PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

July 2, 2007

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. – 9:10 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.  The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1740   William and Shawna Kremer  3411 Kenton Street  La Crosse WI  54601.  Petition to rezone from the Residential District “A” with Conditional Use Permit No. 456 to operate a firewood cutting business to Commercial District “B” for continuing the firewood business and expanding into an after-the-fact contractors storage for vehicles and future building on 0.91 acres known as N3538 Shiftar Road and described as:  Part of the SE-NW of Section 21, T 16 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel 9-1015-0.  Town of Medary.

Appearing in Favor:  William Kremer  3411 Kenton Street  La Crosse WI  54601.  Would like to rezone to Commercial “B” to continue firewood business.

Question BLUSKE:  In the past more than firewood - is there a tree removal business too?

Answer KREMER:  I have a tree service.  This is where I stockpile my firewood.

William Strupp  1206 Sand Lake Road  Holmen WI  54636, representing Strupp Real Estate LLC.  We own much of surrounding lands, and are in favor of this Commercial Zoning, feel it would be appropriate for the area.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Approval – probably should have been commercial all along.

Motion Hanson/Keil to approve as Commercial “B”.

Motion passes unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 752   U.S. Cellular by agent Robert Gust of Gust Acquisitions, 1226 Peniel Road  Mineral Point WI  53565 o/b/o Dan and Karen Anderson  N6959 County Road D  Holmen WI  54636.  Petition for a U.S. Cellular antenna mounted on top of a 180-foot high monopole communications tower with an 11’3” x 19’4” shelter together with a 20’ wide access easement off County Road D on 0.112 acres of land described as:  Part of the NW¼ of Section 3, T 17 N, R 7 W.   Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 3; thence N01°18’22”E along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 3, 287.16’; thence S88°41’39”E 534.47’ to the point of beginning; thence S52°15’34”E 70.00’; thence S37°44’26”W 70.00’; thence N52°15’34”W 70.00’; thence N37°44’26”E 70.00’ to the point of beginning.

Together with a 20’ wide access easement, being part of the W½ of Section 3 and of the SE¼ of Section 4, T 17 N, R 7 W, being 10’ wide each side of and parallel to the following described line:

Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 3; thence N01°18’22”E along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 3, 287.16’; thence S88°41’39”E 534.47’; thence S52°15’34”E 80.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S37°44’26”W 35.00’ to a point herein after referred to as Point “A”; thence continue S37°44'26”W 61.85’; thence S64°17’51”E 83.18’; thence S85°08’36”E 115.36’; thence S75°50’05”E 68.50’; thence S47°49’57”E 63.78’; thence S25°38’29”E 47.24’; thence S35°12’22”W 84.94’; thence S45°55’00”W 83.07’; thence S52°13’00”W 49.57’; thence S32°03’22”W 50.12’; thence S06°13’58”W 89.82’; thence S89°02’26”W 244.27’; thence N81°00’51”W 69.73’; thence N64°09’53”W 258.34’; thence N87°35’51”W 106.72’; thence S72°19’21”W 164.36’ thence S47°26’04”W 110.35’; thence S06°04’52”E 163.17’; thence S07°25’29”E 333.76’; thence S03°27’53”E 342.96’; thence S12°54’03”E 42.98’; thence S30°25’22”E 110.01’; thence S13°36’09”E 68.57’; thence S14°37’29”W 70.80’; thence S38°16’53”W 369.07’; thence S82°12’23”E 247.28’ to the Westerly right-of-way line of C.T.H. “D” and the point of termination.  The side lot lines of said easement are to be shortened or lengthened to terminate at the Easterly right-of-way line of C.T.H. “D” and the point of termination.  Town of Onalaska. 

Appearing in Favor:  No one appearing for the Conditional Use Application.

STAN HAUSER (Town Chairman):  Town has approved with following conditions:

1)     7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

2)     Not more than 2 employees onsite.

3)     Permit is non-transferable.

4)     Signs as required.

5)     Erosion Control Permit required.

6)     Parcel survey required.

7)     Removal bond required.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1743   Jon Shuster  1 Terri Circle Drive  Holmen WI  54636, o/b/o Jill and Brian Jarzemski, buyers, and George and Ruth Barton  N8053 County Road D  Holmen WI  54636.  Petitions to rezone from Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, an existing 3.91 acre parcel to be used for one single family residence and future accessory building for several horses on land described as:  Part of the SW-NE of Section 27, T 18 N,

R 7 W described in tax parcel 5-1642-5.  Town of Farmington.

Chairman Hammes turns the Chair over to Vice Chair Terry Hanson. 

Appearing in Favor:  Jon Shuster, Rainbow Realty   1 Terri Circle Drive  Holmen WI  54636.  Jill and Brian Jarzemski came to me after I listed this with George and Ruth Barton.  Kitty corner across the street is the Betsinger property, a single family home, to the rear is the Britton parcel, single family residential.  Another property to the left (west), I don’t know their names.  This has already had a survey on it, has been cut out, asking to have this rezone to AG “A” so they can build a single family home on it.  Buyer is ready to go, seller is ready.  Just have one question.  If this is approved tonight do we have to wait until the 20^th for the final blessing on this in July?

Answer HANSON:  Yes, that’s correct Jon.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  Letter received from the Town of Farmington June 28, 2007.  Town approved the rezone at the June 26, 2007 Town Board meeting. 

Department Recommendation:  We believe the parcel was created in 1989 – should have been a Certified Survey Map at that time.  Recommend approval to Ag District “A”. 

Motion Keil/Rauk to approve.

6 - aye, 0 - no, 1 - abstain (Hammes).

Remark BILL JUNG:  A Certified Survey Map is required for this.

