be
consistent with the permit request.
Ray noted that they were over 15 minutes, and he was closing public comment
and going back committee discussion. Rekemeyer stated that she heard the
audience and wanted to make a motion to address this item but asked for
assistance with this. Ray indicated that she should consider the description of the
item on the agenda. Further discussion occurred related to making an appropriate
motion including whether requiring a CUP could be included in a motion or rejecting
the permit and then place a moratorium on towers. Ray noted that it would not be
appropriate to add CUP language or moratorium language to the motion on this
item but could motion to indicate that section did applies to permit review of mobile
towers.
Rekemeyer motioned that Section 13-1-21 applies to land use permit
review of mobile towers. Ray reiterated the motion noting that it was to apply
Section 13-1-21 to the review of land use review of mobile towers and directing the
department staff accordingly. Crandall seconded. Discussion occurred with
Pocernich asking why we are making this motion given that the language is in the
ordinance already. He stated that he only feels a motion is needed if they want to
eliminate this language. Rekemeyer stated that her intention in making the motion
was to give the Planning and Zoning Department and Committee and the county
board the ability to regulate mobile towers. Strand noted that Rekemeyer’s motion
would be reaffirming that the comprehensive plan is used in the decision review
process. Rekemeyer noted that she wants to see that. Pocernich noted his
concern that applying it to just mobile tower application review is inconsistent; it
should apply to all land use permit review. Further discussion occurred as to
whether the motion needed to be made. Vote: Crandall – Yes, Pocernich – Yes,
Ray – Yes, Rekemeyer – Yes, Strand – Yes. Motion passed, 5-0.
Rekemeyer indicated her appreciation to the committee for helping her with
drafting the motion given that this was only her second meeting.
F. Discussion and Possible Action regarding universal waiver of after-the-fact fee
for short- term rental permits with valid Public Health licenses until June 30, 2025
Hulstrom noted that as Desi is creating a database to better track Public Health
and Zoning approvals for short-term rentals. She indicated that the department is
Page 16 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
finding that there were a number of short-term rentals that have Public Health
approval but no Zoning approval. She indicated that it is triple the fee for after-the-
fact permits. Pocernich stated that the committee understood the request.
Pocernich motioned to approve the waiver of the after-the-fact fee for
short-term rental permits with valid Public Health licenses until June 30, 2025.
Crandall seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
G. Discussion and Possible Action regarding Fee Schedule Update for Short-Term
- Rental Fees and Mobile Tower/Collocation Fees
Hulstrom stated that her preference is to separate action on short-term rental fees
from the mobile tower/collocation fees since no action was taken on the short-term
rental ordinance. She noted that the proposed fees would be $3000.00 for towers
and $2500.00 for collocation 1 applications, which should align with the tower
ordinance amendment language that was passed with Strand’s amendment. She
then noted uncertainty about what the proposed fees for mobile towers and
collocation 1 would be given the discussion that occurred on the mobile tower
ordinance amendment. Ray asked why they would not be the same.
Pocernich motioned to allow Mike Cariveau to speak. Crandall seconded.
Motion passed, 5-0.
Mike Cariveau noted that his attorney had met with the Public Service Commission
recently as to whether Bayfield Wireless tower applications could be handled
independently from mobile tower applications. He stated that he was told Bayfield
Wireless applications could not be handled independently and this puts the
ordinance adopted in 2018 for Broadband and Telecommuter Forward in jeopardy.
He suggested the county research this matter further. Cariveau indicated that
there was a $100 fee of some sort that the state indicated could not be exceeded
but did not describe what the fee was for. He shared that this information is not
definitive but that this fee change has a potential impact on another ordinance the
county has. Carlson stated that the Broadband Forward Ordinance is a problem
but will be dealt with separately and does not impact the committee taking action
on this item. He noted that the county has a contract with Bayfield Wireless and
will work with Mike Cariveau.
Hulstrom explained that the state limits the fee amount that can be charged for
mobile tower approvals to $3000.00 and a CUP application is $500.00 so the
remaining fee amount that could be collected is $2500.00 for the land use review.
Ray asked why collocation 1 is proposed to be $3000.00 and he did not understand
why given that the tower ordinance amendment language forwarded to the Board
was to require a CUP for collocation 1 requests. Hulstrom indicated that she would
need to go back and listen to the discussion and motion. Ray and Carlson indicated
that they could make both $2500.00. Committee had discussion with an audience
member. Further discussion occurred regarding the need to update the fee
schedule for mobile tower and collocation 1 applications and ability to waive fees
if needed. Carlson stated that the committee should act on fee updates for mobile
towers given they recommended approval of the tower ordinance amendment that
references the fee schedule document.
Page 17 of 17
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – May 16, 2024
Crandall motioned to set the fee at $2500.00 for tower siting and
collocation 1. Strand seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
E. Committee members discussion regarding matters of the Planning and
Zoning Department
No discussion.
13. Monthly Report
Nothing done with monthly report. Pocernich noted that they received the monthly report
in the DropBox but have been told not to do anything about it.
14. Adjournment
Pocernich motioned to adjourn. Crandall seconded. Ray called adjournment at
8:05 pm.
Prepared by REH on 5/22/2024
Reviewed by REH on 5/29/2024
Sent to PZC on 5/29/2024
Uploaded to Drop Box on 5/29/2024
Final Approval on 6/20/2024
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2024/#5May