PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

April 2, 2007

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. –  7:20 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Committee Chair George Hammes.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 744   Bryan J. and Linda K. Berg  W2815 County Road N Coon Valley  WI.  Petition to operate an after-the-fact excavation business including the storage of one dump truck, one semi trailer, two small trailers, one excavator, one bulldozer, one backhoe, one skid steer, and stockpiles of materials on site; and to use a 16-ft x 34-ft garage for tools and supplies from their residence at W2815 County Road N, Coon Valley, WI, on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as:  That part of the NE-SW lying South of County Road N and the South 15 acres of the NW-SW all in Section 36, T 15 N, R 6 W.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in favor:  Bryan J. Berg   W2815 County Road N  Coon Valley  WI.  I’ve had the business since 1990.  I have no employees.  My equipment consists of one dump truck, a semi-tractor and trailer, one excavator, two smaller trailers, one dozer, one backhoe, and one skid steer.  I’ve got a 16-ft x 34-ft garage for tools and supplies.  Business hours are from 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday, with a few Saturdays as needed and emergency calls.  I meet most customers on their site.  I have a few material stockpiles.  I have some septic system plumbing supplies.  No advertising on road.  Only traffic is my equipment in and out of the yard.

(No questions.)

HAMMES:  (3 calls in favor, hearing none; 3 calls in opposition – none.)

Correspondence:
WEIBEL:  A letter dated March 23, 2007 received on March 29, 2007 addressed to Jeff Bluske from Town of Greenfield – verifying approval recommended by Town Board on March 14, 2007, signed by Ken Hess.

Department Recommendation:

WEIBEL:  Approval with 8 conditions:

1.      This permit is not transferable.

2.      The following equipment is allowed to be stored on-site:  one dump truck, one semi tractor and trailer, two small trailers, one excavator, one dozer, one backhoe, one skid steer, one roller compactor.

3.      The equipment authorized in condition #2 may be replaced without modification of this permit.  Any additional equipment requires that this permit shall be amended to include said additional equipment.

4.      One employee other than the applicant is authorized.

5.      The use of an existing 16-ft x 34-ft building for storage of miscellaneous tools and supplies is authorized.

6.      The storage of black dirt, sand, gravel, clean rock and fill dirt on site is authorized.

7.      Hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday.  Emergency response to calls outside these hours is authorized.

8.      Minor maintenance of equipment is allowed on-site, proper disposal of waste oils and other fluids is required.

Question HAMMES:  On that equipment list, is there anything else you’d be adding in the future?  If you add something you need to go through this again.

Answer B. BERG:  Possibly a roller compactor.  My question is if I buy something else.

Reply HAMMES:  Replacement is no problem.

Reply WEIBEL:  Will add roller compactor to list.

Motion by Hanson/Bina to approve with the amended department recommendations.  No discussion.   5 aye, 2 excused (Keil, Kapanke).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 745   John P. and Barbara K. Schaller  N5931 County Road ZZ  Onalaska  WI.  Petition to construct a 44-ft x 360-ft heifer raising barn or expanded livestock facility for herd expansion to 895 animal units total, on land zoned Transitional Agricultural District and described as:  All that part of the S½-SW of Section 14 lying Southwesterly of County Road Z, described in Document No. 1420876; and, all that part of the NE-NE, Government Lots 1 and 2 in Section 22, lying Northeasterly of County Road ZB, described in Volume 1036 Page 24; and, all that part of the SW-NE and of the NW¼ of Section 23 described in Volume 1036 Page 24, all in T 17 N, R 8 W, containing 331.12 acres.  Town of Onalaska.

Weibel:  CUP #745 filed under the provisions of ATCP 51 for expansion of an existing feedlot.  For the Committee and those gathered here, Mr. Schaller has submitted a complete application as determined by Land Conservation and a letter was sent to Mr. Schaller on March 14 stating that this is a complete application.  Under ATCP51, when a complete application is filed the Committee has only one option, to approve the conditional use permit.  The purpose of the public hearing is informational.  It gives adjoining property owners and those within 300 feet an opportunity to state concerns, but under ATCP 51 the only action the Committee can take is to recommend approval.