Mr. Hanson turns the Chair over to Mr. Hammes.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 752   U.S. Cellular by agent Robert Gust of Gust Acquisitions, 1226 Peniel Road  Mineral Point WI  53565 o/b/o Dan and Karen Anderson  N6959 County Road D  Holmen WI  54636.  Petition for a U.S. Cellular antenna mounted on top of a 180-foot high monopole communications tower with an 11’3” x 19’4” shelter together with a 20’ wide access easement off County Road D on 0.112 acres of land described as:  Part of the NW¼ of Section 3, T 17 N, R 7 W.   Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 3; thence N01°18’22”E along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 3, 287.16’; thence S88°41’39”E 534.47’ to the point of beginning; thence S52°15’34”E 70.00’; thence S37°44’26”W 70.00’; thence N52°15’34”W 70.00’; thence N37°44’26”E 70.00’ to the point of beginning.

Together with a 20’ wide access easement, being part of the W½ of Section 3 and of the SE¼ of Section 4, T 17 N, R 7 W, being 10’ wide each side of and parallel to the following described line:

Commencing at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 3; thence N01°18’22”E along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 3, 287.16’; thence S88°41’39”E 534.47’; thence S52°15’34”E 80.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence S37°44’26”W 35.00’ to a point herein after referred to as Point “A”; thence continue S37°44'26”W 61.85’; thence S64°17’51”E 83.18’; thence S85°08’36”E 115.36’; thence S75°50’05”E 68.50’; thence S47°49’57”E 63.78’; thence S25°38’29”E 47.24’; thence S35°12’22”W 84.94’; thence S45°55’00”W 83.07’; thence S52°13’00”W 49.57’; thence S32°03’22”W 50.12’; thence S06°13’58”W 89.82’; thence S89°02’26”W 244.27’; thence N81°00’51”W 69.73’; thence N64°09’53”W 258.34’; thence N87°35’51”W 106.72’; thence S72°19’21”W 164.36’ thence S47°26’04”W 110.35’; thence S06°04’52”E 163.17’; thence S07°25’29”E 333.76’; thence S03°27’53”E 342.96’; thence S12°54’03”E 42.98’; thence S30°25’22”E 110.01’; thence S13°36’09”E 68.57’; thence S14°37’29”W 70.80’; thence S38°16’53”W 369.07’; thence S82°12’23”E 247.28’ to the Westerly right-of-way line of C.T.H. “D” and the point of termination.  The side lot lines of said easement are to be shortened or lengthened to terminate at the Easterly right-of-way line of C.T.H. “D” and the point of termination.  Town of Onalaska. 

Appearing in Favor:  Robert Gust  1226 Peniel Road  Mineral Point WI  53565.  This area has been a problem for service.  Did a search for co-location site – none available; tower is co-locatable for 3 other providers.  No tillable lands to be disturbed – will be in woodland.  Access along existing field roads, will need to add gravel.  Went through the Town meetings and Town has approved.  Will meet all County codes.

Question HAMMES:  Lighted tower?

Answer GUST:  Under 200 feet does not need lighting.  Will file FAA request for official word.

Question HANSON:  Any information on bird kills from this tower?

Answer GUST:  Monopole does not have an issue.

Question HAMMES:  Have you heard of any effects on bees?  Any data?

Answer GUST:  Have no information on that.

Question BLUSKE:  The photo of the monopole on the screen – this is similar to your plan?

Answer GUST:  Yes – fence and shelter will be very similar.

Question BLUSKE:  Other carriers to be accommodated?

Answer GUST:  Yes, up to 3 more carriers could co-locate.

Question BINA:  We passed that ordinance that says they have to share these towers.  There’s no other tower in the area that would do the job he’s looking for?

Answer BLUSKE:  Robert has done a very good job at complying with everything we have in our ordinance including locating the towers that didn’t have any carriers on it.  The closest one is, I believe, 3 miles from this one and it’s full.

Remarks GUST:  That’s a US Cellular tower also.  They aren’t going to spend the money if it’s not needed, that’s a big investment.  We’ve gotten so many complaints from neighbors about the service out there.

Question RAUK:  Haven’t heard staff recommendations yet but the Town indicated “not transferable” – can you live with that?  If owners sell land?

Answer BLUSKE:  I believe the Town may have erred with that, it has to go with the land.  It has to be. 

Remarks GUST:  It has to go with the land like any real estate.  It’s a lease hold interest.  It’s just not a fee simple interest.

Opposition: 

Question DEB HORSTMAN:  N7062 County Road DE  Holmen WI  54636.  I’d like to know exactly where this is going to be placed.  Will this be an eyesore out my window?  Will this have any blinking lights during the night?  How will this be accessed?  Off County D on a side road?

Answer GUST:  I could give you a copy of the survey but it’s on a knoll on Anderson’s property.  There’s a trailer with a road there, it will be straight above that. 

Remark HORSTMAN:  Right in front of my house.

Answer GUST:  The road is coming in off their driveway using an existing field road, as I said it will not be lit.  Obviously you will see the tower.

Question HORSTMAN:  Will it have any blinking lights on it?  Like a red light – something we need to look at every night?
Answer GUST:  It should not but it’s up to the FAA.  We have to file with them.  It’s a 60 day process, typically under 200 feet, no airport within 3 miles; it would not have to be lit.

Question HORSTMAN:  You said you wanted to add more to it.  How much more are you talking?  More towers like 3 or 4.

Answer GUST:  More space on the tower that other carriers can utilize.

Question HORSTMAN:  And how do you do that?  How do you add more space?

Answer GUST:  It’s designed for that so we just mount their antenna on a bracket.

Question HORSTMAN:  So at some point we could have this strong, big pole with 100 antennas coming out?

Answer GUST:  No, there would be 4 sets.

Question HORSTMAN:  Sets of 4...

Answer GUST:  How ever many they require, could be 4 to 12 depending on the carrier and their needs.

Remarks HORSTMAN:  I also have US Cellular; if I stand in the middle of the road I can talk on my phone.

