HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Committee - Minutes - 6/20/2024
Page 1 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
MINUTES
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
JUNE 20, 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: Director - Ruth Hulstrom, Tracy Pooler - AZA, Desi Niewinski -
Secretary, Mark Abeles-Allison - County Administrator, and John Carlson - Corp
Counsel.
3. Affidavit of Publication: Hulstrom showed the audience the affidavit of publication and
the certified mailing receipts for June 4th and June 11th for one public hearing item.
4. Public Comment – Cindy Dillenschneider shared that she had sent the department an
email concerning 13-1-35(f)4.b, which states that no fireworks are allowed unless
permitted by the town. She explained that there is a state statute, state statute 167.10(3),
which concerns the restrictions on fireworks, and she would like to see the language of
our short-term rental ordinance be more reflective of the state’s. She suggested two
possible revisions; the first was to require that the responsible individual obtain a valid
permit from the appropriate governmental designee, which is already required by the state
statute. The second was to require explicit permission from the property owner or their
designee since these are short-term rentals. She expressed her concern that many people
shooting off fireworks are not aware of current fire conditions.
Charles Finn identified himself as the Chairman of the Town of Bayfield Plan Commission
and stated that he was there to speak about both the tower and short-term rental issues.
He stated that the feelings of the Town have already been communicated to the Committee
and that he would like to reinforce how strongly they feel about public input about decisions
such as cell tower location and permitting. He went on to state that the Town of Bayfield
already has a short-term rental ordinance that has been on the books for a while now and
that there were some serious concerns that he wanted to reinforce. He explained that
short-term rentals can have a huge impact on towns and the residents in the proximity of
them, and that the change from a residential to what is effectively a commercial property
can have a deleterious effect on people who are living near it. He stated that the Town
feels very strongly that they are the “knowledge masters” of their community, and before
a short-term rental goes in that they should be notified so that they can offer their wealth
of knowledge in assistance to the County. He believed that there should be a solution that
does not exclude the community and Town from the decision process. He continued by
relaying a concern from the Bayfield Fire Department that the fire inspections conducted
on short-term rentals are not done by a National Fire Protection Association-accredited
inspector. He expressed concern that streamlining the short-term rental process would
worsen the housing crisis happening in the Town of and City of Bayfield, stating that there
are no people to hire because they cannot afford to live here, and, even if they could, there
is no available housing stock. He explained that it’s a no brainer to open a short-term rental
because you can buy a house and turn it into a short-term rental and immediately begin
making money off of it. He apologized for his choice of words before saying that the new
ordinance would be “aiding and abetting” this housing crisis. He concluded by raising
Page 2 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
concern about enforcement of short-term rental violations, which he stated is currently
based on “nuisances”. He went on to state that the word “nuisance” is notoriously difficult
to enforce in a legal sense. He suggested using something similar to Wright County, MN,
which has a short-term rental enforcement system that is based on complaints. If a
neighbor calls in a complaint, the owner of the property subject to the complaint has 1 hour
to reply to that complaint and, if they don’t, it’s a nuisance. If there are 3 nuisances, “you’re
out.”
Esme Martinson stated that she was from the Town of Russell and wanted to express her
support for the proposed new process for cell towers. She expressed her support, but also
would like to see the process go a step further. She explained that Douglas County,
Sawyer County, and the City of Superior have a committee which decides what they want
to see, what doesn’t help them, and what they don’t want. She explains that these thoughts
could then be sent to the executive committee and a plan could be put in place to avoid
spot zoning.
Tom Galazen expressed his support for tight regulations on new towers. He explained that
Bayfield County is very beautiful and special, and cell towers blight the landscape and emit
light pollution. He expressed his want for the Committee to consider these things and come
up with a good solution to the problem.
Ann Rosenquist stated that she lives in Bayfield and would be heartbroken if there was a
tower over her farm. She stated that there is already a huge power line on their road that
they don’t use or like to look at. She referred to Dillenschneider’s comments about short-
term rentals and mentioned that there is one down the road from them that shoots off
fireworks over 3 days around the 4th of July until 2am.