HAMMES:  Read that into the record. 

(Charlie Handy displays overhead map.)

WEIBEL:  (Referring to map)  Land in yellow here are parts of this CUP application, dated March 5, 2007 by John P. Schaller, N5931 County Road ZZ, Onalaska, Wisconsin.   

Appearing in favor:  John P. Schaller  N5931 County Road ZZ  Onalaska WI  54650.  I’ve farmed there the last 25 years.  It was originally a family farm started in 1937.  I’m putting up a 44 ft x 360 ft barn to raise heifers.  I’ve paid somebody else to raise them for me.  I wanted to raise them at home and had to put up a facility to do that. 

HAMMES:  Questions from the Committee?  Mr. Bina?

Question BINA:  I’d like to have Mike or Gregg explain why we don’t have final authority over this because it is an ATCP 51 new state law.

Answer WEIBEL:  In October we adopted ATCP 51 by reference in our Conditional Use Code because after November 1, 2006 we could not regulate Ag feedlot sitings unless we adopted the standards in ATCP 51.  ATCP 51 levels the playing field throughout the state for those committees that regulate feedlot siting.  These provisions are the only ones that can apply when a CUP is applied for to site a feedlot.  We used to add conditions.  ATCP 51 is a uniform rule and it applies to all feedlots.

Question HAMMES:  We have no choice but to approve, that gives us the authority that if he’s not following it, to intercede.

Answer WEIBEL:  It gives us review authority.  The first time through there were deficiencies.  Land Conservation requested additional information.  Mr. Schaller provided that information.  On March 14, Land Conservation determined it was a complete application and that it meets all ATCP 51 standards.  It gives us the choice to review and monitor.  If we hadn’t adopted ATCP 51 we wouldn’t be having this meeting and he could just do it, subject to some nutrient and other standards.

Question HAMMES:  Would you define animal units (AU), so the people here understand what it means?  895 does not mean 895 animals.

Answer WEIBEL:  In this case 895 converts into about 850 animals.  There’s a conversion factor used for each type of animal.  In this case there is about 450 milking cows which equals 630 AU; 150 heifers from 800 – 1200 pounds that equals 165 AU; 125 heifers from 400 – 800 pounds that equals 75 AU; and then about 125 calves up to 400 pounds and that’s 25 AU, for a total of 895.  Because of that expansion he’s more than 20 percent over what he had in the first place.  Under ATCP 51, if you’re over 20 percent, you need to go through our conditional use process. 

Question BINA:  We do oversee it, but what happens if there’s a deficiency out there?  Do we, or the State or Land Conservation?

Answer STANGL:  We do have approval authority, and disapproval authority if the application is incomplete or does not meet ATCP 51 standards. 

Question BINA:  But the application is complete?

Answer STANGL:  Right.

Question BINA:  But what happens if there is a deficiency?
Answer STANGL:  We can deal with that under our ordinance we currently have on the books.

Question MEYER:  Does ATCP 51 have provisions for a public hearing?

Answer WEIBEL:  ATCP 51 does not have a provision for a public hearing, but because we regulate this as a CUP we hold the public hearing.

Remarks MEYER:  But we have no authority.

Reply WEIBEL:  As I stated we do have review authority of the application and we can monitor the permit authorized by ATCP 51.

Remarks HAMMES:  If you remember last October we had a public hearing.  We adopted this prior to November 1.  If we didn’t do this, we’d have no say whatsoever to review it.  So we enacted that last fall.  This is the first application we’ve heard.

Question HANSON:  What do you do with Heifers now?

Answer SCHALLER:  I raise them from babies to about 4 months then I send them to a heifer raiser 20-30 miles away.  I’ve had the same number of cows for quite a few years, but never had the facilities before to raise the heifers.