Reply GUST:  Sites are supposed to be designed so you have in-building coverage. 

Bluske reviews aerial photo of proposed site with Horstman, Gust and Committee.  Notes access road and adjoining property owners and location of Horstman property.

Question KAPANKE:  Is that over a mile away Jeff?
Answer BLUSKE:  Each square on this map is 40 acres so it’s a quarter mile.

Question HAMMES:  Mr. Gust, how much traffic will be on this road? 

Answer GUST:  After it’s built it will be very minimal, only maintenance, typically a pick-up type truck several times a month or if there were a power outage.  Very minimal traffic, not even as much as Anderson’s coming in and out of their house. 

Remarks BINA:  Well I guess as we toured it out there on Thursday we drove up that road going up, that main drag and we went right up to about there and turned around and came back down and I was looking for the hill as we came down and that whole series of trees right there.  I could not see the hill at all, those trees are high enough I couldn’t see the hill so if she lives right on that corner your probably not eve going to see the tower up there at all the way I looked at it, then we drove in the yard and drove up the valley and then you could see it from there.  That road will need some improvement too, mud holes and sink holes will need maintenance of some type.

Remarks GUST:  Yes we will put gravel down.

Howard Erickson  W6441 Hossfeld Road  Holmen WI  54636.  Distributes article by George Carlo:  “Nuking the Birds & the Bees – The Explosion of Wireless Technology.”  Not for or against.  Comments on article, question where we are going with this.  Concerned that someone should take a deeper look at health issues associated with telecommunications towers.  Notes article on web-site does indicate problems created for bees. 

Correspondence:  Town of Onalaska - received June 26, 2007.  Town approves Conditional Use Permit 752 – no conditions noted. 

Department Recommendation: 

Remarks BLUSKE:  Article received.  Recommend approval subject to 15 conditions:

Motion by Hanson/Bina to approve with conditions.

Remarks HANSON:  Found article just handed to us very interesting.  Have been reading a lot about this over a number of years.  Although I don’t deny some of the things we are doing today, I remember back, you know radio was wireless communication and they were scared of radios; TV was wireless communication at one time, they thought TV and radio transmissions were going to hurt us.  We have so much of this in our country today, all the radar operating today it’s almost impossible to believe that if we had any more it’s going to hurt us because we have so much of it already, but on the bees, I just happened to, and this is kind of ironic, I’ve been reading about these bee colonies that have been disappearing in “My Country” magazine, which is a homesteading magazine.  They had an article a couple months ago about bees.  Telling people to start to raise bees to furnish honey and this and that and there was a lot of letters about it and they mentioned Florida where bee colonies are disappearing and there was an indication in this magazine that these bee colonies they don’t really know what’s happening to them but it tends to be the big bee producers that are losing colonies, and the small individual colonies are not being destroyed like the big ones are.  Maybe there’s another theory to all this.  Thank you for the information, I think it’s very good information.  I hope someone does follow up and keeps us attuned to this.  I’m going to vote for this.

Vote on motion to approve – all aye.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 754  Donald D. and Elaine A. Bina  N1904 Bina Rd  Coon Valley WI  54623.  Petition to run a pheasant hunting business with four paddocks, a proposed 30-ft x 36-ft office/storage business building; and, a future trap house on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as:  The E½-NW and that part of the W½-NE lying Westerly of County Road I all in Section 8, T 15 N, R 5 W except Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 80 Volume 9 and except further as described in tax parcel 12-173-0, 12-174-0, 12-176-0 and 12-180-0.  Town of Washington. 

Mr. Bina steps down from the Committee for this hearing.

Appearing in Favor:  Don Bina  N1904 Bina Road  Coon Valley WI  54623.  I have requested that we go into the pheasant operation, business, in addition to my farming operation, not going to change my farming at all.  I’ve been there for 45 years, will raise crops just as I have in the past.  I have layed out some strips already, narrow strips for pheasant cover between my corn fields.  Since  I did not plant the corn this year due to hip surgery, one of my neighbors planted the corn for me.  I plan to be back planting corn again next year.  I am harvesting the hay and have beef cattle.  That’s the layout of the farm right there (on overhead).  I have a couple of kids and couple of sons-in-law who are going into the business with me.  The pheasant hunting is not going to be worked on during the summer time.  The DNR has set times when the operations can work and be in existence and that is from September 1 of any year to March 30 of any year, just over the winter months.  We plan on forming an LLC, limited liability corporation with those that want to be part of it.  So far I haven’t invested anything in it except for some seed I have planted already.  I guess it’s up to this Committee to approve or disapprove and that’s your choice.  I have contacted all the immediate neighbors, except for one who lives down in the valley and is probably a mile away from my operation, the Tremain property.  Darlene Dovenberg I did not call, other than that I have not got any of my immediate neighbors in opposition.  I also need, if this is approved, I need a permit from DNR for pheasants which if approved I will go after next.  If not approved I won’t have to spend my 400 dollars.  So therefore I’m waiting to see what happens because the season won’t start until September or October.  You have I think received, okay some other things I should go through here, traffic count, there will be at the maximum 10-12 vehicles in my yard at any given time.  I plan on using the front porch of my house for the office until we can either get organized or not.  The only noise will be from the shooting that takes place out in the fields.  If I get approved I would like a small sign, probably 4-ft x 8-ft somewhere along Bina Road probably and at some point in time could paint a big sign on the side of my shed that could be seen from Highway 33.  Will have to hire some employees in addition to myself, my wife and volunteers I get from in-laws.  So I’ll need a number of those possibly full-time and then part-time employees.  The hours of operation would be something like 7 a.m. to dusk – would coincide with DNR regulations on hunting so I’m not going to change from that.  Like to have a stand alone office at some point in time, which I’m not going to do this summer.  I will probably do a little more research and have a stand alone office where I can have the people meet before they go out to the fields to hunt.  The refuse, I have 2 different people that will take, if we clean pheasants we need to do something with the debris.  I have not signed a contract with anyone at this point in time, but I will have a contract in hand if I do get approved before September, with one of my neighbors who has an incinerator to take care of feathers and whatever else is there.  If and when we put the building up for an office I will have a bathroom there.  We will put a holding tank in next to it which will be pumped, but that’s not until we get approval and established.     