Josh Pearson applauded the Committee for adding more zoning districts to the
Conditional Use Permit process for mobile towers because many residents were
manipulating the zoning code. He thanked the Committee again.
No further public comment.
5. Review of Meeting Format – Chairman Ray explained the procedure of the meeting. He
asked everyone who wished to speak to fill out a form; and stated they will be asked to
come forward and speak into the microphone
6. Public Hearing:
A. Jeffrey and Janeen Castle, owners and Mike Furtak, agent (Keystone) zoning
district map amendment to rezone from Residential-3(R-3) to Forestry-1(F-1)
in the shoreland with wetlands present [a 60.86-acre parcel (Tax ID 38586-
38592) (Doc# 2023R-599156), described as parcels in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ and
NW ¼ of the NW ¼; Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 6 West, Town of
Keystone, Bayfield County, WI]
Mike Furtak spoke on behalf of the request. He explained that these 7 parcels total
60 acres, and, as an R-3 zone, could accommodate as many as 30 homes, but
none have been built since 1986, when zoning was adopted in Keystone. The
previous owner died, and his family inherited it but were delinquent on taxes, so
the county seized it and auctioned it off to the Castles, who paid a premium price
for it. He explained that they live across the street to the south, on Kinney Rd, and
Page 3 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
they bought the parcels to prevent a large development. Now they would like to
have the parcels rezoned from R-3 to F-1. He explained that F-1 requires a
minimum of 5 acre lots, or 4½ with a survey, and you are allowed to construct a
residence there, so there could still be residences constructed in the future. He
further explained that it is their hope to put up some mini-storage units to help offset
their property tax and the cost they incurred purchasing the property. Furtak met
with the Town of Keystone, which does not currently have a Plan Commission that
is functional. They met with the Town Board twice, and it was approved both times.
He mentioned that everybody in the audience expressed support for this because
they don’t want lots of houses there, either. Furtak then asked for questions.
Crandall asked if they (the Castles) were the ones who divided it into all the
separate lots. Furtak answered that he believed it was the county who divided the
lots in preparation for their auction. He believed that the county was trying to sell
the parcels individually. He explained that the Castles decided that they wanted to
control the property, so they paid a premium price for that.
Rekemeyer raised concerns that, according to the Town of Keystone
comprehensive plan, these parcels were planned to have at least 50% of their
buildable land set aside for open space, which was critical to the economy, history
and development. She asked Furtak if the proposed mini-storage development
would leave 50% of the buildable land empty. Furtak answered that everyone at
the two town board meetings was supportive of the proposal to rezone and the
mini-storage proposal. Rekemeyer then asked if they were still working within the
comprehensive plan of the Town of Keystone because it seemed to her like the
proposed rezone was not consistent with the plan. Furtak answered that the Town
does not have a functional plan commission and went on to say that it was over 10
years old, so he is not sure if it still has legal standing.
Ray asked two times if anyone would like to speak in support. Scott Galetka
identified himself as the chair of the Town of Keystone and noted that the Town
Board passed it last Wednesday. He also noted that there are lots of wetlands in
the area and it would be difficult to have a conventional septic system, so the
storage units might have less impact on the environment than homes in the area.
He confirmed that the Board voted in favor of the proposal. Strand asked if the
Board’s support would be coming in writing. Galetka confirmed that it was in writing
with the Town Clerk, who is sending it in.
Ray asked three times if anybody else would like to speak in favor.
Ray asked three times if any would like to speak in opposition. No one spoke.
Discussion ended.
7. Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Pocernich adjourned the public hearing, Crandall seconded. Motion carried, 5-
0. Adjourned at 4:31 pm.
8. Call to Order of Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting: Ray called the meeting to
order at 4:31 pm.
9. Roll Call: Crandall, Pocernich, Ray, Rekemeyer, and Strand - All present.
Page 4 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
Others present: Director - Ruth Hulstrom, Tracy Pooler - AZA, Desi Niewinski -
Secretary, Mark Abeles-Allison - County Administrator, and John Carlson - Corp
Counsel.