Question HANSON:  So instead of sending them away you want to raise them on the farm?

Answer SCHALLER:  I felt I could do a better job of raising them myself and I wanted a closed herd where I didn’t have to worry about disease.

HAMMES:  Anyone else in favor – Mr. Paudler, Town of Onalaska.

Remarks PAUDLER:  We’d like to ask you to postpone this for 30 days for the Town to review this with the Planning Commission and the Town Board.  I believe in ATCP 51, it’s 90 days from the date of the completed application, so the Town can do their review.  At this point we don’t find anything a problem.  We received the notice not in time for last month’s meeting.  We’re talking with Riverland Energy and Dairyland Power about a digester and have talked to John.  The Town feels farming is important and wants to see that successfully go ahead, but would still like time to review it.  The County Board meeting would be before our Town Board meeting of April 23.

HAMMES:  Anyone else in favor of this petition?  (3 calls)  Anyone in opposition?

Opposed:

Bill Gingrich  N5878 Cottage Lane  Onalaska  WI.  My name is Bill Gingrich, N5878 Cottage Lane, Onalaska, just across Highway 37 from the Schaller Farm.  My concern is that the operation is becoming more concentrated, to the point it could be considered a concentrated animal feedlot.  My concern is for water quality.  All of the residents in Brice Prairie are on shallow wells, receiving most of our water from a shallow sand/gravel bed.  Since 1979 our nitrate and nitrite concentrations have been at levels that are high.  We have brought water in for drinking because of nitrate toxicity in our wells.  This additional burden to the groundwater is a concern not only because of nitrates and nitrites, but the possibility of e-coli contamination and microbial resistant e-coli.  The water flow, hydrology, comes directly towards us from the farm, north to south, so our well as well as our neighbors’ would be impacted.

Question MEYER:  Is this covered in the application, Mike?
Answer WEIBEL:  This application is deliberated on by the standards in ATCP 51.  The applicant must deal with nutrient management, manure storage, surface run-off.  Under ATCP 51.34(1)(b), “If the application contains sufficient, credible information to show in the absence of clear and convincing information to the contrary that the proposed livestock facility meets or is exempt from the standards in Sub II.  To the extent that the standard under Sub II vests discretion in a political subdivision, the political subdivision may exercise that discretion.”   Those persons in opposition need to present clear and convincing information; studies that are documented.

Question GINGRICH:  When would we be made aware this was going to happen so we could develop any information that would be needed?

Answer WEIBEL:  Under ATCP 51 we are required to notify adjacent property owners within 14 days after that application is complete.  Are you an adjacent property owner?

Answer GINGRICH:  I am an adjacent property owner. 

Statement WEIBEL:  You would have gotten the notice of this hearing and the required ATCP 51 notice as an adjacent property owner.  That’s what the rule requires us to do.

Question GINGRICH:  Do we have any recourse as the water quality in our wells, perhaps degrades?

Answer WEIBEL:  I don’t know the answer to that question.

Question MEYER:  We’re holding a public hearing on this tonight even though we don’t have total authority over it.  Will the State hold a public hearing on this also?

Answer WEIBEL:  No.

Question MEYER:  Who’s going to make the decision on this at the state level?  The DATCP board?

Answer WEIBEL:  Once this application is approved by the full County Board, then we are required to notify DATCP that the application has been approved, we have to submit some other documentation and keep the record available for 7 years.  But there’s no public hearing.  We’re just notifying them (DATCP) that the conditional use has been approved.

Question MEYER:  So the State will automatically approve any request that comes in if it goes through the County.

Answer WEIBEL:  I don’t believe the State approves or disapproves.

Remarks MEYER:  But they control ATCP 51, we’ve been taken out of that circle….

Remarks HAMMES:  Last fall we decided.  After November 1, he could go ahead and do this, except we put this ordinance in, which gives a public hearing.  If it wasn’t for the ordinance we passed last fall, he could put it in.  By having this, even though our hands are tied, we have an avenue for the County to go in.  We’d have recourse.