Bina reviews site plan with Committee, buffer locations, paddock layout, areas exempt from hunting.  That’s all I have now, if you questions.

Question MEYER:  On point number 9 of your letter Mr. Bina, Jeff does he need other permits to sell what he wants to sell there?

Answer BLUSKE:  For shells or shirts or hats he would have to get a state tax number where he would have to report the county sales tax and state sales tax.

Remarks BINA:  And if I sell shells I will probably need something from the Firearms Commission or DNR or someone.

Remarks BLUSKE:  You’d need to amend the ordinance if you were going to sell firearms.

Remarks BINA:  I’m not going to sell firearms I’m going to sell shells.

Question BLUSKE:  Oh, okay, you indicated to the Committee that you have to get a game farm license from DNR?

Answer BINA:  Yes.

Question MEYER:  How about number 14 – raising and storing pheasants?

Question HAMMES:  Are you going to raise pheasants or are you going to buy them?

Answer BINA:  Both, I have a 30 x 36 hog barn which we are going to renovate, divide it in parts and buy chicks and adult birds.

Question MEYER:  The noise situation?

Answer BINA:  The noise would be only from the shotgun shooting that goes on out in the fields. 

Remarks MEYER:  I think there’s 3 of us here who have been through something like this 15 years ago or so, we shut one down because of the noise.  Neighbors all approved it then too.  Till the noise hit.  Should be discussed up front.

Question BLUSKE:  Mr. Bina you indicated when you were making the application that you would possibly have a trap house.  Now I’ve tried to get an answer from the DNR and nobody can answer the question and that would be about the lead.  Typically in a trap club where they have 2,3,4 trap houses they have to mine the lead back out of the ground, normally contour the ground, sandy type soils, so every so often they can go in and do that for something that would be temporary I can’t get an answer from anybody.  How strong do you feel about having that trap area?

Answer BINA:  I’m not strong on that at all, it’s just a possibility because it would be down in a ravine below my buildings.  Would be shooting into the woods but I could throw that out pretty quickly.  It’s not a big deal, you could take it off the conditional use if you like.

Remarks KAPANKE:  Do have someone you can contact Jeff – has a trap house, he’s a lawyer.

Question HANSON:  Don when we were out there we noticed that you have some land for some people to garden out there.  How far of a buffer is that to where they are gardening and the shooting will be?

Answer BINA:  It’s quite a ways around that ring on the left hand side, it’s closer by the barn and the buildings, but after the first frost in the year, I can regulate that I can not use area 3 until the first frost, after the first frost everything in the garden is dead and they are done.  That would be the 1^st of October or something.  I could use the other paddocks and just not use number 3 until we get the first frost.

Question HAMMES:  This will start after the garden season in September. 

Answer BINA:  I don’t know if I will get started by September.  I have quite a few hoops to jump through.  We might start in October or November.  By that time there will be frost and no problems.

Dick Hellerude  W7008 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636.  Speaking in favor but want to clarify one thing.  That I have some expertise on and that is the lead issue.  If the gentleman puts in a trap range, what he needs to have is a plan on file for recovery of the lead. 

Remarks HAMMES:  Dick is the former head of the Rod and Gun Club in Holmen. 

Scott Perry  N5214 County Highway M  West Salem WI  54669.  I am Don’s son-in-law and will be working on this venture with him.  Talked about it for the last 2 or 3 years now.  Just to clarify a couple of things, we will be applying for a Class “A” Bird Hunting Preserve License.  I have copies if anyone would like to see those regulations on that.  The one thing I want to make a comment on if you look at the map Sections 1 and 2, the way that is positioned on his land that dividing line between 1 and 2 is the high side of the hill.  When you are in Field 2 you can’t see Bina Road at all, you’re on the downward side of the hill going toward the woodland and it’s very secluded.  You’re lucky to hear a car, tractor or anything when you’re on that side of the knoll going toward Highway 33.  The same where the field road comes in below line 1 – that area there is in a bowl and is very secluded, so the way we envisioned the layouts of the fields we wanted them to be as secluded as possible.  That’s all I have to say.  Thank you.