10. New Business
A. Jeffrey and Janeen Castle, owners and Mike Furtak, agent (Keystone) zoning
district map amendment to rezone from Residential-3(R-3) to Forestry-1(F-1)
in the shoreland with wetlands present [a 60.86-acre parcel (Tax ID 38586-
38592) (Doc# 2023R-599156), described as parcels in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ and
NW ¼ of the NW ¼; Section 27, Township 47 North, Range 6 West, Town of
Keystone, Bayfield County, WI]
Pocernich motion to approve the rezone from R-3 to F-1 for Jeffrey and
Janeen Castle and recommend it onto the full County Board for its approval, with
consideration of town board’s recommendation and relevant public input
seconded by Crandall. Motion carried, 5-0.
B. Code Re-Write Proposal Presentations
a. HKGI
b. WSB
11. Previous Business:
(A) Petition to Amend Ord - [Ord Amnt] - Title 13-1-35; 13-l-4(a), 13-l-62(a) – short-
term rentals (tabled/postponed February 15, 2024, March 21, 2024, April 18,
2024, & May 16, 2024)
Strand informed the committee that the item was tabled on May 16, 2024, because
he was concerned with the word occupant and the county’s ability to enforce
occupancy on short term rentals, I am now satisfied with the proposed definition
as it allows the renters to have guests then those guests leave i.e. sleep elsewhere.
Strand motion to forward to the County Board a recommendation to
approve the updated ordinance amendment creating Section 13-1-35 and
amending 13-1-4(a) and 13-1-62(a) with amended language as highlighted in
yellow and/or in red seconded by Rekemeyer. Discussion occurred.
Pocernich back in March we agreed as a committee that we were not going to
charge an annual renewal or review through zoning, I see that that it is in this new
ordinance. Why is it in there when we had discussed no charging an annual
renewal or review. Ray stated that under 12(d) regarding fee schedules update for
short term rentals. Pocernich the fee is under H(1) and states the annual review
will be completed by zoning no later than June 30th of each year to verify the short-
term rental permit remains in compliance and a fee may be associated with an
annual review. Abeles-Allison this was a recommendation that I made; we
changed the word from shall to may in case a fee needs to be assessed, there will
be a zero listed in the fee schedule. Pocernich I cannot vote for this, and I don’t
recommend it because it is in the ordinance, the fee schedule will state zero why
even put it in the ordinance.
Page 5 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
Pocernich if you go down further you see the initial application fee and you
crossed out annual renewal fee and changed it to annual review fee if applicable.
Why, what is the difference between renewal fee and review fee. Abeles-Allison
if the committee wants no fees on there, can certainly take it out. Pocernich back
in March we agreed as a committee we do not want a review or renewal fee
associated with this. Abeles-Allison there was discussion however for a health
department fee. Pocernich yes, the health department fee could be increased but
it is not going to be subject to the annual renewal or review fee for the zoning
department. Abeles-Allison I think it was just to keep the option if there was a
change these say if applicable and may and it refers to the fee section. Pocernich
If at that time we want to do it we can amend the ordinance and put it in there then,
I don’t think it should be in there because I know down the line if it stays on the fee
schedule it will sneak in there somehow.
Pocernich read the March Minutes aloud to the committee. Abeles-Allison
suggests removing it, take it out.
Ray the two parts that need to be stripped out: J(4), keep the initial application fee
but strike out form and to the end of the highlight in red section. Then above that
under H(1), I suggest striking out the whole section to allow the department more
flexibility than having to stick to this June 30th date and that they can be reviewing
rentals on an ongoing basis and to put more effort in to those places that we have
ongoing issues with.
Crandall motion to remove language in Section 13-1-35 (h)(1) all language
referring to an annual review, and remove in Section J(4) to strip all language after
the word and through annual review fee, everything in yellow seconded by
Pocernich. Motion carried, 4-1, Strand voted no
Crandall my intent with this is that if there is a problem that needs to be reviewed
that spend your resources on the problem not the other 95% that are following the
regulations. Reviews don’t have to be annual or by a specific date, that is my intent
on this.
Pocernich as for the fireworks at the short-term rental, I would say no fireworks
are permitted at short term rentals. Ray I believe we had that in an earlier draft.