Question HANSON:  After we make this decision tonight, they have 30 days to appeal to the Wisconsin Livestock Facilities Siting Review Board?

Answer WEIBEL:  They have 30 days after the final action by County Board.  That would be with the State Review Board.

Answer HANSON:  If the County Board approves, you’d have 30 days to file a written appeal.

Statement HAMMES:  With the Town’s request, the earliest we’ll hear this is the 3^rd Thursday in May.  Anyone else in opposition (3 calls)?

Correspondence:

WEIBEL:  A letter from Marion Meyer at W8291 County Road ZB, dated March 25, 2007, addressed to Jeff Bluske, received March 28, in support.  Another letter is dated March 26 from Herbert and Judy Bassett addressed to Zoning & Planning received March 28, in support.  A letter dated March 26 from Thomas P. Terry at N5894 Lakeview Court East, in opposition.  Another received April 2 from Gretchen and David Skoloda at W6396 Riverview Drive, Onalaska.  This was not in support or opposition but raised some concerns.  And an anonymous letter dated March 29, received in opposition.  Also a packet of materials from Gretchen and Russ Brinkman at W8087 County Road ZB – letters, photos and a news article and that is in opposition received on March 30.  Then we have a letter from Land Conservation dated March 14 addressed to John Schaller (letter read into record). 

Department Recommendation:
WEIBEL:  Department recommendation is to approve, and since we have the request from the Town, if you recommend approval, that would go to the April 30 business meeting.  Right now we recommend approval.

Question HANSON:  The Town doesn’t have any authority to object.  We could approve this tonight and pass it on to County Board.  Then the Town could put their objection in writing to the Siting Board? 

Answer WEIBEL:  In order to approve or deny a CUP we need the recommendations from the Town.

Answer HAMMES:  We can approve it but it goes to our April 30 meeting after the Town Board meets.  If we make a motion to approve it, it will be held until our April 30 business meeting because the Town Board has requested it be held.

Answer WEIBEL:  And then it goes to County Board on May 17.

Question MEYER:  (Question to Mr. Paudler)  When you have a meeting will you also take public comments?

Answer PAUDLER:  Yes we allow public comment at our Planning Commission meetings.  Does the Town have power to deny this?  If we find convincing evidence that it causes groundwater contamination, those would be grounds.  We’ll have the DNR and everybody else involved in the process take a look at it (reiterated digester possibility).

Motion by Hanson/Bina to approve.   Carried, 5 aye, 2 excused (Keil, Kapanke).

SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2007-04   Robert D. and Sara N. Monroe  3107 Pleasant Drive South  Holmen  WI.  Petition to excavate and fill with crushed rock a 12-ft x 900-ft long driveway, along with grading a proposed single family home site on lands that lie within the Shoreland District of an un-named creek adjacent to Abnet and Hauser Roads, on land zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  Part of the NW-NW of Section 27, T 17 N, R 7 W, more fully described in tax parcel number 10-706-4 and containing 10.05 acres.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor:  Robert D. Monroe   3107 Pleasant Drive South   Holmen   WI.  Purchased land to build a home.  Initially to build an access road off Abnet Road.  When investigating with the DNR, County, and Army Corps of Engineers (COE), we found the recommendation was to avoid crossing the wetland from Abnet Road to the build site.  Their recommendation is to avoid wetland by coming in off Hauser Road on the edge of the Godden’s property up to our build site.  Bruce Norton with the COE recommended this and delineated the wetland.

Question BINA:  Is that the only site they come up with?  It’s a long driveway.

Answer R. MONROE:  That was our question, was there a way to cross the wetland for a direct approach.  Since there is a secondary approach that doesn’t disturb the wetland, their recommendation is to avoid the wetland at all costs.  The previous owner had put an access in across the wetland up the road on Abnet, split the properties in half and we lost access.  The DNR and COE would like to avoid the wetland.