Opposition:  Ron Black  N2174 Bina Road  Coon Valley WI  54623.  Not here speaking particularly for or against the proposal.  Do want to make the Committee aware of a few things that Don had spoke about at the May 2, 2007 Town of Washington regular monthly meeting.  His proposal then and where it is now are slightly different.  If we could maybe examine the site map, could we put that back up.  One of the concerns I have considering the site map is that paddock area 1.  From the dividing line of paddock area 1 and the 40 section that paddock 3 lies in.  That area going north from the 40 line in paddock area 1 just by the scale that is provided with this map, shows that the distance of that buffer is approximately 250 feet.  You continue farther north (indicating on map) in this northwest corner right about there you at the distance, again using the map scale, the distance is about 150 feet, coming back into this paddock area that distance is approximately 400 feet by scale.  The areas on paddock and here over to the center line of County Road I here again scale to about 400 feet.  I’m not sure how many people have ever been pelleted by shot, 2 times in my life while duck hunting, I’ve taken shot; once at a distance of less than 100 yards and once slightly over that, and both times I thought to myself I was lucky I hadn’t taken a frontal blow.  I don’t know what would ever have happened, but I withstood it.  My concern is, maybe the buffer areas could be looked at to possibly be enhanced  from what’s on the drawing; changed in such a way that maybe they are enlarged or the paddock areas themselves, could possibly be changed so the hunting areas are farther from Bina Road and also you eliminate the possibility of any of the shot from paddock 4 reaching County Road I.  Then when we look at Don’s impact statement that was provided, and which you were just reviewing, questions on his impact statement, I think you addressed number 3, the noise issue, along with number 3 one of the gentlemen on the Committee here had mentioned that some 15 years ago there was a situation that started at a later date and got to be a noise issue concern, the members of the community that were contacted, adjacent landowner, going down that list, Darlene & Jim Dovenberg live in West Salem in all likelihood not going to hear the noise.  Alice Steiger lives in Rye, New York – doubtful she will hear any noise.  Gerald and Dennis Kneifl, if my memory serves, Gerald Kneifl lives in Village of St Joe, Ken Hundt lives in Village of St Joe, Steven Hundt, his brother resides at Mulder Nursing Home in West Salem, Pat and Syl Clements live over in the Barre Mills area.  Tom and Shelly Servais are a ¼ mile away, they’re within earshot, Don Hammes lives a little farther down the road towards St Joe about ¾ of a mile from Don’s property and Terry Meyer is approximately ½ a mile away.  Some of the people right in the area there obviously are going to hear it, others might not hear it quite so well.  Continuing on with the impact statement, the number of employees, when Don had presented his first proposal he had spoke that we would possibly be looking at 1 or 2 employees.  Looks like the number employees is up from that.  Just something for discussion.  There was no building proposed at that time, there is a building proposed now.  Cleaning of game has been addressed here, holding tank going along with the building has been addressed.  The access to the site unless I’m misunderstanding something, on item 15, proposed driveway off of Bina Road to the club house, is that a separate driveway for the club house or is that a shared driveway off his existing residence driveway, and then the formation of the LLC, an assumption I guess made that this would be a sole proprietor.  With an LLC of course, there is always the possibility that the business can outlive the founder.  That covered the items on the impact statement.  Going back to the conditional use application and what Don had talked about at the Town Board meeting again it was the new building and the trap range and no mention of shooting trap and it sort of sounds like Don is on the fence about that.  I guess the trap shooting would be concurrent with the trap schedule.  Again I am not necessarily in favor of or in opposition to Don’s proposal, but I think A, if safety is going to be a paramount issue, Mr. Bina and the Town of Washington, this Committee, La Crosse County – we need to just take a step back for a moment, in my opinion, so I guess I’m asking for at best, delay, or deferment of a recommendation.  I don’t want Don to have to forfeit his application fee, but if that has to happen that’s part of the territory too!  Thank you.

Question BLUSKE:  Are you on the Town’s Land Use Planning Committee?

Answer BLACK:  Yes I am.

Question BLUSKE:  Have you guys examined the Corridor along Highway 33, is there anything planned for that area?  For residential, I’m just throwing out anything.

Answer BLACK:  The plan right now is with Pete Fletcher and we will be presenting it to the town folks, should have a copy available, rough, preliminary draft for a meeting on this Thursday.  Highway 33 Corridor has been, well it has been designated for possible development, of course development can’t happen until it’s in a plan and someone buys a piece of property for development.  How well this operation may or may not fit, that’s not for me to decide at this point.  I don’t think it’s for discussion right now.  So that’s where I’d like to leave that.

Question MEYER:  You were sort of getting to that you would like to see this delayed is that right?

Answer BLACK:  Yes and my purpose for that would be so the Town of Washington could take a look at the proposal presented here at the County, the initial proposal, no action taken on by the Town but the initial proposal was just a kind of broad overview, didn’t include some of the items on the proposal.

Remarks HAMMES:  The Town has 10 days from this meeting to either concur or object to a decision that the Board makes here tonight. 

Reply BLACK:  Right.

Question MEYER:  That’s what I was wondering, what were your goals?

Answer BLACK:  To get everybody to take a step back, I guess, and take a look at this.

Michael Hundt  N1573 Bunker Hill Road  Rockland WI  54653.  I actually wasn’t going to say anything at all but I happen to sit on the same Land Use Planning Committee with Ron.  Just want to clarify one thing.  The Land Use Planning Committee has not discussed this at all as far as any corridors that we have identified, everything is just a proposal, there are no corridors identified at all.

Dick Hellerude  W7008 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636.  I’m here for opposition to this, along with my expertise with firearms the gentleman mentioned that he has to go to the DNR to get a permit to do this and whether we approve or disapprove it tonight, if we approve it he goes to the DNR and one of the main things they’re going to take a look at is shot containment on his property and they will also take a look at the noise issue.  So that comes with his next permit, they may turn him down.

Remarks BINA:  Just one point I wanted to make before you close the hearing.  I was asked by the Town Chairman to be at the Comprehensive Planning meeting next week at the Town of Washington.  They are meeting before the Town Board meeting so I will be explaining this to the Planning Committee on Tuesday or Wednesday , whatever night they meet. 

Correspondence:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Actually had 2 recommendations on this one with 11 conditions but final recommendation is to hold over until Town Plan is done.  So I have 11 conditions depending on what the Committee wants to do with this, our recommendation is to hold over until Town Plan is done.

Question MEYER:  The Town Plan, I didn’t know defined what businesses could or couldn’t be there?
Answer BLUSKE:  Well, in generalities it will indicate if that area will remain agricultural, and with agricultural comes certain farm related businesses, family related businesses, which this would end up being.  It also ends up defining what residential is going to end up being, because with a Conditional Use Permit even though he was there first it’s Conditional Use Permit which could, depending on the investment he’s planning on sticking in there with the family members, could end up interfering with some planned residential out there, where it could end up being turned around, it could be taken away, I’m just throwing that out there, because that has happened already once in the County.

Question HAMMES:  Are you saying to defer it until after the Plan’s done?

Answer BLUSKE:  Until the Town Plan is done.