Rekemeyer motion to amend section 4(b) that no fireworks are allowed at
short-term rentals seconded by Pocernich. Motion carried, 5-0
Ray repeated Strand’s original motion to forward recommendation of
approval with Jim Crandall and Madelaine Rekemeyer’s amendments. Motion
carried, 5-0
12. Other Business
Ray moved item e to below item f as there may be citizens interested in the CUPs for the
towers, if amendable by the committee
C. Minutes of Previous Meeting: (May 16, 2024)
Page 6 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
Pocernich motion to approve May 16, 2024, meeting minutes seconded
by Rekemeyer. Motion carried, 5-0
D. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Fee Schedule Update for Short-
Term Rental Fees.
Hulstrom suggests removing the annual review fee from the fee schedule.
Pocernich would it be appropriate to suggest for the short-term rental per unit
initial fee be raised. Ray my reading on this would be appropriate since the public
notice was for the fee schedule. Pocernich at this time per our schedule we
charge $250.00 per initial, Ray that is correct. Hulstrom correct but it is per unit,
one application can obtain approval for up to 4 units, so one application could be
$1,000.00. Hulstrom if we remove the renewal fee it will be only the initial fee
that will apply to short-term rentals. Pocernich I would suggest that we debate
whether or not we increase the initial fee to a minimum of at least $300.00. Ray
that is worthy of discussion, there are a lot higher fees in our area.
Pocernich motion to strike out short-term annual renewal or review fee
from the fee schedule seconded by Rekemeyer. Motion carried, 4-1, Crandall
voted no
Rekemeyer we have such a housing crisis because of the short-term rentals, I
don’t believe that $500 per unit is high enough, higher the better.
Rekemeyer motion to increase the initial fee from $250.00 to $500.00
seconded by Pocernich. Motion carried, 4-1, Strand voted no
E. Discussion and Possible Action regarding previous motion on 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) made at the May 16, 2024 P
& Z Committee meeting
Strand back in May I made the motion to require a CUP on both but my motion
was unclear regarding a CUP for both new mobile and class 1 co-locations.
Strand motion forward to the County Board with recommendation to
approve the original ordinance amending section 13-1-43 d(1) and 13-1-62(a) with
the amendments highlighted in yellow and colored in red seconded by
Rekemeyer. Motion carried, 5-0
Rekemeyer motions to suspend Roberts Rules of Order to allow public
comment NO second. Motion fails.
F. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding recommendation on
proposal/candidate selection for zoning code re-write
Skipped to discuss in closed session.
Page 7 of 7
ZC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing and Meeting – June 20, 2024
G. Discussion and Possible Action addition of Zoning Supervisor position
Hulstrom sent a memo out to the committee members.
Strand requested a break. Ray granted a 7-minute break and will return at 6:25
pm.
Ray called the meeting back to order at 6:28 pm.
H. Committee Members discussion(s) regarding matters of the P & Z Dept
13. Monthly Report / Budget and Revenue
Hulstrom gave a summary of permits issued in May 2024 compared to same month year
prior, noting an increase.
14. Motion to Move into Closed Session
I. Majority Vote
Pocernich motion to move into closed session allowing all other board
members and Kris and Mark to remain seconded by Crandall. Motion carried, 5-
0
J. Chairman Ray announces the nature of the business:
The committee may enter in and out of closed session for Discussion and Possible
Action pursuant to §19.85(1)(c) Considering employment, promotion,
compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which
the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility and
(e) Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of
public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive
or bargaining reasons require a closed session.
a. Code Re-Write Contract
Strand motion to recommend HKGI to full Board, pending reference
checks seconded by Rekemeyer. Motion carried, 5-0.
b. Supervision
Pocernich motion to leave closed session seconded by Rekemeyer. Motion
carried, 5-0.
15. Adjournment
Ray called adjournment at 7:22 pm.
Prepared by TW, AB, and REH on 7/15/24; given to REH on 7/18/24 Reviewed by REH on 7/22/2024
Sent to PZC on 7/24/2024
Uploaded to Drop Box on 7/24/2024
Final Approval on 8/15/2024
cc: (after final approval)- (8) Supervisors, Cty Admin, Clerk, DNR, Web
k/zc/minutes/2024/#6June