Question BINA:  They wouldn’t allow you to put culverts in?  With a road across the wetland?

Answer R. MONROE:  That is correct.

HAMMES:  (3 calls for those in favor – none.)  Anyone in objection?

Opposition:  Nancy Godden   N5591 Hauser Road   Onalaska WI.  They call it floodplain and there’s a reason.  It’s not a good place for a driveway.  Off Abnet would be better.  They already put in an access but the DNR wants them to take it out.  It’s 12-ft x 900-ft and through a floodplain.  It’ll be mushy, they’ll need new fill every year.  It disappeared off my driveway until I blacktopped it.  Aesthetically it won’t be nice – a road meandering through the countryside along a paved road.  It doesn’t make any sense.  I’ve lived there 15 years and have seen that corner flood – it fills like a lake.

Question RAUK:  If they could get permission to use the culvert and newly graveled access beyond their property, they could share a driveway.  What you’re saying is at times that driveway is covered with floodwater.

Answer GODDEN:  I own that driveway off Hauser Road, it doesn’t flood that far.  It will flood in the corner.  I sit way up on the hill.  Part will flood no matter how they put it in.  It’s a low area.  Last summer the guy tried to cut grass in there and buried the tractor up to the axle and took a month to get it out.  And this is where they want to put a driveway.  I know the land and it makes more sense to come in off Abnet Road.  There’s already an access there – it’s much shorter.  It’s really not much of a wetland anyway, it’s just a big ditch.  Ten years ago they bulldozed the hill where the building site is into the wetland and it was never fixed.  A little driveway isn’t going to do any damage.

Question MEYER:  I understand they couldn’t get permission to use that other access.

Answer GODDEN:  The DNR doesn’t want them to fill it in, but it’s already filled in.  They did it because the Town of Onalaska said go ahead and build there.  Being how they never built in the country before they didn’t know the DNR and COE would get involved.  It’s already there and hasn’t done any damage.

Question MEYER:  That might be true but how do they get permission at this point?

Answer GODDEN:  If there was no other access then they’d allow it because he’d be landlocked.  To me there’s no other good way to do it.  It’s lowland, mucky and prone to flooding.  That’s why they call it a floodplain.

Question MEYER:  What steps does he take to do it?

Answer GODDEN:  I don’t know.  I’ve never been through that process.  HE could contact the owner of the adjacent land and see if he would give him right of way.  He contacted the owner’s father but not the owner.  That might be an option.

Remarks HANDY:  We have to be careful.  This is a decision made by the DNR and COE.  For us to question their decision making authority would put us in a difficult position.  The request is for Special Exception so your concern is if the design and permit application is sufficient.  You put yourself in a precarious position if you question the decision-making authority of the DNR and COE.

HAMMES:  Anyone else in opposition?

Laura Godden   N5591 Hauser Road   Onalaska WI.  They don’t have to build a driveway there at all.  Environmentally it would be a bad idea.  The gravel would wash into the wetland the DNR is trying to preserve.  The salt would wash into the wetland.  There are animals and plants in there the DNR would like to protect.  If there’s no good place to put a driveway in, maybe they shouldn’t put one in at all.

HAMMES:  (3 calls – anyone in opposition.)

Correspondence:
WEIBEL:  (COE letter dated March 27, 2007 to Robert Monroe read into record.)  (E-mail from Carrie J. Olson, DNR Water-Regulation and Zoning Specialist, to Mr. Monroe.)  (Copy of Land Conservation permit EC 1034-07.)

Department Recommendation:  (Weibel) Approval recommended, subject to 3 conditions:

1.      Applicant shall obtain any DNR or Corp of Engineers permits that may be required.

2.      Applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit from La Crosse County Department of Land Conservation.

3.      This permit expires October 30, 2007.

Question BINA:  The Corps letter alluded to another driveway location.  The driveway we turned around in – that’s supposed to come out?