Question HAMMES:  How far is the Town plan from being done?
Answer HUNDT:  Probable early this spring.

Question HANSON:  But if we defer this one for the Town Plan, wouldn’t we be looking at every time we get a Conditional Use Permit for some place, wouldn’t we say that we defer all of them until the Town Plans are done?

Answer BLUSKE:  This one is a little extra-ordinary as far as safety goes.  That’s the only thing that we end up playing into this and I’m going to say the noise along with safety.

Question HANSON:  How many feet can you legally shoot from the center line of a highway? 

Discussion HANSON & VARIOUS PERSONS ATTENDING:  50 feet off the right-of-way and 500 feet from a building.

Question RAUK:  Does the Town have no plan at all that they can compare this to at the present moment?  We have a lot of other towns in the process, so their older version would be comparable to our County Development Plan and we’ve used those for basing approvals before.

Answer BLUSKE:  The current Town Plan calls for Exclusive Agriculture in this area.

Question RAUK:  And this use would be incompatible with Exclusive Ag?

Answer BLUSKE:  This is a commercial use even though it’s a family run business, yes.

Question HANSON:  Are you saying if the Town Plan calls for Exclusive Agriculture then this operation couldn’t occur on this farm?

Answer BLUSKE:  This is one of the difficult things that the planning community has to take into account.  When considering the Agricultural Use, because agriculture was there first.  So if residential moves into the area there’s nothing that you can end up saying.  But, if a commercial business such as this, because there is noise and some safety factors that come into play, because the pellets will, like the gentleman said that they have to have a plan that keeps all the shot on Mr. Bina’s property.  That’s going to take a lot of education on the part of the Bina family to educate the people that when a bird flies up that, even if they want to shoot at it the shot’s going to end up leaving the property and if that’s an issue they may not get the permit anyway.  That’s just the reality of it.  The noise I mean you can be anywhere in an agricultural community, especially in the valley a shot will carry a long ways, whether it’s rifle or shotgun – that’s just the reality of it.  That is during the hunting season though, so you will hear some of that going on anyway.  So one of the issues that the planning community has to take into account along with the Town of Washington is what do they want to see happen in the Ag community, they going to support family run businesses no matter what they are, if they end up sticking that in the Plan, they’re going to have to stick that in there, right now.  It’s not in there.  You can have something that’s farm related, not family related business, family related like selling seed out of an office something like that, that kind of business is fine because it’s farm related. 

Question HANSON:  So you’re saying that this is actually a commercial use of farmland?

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Question KAPANKE:  Jeff do you have your conditions, could you read them?

Bluske reads conditions:

Question MEYER:  Safety classes, did he say they were going to do that?

Answer BLUSKE:  I think that’s something that’s going to end up being required.

Question MEYER:  By the DNR?
Answer BLUSKE:  I think they’re required to show a video of the damage that shot can do, if you’re not really aware, where your other people are in your group, that if a bird goes up between you that you don’t shoot.  You let the bird go and it’s a lost bird then ‘cause if it leaves the property it’s gone, you can’t go on anyone else’s property to get the thing, even if it’s dead you gotta get permission to go over there and get it.  I think those classes are required.  I don’t think you have to show it a second time if you’re a repeat customer.

Remarks KAPANKE:  I think personally I would have no problems giving it approval tonight even though you’re asking for deferment I think if we just gave the Conditional Use Permit with all your requirements on there we give the Town of Washington plenty of time to act on this because I think there are a lot of other permits that are required before the Conditional Use would kick in.  I think there’s a lot of work to be done yet and the Town of Washington still will have time to react.

Motion Kapanke/Keil to approve the Conditional Use Permit with recommended conditions.

Question RAUK:  Are we going to leave in the shot house or take it out, that’s number 9?

Remarks BINA:  If I might, why don’t you take it out.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Okay, so now we have 10 conditions.

Question HANSON:  Would you read condition number 10, the last one?
Answer BLUSKE:  This permit is subject to review if the neighboring land use is changed in the Town Plan.

Question HANSON:  Does that mean, want to make sure I get this straight, if we approve it, and their Town Plan which will be approved next year, changes the land use in that area, then this permit has to come back to be re-issued again?

Answer BLUSKE:  It would be reviewed at that time by the Town’s Land Use Committee.

Question HANSON:  But if they review it and say, this doesn’t fit now would that trigger a thing that they would have to come back?
Answer BLUSKE:  Well I think it’s a combination of everything we’ve just talked about, that if there is corridors and Mr. Hundt indicated that they’re not even talking corridors, maybe they’re not that far, maybe that’s what this Thursday is going to be about.  You don’t indicate something and then say it’s going to happen or we’re going to prevent it from happening because we’re going to indicate the adjacent land here is going to have to end up being residential.  Well as soon as residential is approved, maybe that’s the time to take a look at that because it’s going to end up being in conflict with whatever is proposed out there.

Question HANSON:  But that wouldn’t kill the permit necessarily, what I am trying to say, the approval process for the permit will still have gone through.  The permit would remain approved but the Town of Washington would review it.

Remarks BLUSKE:  But it just behooves the Bina family to participate in the process and know what they are investing in and don’t stick in a club house if there’s any possibility until they know that they’re clear.

Question RAUK:  Can I re-phrase Jeff what you were just saying and put it in the vernacular we’ve used before and that is:  subsequent to the Town Plan being approved and the then discovery, if you will, that now these are incompatible uses, the Town could at that point generate a no and that would one of the no’s necessarily needed to undo this?

Answer BLUSKE:  That’s correct, the Committee has the option right now to terminate a conditional use permit – Bluske reviews conditional use expiration and revocation provisions.

Question RAUK:  We could also call back a conditional use if in non-compliance as well as if it is no longer compatible with the area.

Answer BLUSKE:  Right.

Vote on motion with 10 conditions.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 abstain (Bina).

Mr. Bina returns to his seat on the Committee.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 755  Michael V. and LaVonne M. Hundt  N1573 Bunker Hill Rd  Rockland WI  54653.  Petition to establish an office for a home occupation in a proposed 14-ft x 28-ft detached accessory building at N1573 Bunker Hill Rd on lands zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as:  Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 106 Volume 8.  Town of Washington. 

Appearing in Favor:  Michael Hundt  N1573 Bunker Hill Rd  Rockland WI  54653.  Asking for detached building to use as office.  Have had in home office, 5 children – noise level in house rising; also have an assistant.  Travel extensively as a sales representative, no retail sales, no signage.

Question KAPANKE:  What business is this?

Answer HUNDT:  Manufacture recycling equipment.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  Spoke with Town Chair – Town has not met. 

Department Recommendation:  Approval with 8 conditions:

Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve with conditions.  All aye.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1744   The Kraemer Company LLC  PO Box 235  Plain WI  53577.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “B”, a 10.689 acre parcel to be used primarily for a new quarry haul road along with opening 3-4 acres for a usable limestone quarry on land described as:  That part of the N½-NE-NE of Section 10, T 15 N, R 6 W lying west of County Road YY.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in Favor:  Dan Marino  1855 Crestwood Drive  Plain WI.  Have purchased lands south of existing quarry, have access road on Clements property.  Land came up for sale; in our best interest to purchase.  Entrance to remain the same but road will be relocated onto this property. 

Discussion Marino & Bina regarding driveway entrance.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Problem if Clements property is being purchased currently Exclusive Ag.

Opposition:  Lois Hess N2109 Clements Road  La Crosse WI  54601.  Concerned about Exclusive Ag lands being changed to something else.  Noise a problem if quarry being expanded.  Quarry would be seen by people nearby.

Question KAPANKE:  When would mining start?

Answer MARINO:  The only rock available is to the west and south of our property, only about 3 acres.  Would be at least another 15-20 years before we mine that.  With all the trees to the south couldn’t see that area. 

Correspondence:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Approval

Motion Hanson/Keil to approve.  All aye.

Non-metallic Mining Reclamation Plan 2007.  Bob Jewel  1480 St Luke Avenue, Plain WI.  Reviews area to be mined.  High walls sloped to 3:1 and be vegetated.  Will have an Erosion Control Plan.  Approved by County Land Conservation Department.

Question RAUK:  Said previously won’t get to that in 10-15 years.

Answer JEWEL:  Guessing more like 15 years.

Question RAUK:  Then you’ll be putting in new haul road and removing trees?

Answer JEWEL:  Some of old haul road and part of Old Highway YY still there.  Little excavation required.  Most of road bed intact. 

Mr. Jewel reviews phases of development.  Phases to be stripped of overburden – until ready for mining.  Two to three years per phase.

Opposition:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Recommend approval.

Motion Hanson/Keil to approve.  All aye.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1745   Dave Hammers, o/b/o HF Eagle Properties LLC  1480 City Highway 16 W  West Salem WI  54669.  Petition to rezone from Transitional Agricultural District to Residential District “A” a 1.32 acre parcel to be used as a proposed town road for access to an existing Residential District “A” parcel on lands described as:  Part of the SE-SW of Section 6 and of the NE-NW of Section 7 all in T 18 N, N 7 W described in tax parcel 8-89-3.  Town of Holland.

Chairman Hammes turns the Chair over to Vice Chairman Terry Hanson and steps down from the Committee for this hearing.

Appearing in Favor:  Dave Hammers  250 Kevin Court  Onalaska WI  54650.  I am one of the owners of HF Eagle Properties.  We purchased about a year ago this original 74-acre parcel with a plan to break this parcel up into buildable residential lots.  I met within the Town’s long range planning for residential lots of 10 acres or more.  The southern half of this parcel has been sold, and we own this 66-foot strip that for some reason was not rezoned when the rest of the parcel was rezoned.  The remaining 40-acre parcel is zoned residential “A” and this 66-foot parcel that you see is access to the 40-acre parcel, but was never rezoned at the time of the original parcel, which was before we owned it.  What we would like to do is ask to have that 66-foot parcel rezoned so we take that 40 acre parcel and sell as more than 1 parcel.  What we have found is that there is a huge demand, lot of interest in parcels of 5-10 acres but not a lot of interest in

40-acre parcels in that area.  The Town of Holland does not allow for any type of shared driveway agreement and that particular 66-foot parcel, unless rezoned, would only allow for one person to use as a driveway, into the 40-acre parcel.  So what we propose to do is take the 40-acre parcel, split into 4-10 acre pieces.  One I think is 9.85, the others are 10 and then build a

cul-de-sac about two thirds of the way down on that land so all would have access.    We met with the Town of Holland Plan Commission last month.  The only issue that came out of that was what do you do with your water and erosion plan.  There was concern that areas outside this parcel had some water drainage issues so we had an Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan completed by Paragon and Associates that we’ve supplied the County with a copy of.  In summary what they are telling me is that the parcel (40-acre) is 99 percent self sufficient in water retainage.  It is basically a fairly level parcel with a maximum drop from the south end to the north end of the parcel of about 10 feet, otherwise basically a level, sandy area.  The Erosion Control Plan called for little modification of the parcel other than where the residences would actually be built on each particular lot, making sure that they complied with the directives within the plan itself.  The end result is the parcel itself has little to no cause of anybody else’s water problems since it is self sufficient and very level.  So we are asking that the 66-foot parcel be rezoned to allow us access to the 40-acre parcel which is already properly zoned for what we would like to do. 

Bluske reviews photos of standing water in some residential yards in the area.

Bluske reviews Paragon Study Map illustrating area to be reserved for infiltration on the 40-acre parcel.

Question BLUSKE:  Will a driveway be allowed in this reserved area, will area be designated on a survey map?  Intentions, has a bearing on the road.