Answer R. MONROE:  That’s correct.

Motion Bina/Rauk for approval with departmental recommendations.

Discussion:

Question HANSON:  When we approve something like this where things from the driveway could enter the wetland – does that make the County responsible for anything that happens to the wetland?

Answer STANGL:  You wouldn’t be liable for that.  Maintenance and operation of the driveway is the responsibility of the landowner.  Under our erosion control permit possibility of erosion from the site is reduced.  It’s designed so we don’t have long term problems.

Remarks RAUK:  I’ll follow our county planner’s advice but share Mr. Monroe’s frustrations with building such a long driveway and share the perception of the Goddens.  I feel compelled to vote in favor of this, but don’t particularly like my vote.

HAMMES:  Motion Bina, second Rauk to approve with recommendations.  Rauk, Bina and Hammes in favor.  Hanson and Meyer opposed.  Two excused (Keil, Kapanke).  Motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 746   Dennis Golberg for Mathy Construction  920 10^th Avenue N  Onalaska  WI, acting on behalf of the Kraemer Company LLC  820 Wachter Avenue  Plain  WI  53577.  Petition to set a temporary hot mix asphalt plant from approximately 5/15/07 to 09/20/07, with aggregate piles all on approximately 4.0 acres in the Kraemer limestone quarry on land zoned Agricultural District “B” and described as:  The W½-SE-SE except the West 8 acres of the SW-SE-SE all in Section 3, T 15 N, R 6 W, together with an easement to County Road YY.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in favor:  Dana Fredrickson, on behalf of Mathy Construction   920 10^th Avenue North   Onalaska WI.  We are looking to go in there twice, the first time around June 1, 2007 for about 3 to 4 weeks.  Since the County Highway Department has 2 projects in the southern part of the county, coming out of this site will lower the project cost.  We’d be gone most of the summer, then come back around Labor Day, when the rest of the Highway 33 project is ready to be paved. 

Question BINA:  Will you use that old blacktop piled up in there?  Will that be mixed with the new blacktop?

Answer FREDRICKSON:  The pile Kraemer has in there now has so much rock in it, they’re going to crush it and use it for base.  We won’t use it in the mix.  We will use some material being taken off the road now.

Question BINA:  I did get one call - I don’t know if they’ll be here tonight – do you need an environmental impact on the plant?  The smell was a concern of one of my calls.

Answer FREDRICKSON:  I anticipate very little odor out of this plant - it’s the same plant that sat at the La Crosse County Airport three times in the last 7 years.  It’s been in the City of Hixton when we did the I-90 project.  It presently sits about 1 mile from Black River Falls – before that it was outside of Tomah.  We’ve never had complaints about odor with that plant.

Question WEIBEL:  When do you anticipate the plant would be moved out of that site and the site “buttoned up?”

Answer FREDRICKSON:  It’s an ongoing quarry operation, we’re sitting there because of proximity to the project.

Question WEIBEL:  But your plant would remain there until when?  The end of October?

Answer FREDRICKSON:  I’d say long before that.

Question BINA:  So the County will get their blacktop out of there for the NN project?

Answer FREDRICKSON:  Correct – that will happen in June or late May.  I talked with Dennis Osgood today.

HAMMES:  (3 calls for testimony in favor.)

HAMMES:  Anyone in opposition?

Opposition:  Jean Mollendorf   N2109 Clements Road   La Crosse  WI.   Lois Hess and I live in the residence across the road.  This asphalt plant is a completely different type of operation than a sand and gravel plant.  No environmental impact study has been done.  We’re concerned with air quality, noise, increase in traffic, water run-off.  There’s been no study or comment on this at all.  We put up with the sand and gravel operation – there’s a tremendous amount of noise.  This will increase everything.  There’s a lot of people living right across the road and we’re very concerned about this.

HAMMES:  (3 calls)   Anyone else in opposition?

Correspondence:
WEIBEL:  Letter dated March 23, 2007, received March 29, 2007, addressed to Jeff Bluske, approval by Town of Greenfield at their March 14, 2007 town board meeting. 

Kraemer Company operates at this site subject to an access lease with Mr. Clements and condition #6 of that lease states that the lessee shall have no right to make any other use of this property without the owner’s written consent.  A letter dated March 21, 2007 received March 23, 2007 addresses that concern (letter read into record).

Department  Recommendation:  Approve with 3 conditions:

1.      Expires November 15, 2007.  Site to be restored by this time.

2.      Hours 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

3.      County driveway permit is required for driveway improvements.

Discussion:

Question MEYER:  Is October 30 okay?

Answer FREDRICKSON:  That should be fine.  If you want to move it to November 15 – that’s the end of the paving season for Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Question BINA:  I’d like to ask one more time about the air quality.  Do you think it could be a problem with air quality for the people across County Road YY?

Answer FREDRICKSON:  I don’t believe so.  We take efforts to make sure dust is controlled by water hauling on roads.  Our plants go through emissions testing every other year.  We have bag houses that contain the fines that are produced.  It’s passed emissions testing since we’ve owned the plant. 

Motion by Hanson/Meyer to approve with recommendations as amended to a deadline of November 15, 2007.  Motion carried, 5 aye, 2 excused (Keil, Kapanke).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 747   Jeffrey G. and Amy S. Midtlien  W952 County Road P  Westby  WI.  Petition to operate a family run welding repair shop with light fabrication only in a proposed 30-ft x 40-ft detached accessory building during the summer months when he is not teaching welding at a technical college, on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and Agricultural District “B” on 6.38 acres described as:  Part of the SE-SE of Section 34, T 15 N, 

R 5 W, described in tax parcel number 12-729-0.  Town of Washington.

Appearing in favor:  Jeffrey G. Midtlien   W952 County Road P   Westby WI.   I gave everyone a description of what I plan to do with this 30-ft x 40-ft shop that I plan to do weld work in.  I have 2 sons interested in welding careers; hopefully I can help them along with this proposal.

Question RAUK:  The location is to the east of the driveway on the map, in field/pasture?
Answer MIDTLIEN:  Yes.  I located it where I would not be seen by the neighbors or cabin guests.

Question HANSON:  In your application you state it will be a part-time business to get your 2 sons involved – could it evolve into a full-time business?

Answer MIDTLIEN:  I don’t believe so.  Should that come up I’d come back to the board.

Question WEIBEL:  Your application says you’d operate part-time in the summer months – so would it be fair to say the time span to operate is May 1 to August 31 every year?

Answer MIDTLIEN:  No.  I have a lot of time off in the summer, but most days I’m home by 3 p.m.  I’d like to be able to do repair work when it needs to be done.

HAMMES:  (3 calls for testimony in favor - none, 3 calls for testimony in opposition - none.)

Correspondence:

WEIBEL:  Phone call March 27, 2007 from Town Chair Bud Florian.  The Town will take this up for action at the next town board meeting.

Department Recommendation:

WEIBEL:  Approve subject to 8 conditions:

1.      Hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

2.      No employees are authorized except for members of the Jeff Midtlien family.

3.      No outside storage of parts or materials associated with the welding business is authorized.

4.      No on-site retail sales are authorized.

5.      Applicant shall notify the appropriate fire department of flammables located on the site related to this business.

6.      This permit is not transferable.

7.      A 30-ft x 40-ft detached accessory building is authorized for this activity.  

A zoning/occupancy permit is required for this building.

8.      Applicant shall comply with welding industry safety standards.

Motion Bina/Meyer to approve with department recommendations. 

5 aye, 2 excused (Keil, Kapanke).  Carried.

Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn at 7:20 p.m.  Carried, 5 aye, 2 excused (Keil, Kapanke). 

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.

Nate Sampson, Recorder