Answer HAMMERS:  I understand, based on the directive from Paragon & Associates, we are taking their advice, they are far more expert.  We felt the driveways could be put in that yellow area (as colored on map) but no houses should be built in that yellow area.  Most of that yellow area is considered wooded.  This line right here (indicated on map) they are recommending the homes be built behind that area.  This is the north property line here, so in other words on these 2 lots (indicating on map) these people would be building down in here (indicates on map).  Their driveway would come through this area and that would be the only effect, no buildings in that area.  The directive from Paragon was felt that if the driveways going through that area were properly put in with proper drainage then it would not affect the water runoff in any areas as long as there were no residential buildings in that area.  We just completed a Certified Survey Map, I believe it’s under review by the County right now.

Remarks BILL JUNG, COUNTY SURVEYOR:  It cam in today, I have not reviewed it yet.

Remarks HAMMERS:  I understand, it was just completed yesterday, I do not know if it indicates if anything can be built in that area or not.  If that were the Town and Committee’s desire that we stipulate exactly what areas a home can be built and define how the driveways will be put in so that proper drainage is accounted for we certainly have no problem.  I don’t believe, based on the Stormwater Plan that this 40-acre is responsible for any of the water problems since it clearly tells us the 99 percent of this parcel is self contained.  So I don’t question the fact that there are some areas around this parcel, and I don’t really know how far away these parcels are and I don’t question that there are some water issues in some areas but it isn’t related to this particular parcel.

Question BINA:  Well I’m kind of curious, Jeff you showed us some pictures of water standing out in some field, what kind of rain did they have, I would assume, maybe I shouldn’t assume anything, but that’s sandy ground and should absorb the water quickly, how long does it set?

Answer BLUSKE:  This was, if you go back to just the top photo (on overhead) – these were from February during a fast thaw.

Remarks JUNG:  February of 2005.  Remarks BLUSKE:  So in a typical summer you’re not going to have something like that but in the wintertime.  My concern and this Committee’s concern is that if those areas are filled it could end up shifting somewhere to somebody else. 

Question HANSON:  Is it correct that the yellow area on the map is designated on the area that was drawn by his company?

Answer BLUSKE:  Not yet it’s not.

Question HANSON:  Where did you get that from then?

Answer BLUSKE:  This is from the Stormwater, Dave’s Erosion Control and Stormwater Plan.

Remarks HAMMERS:  Actually that area was designated on the plan as “area to be reserved for infiltration.”

Question HANSON:  So that comes from your Stormwater Plan?

Answer HAMMERS:  Yes our plan.

Opposition: 

Dick Hellerude  W7008 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636.  I’m a little bit east of this property, I’ve lived in the area since 1995.  I’d like to present you with just a little bit broader picture than what is here.  Would you put that map back up please, the one with the yellow on it.  We’ve all seen the pictures of the water up there.  But now if we go south of this forty and I understand you sold that land south of there, that’s next to County T?
Answer HAMMERS:  Correct.

Remarks HELLERUDE:  Okay, if you go further south of that which is south of T, you have some high hills and that’s the water drainage that comes down through there.  Now I understand they made a study of this forty but the piece that he has sold that is kind of a low spot and then the one that he’s got divided off like a pie there, that does take some of that water.  Some of that water does go west of and comes down in the S curve of Heram Road, but right on the S curve at one point in history I believe Mr. Somebody owned it, they built the 2 houses you see pictures of and then it was restricted to never be built there on Heram Road because that retains some of that water.  This particular land does retain some.  The big concern that I have, maybe somebody can answer this, if this road was put in and the people built on the south end of that property each one would be building a driveway through there back to that yellow, that would raise that particular land, no I don’t know what the scale is but those pie shaped things (lots) down there, it’s not too wide down in there so we would be filling that area actually putting more water over towards Heram Road.  I don’t know if I’m all wet or not but that’s the way I see it.

Josh Mracek  W7238 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636.  If you look due west of that property my yard is the key drainage point for this 40 the Frankard property, the Vang property and the Dunn property, it’s right on the corner just past the edge of your map.  This is literally a swimming hole every fall, this is probably the worst fall I’ve had for drainage.  It’s come within feet of my house itself.  But the key drainage point is right there.  If other topographical studies were done it would show a lot more than the 70 acres he originally proposed to develop drains here.  Everything south of County T is all hill, hundreds of acres that drain from the southeast corner of that property and comes straight across to the northwest corner of that property and then goes from there directly west across everybody’s property which is level.  And the drainage is probably good for that 70 acres but it’s all the water that comes across that 70 acres from everything directly south of County T is just an unbelievable abundance.  It comes through my yard at such a rate that it would probably take you under, easily 4 feet of water, it’s unbelievable. 

Question HANSON:  Where is your property?

Answer MRACEK:  Directly west of Frankard, Vang and the next property, it’s right on the edge of that map.  That’s the area where all the water drains into.  I don’t think anyone builds a road level with the land, so building those driveways in that pie shaped area is gonna, where’s the water going to go?  How will he get it to drain the way it’s supposed to?

Question BINA:  Are there culverts under Heram Road?

Answer MRACEK:  There is one in the corner of my road, right at the corner of my property.

Remarks BINA:  The river is north of you, there aren’t enough culverts to take that water away from you.

Remarks MRACEK:  Just where my house is, right on the corner of my property, the current drainage probably works fine for that 70 acres but it’s all the water that has to come across that, early thaw this year after we had 2½ feet of snow, which is rare, but that was just at one time, that and an early thaw coming down off the hills and that whole area south of T is a relatively shaded area, so the snow melts, the ground doesn’t thaw, that’s where it runs.

Question BINA:  The water flows north there to the Black River?
Answer MRACEK:  Yes, and our properties are probably only a mile at the most, from the Black River.

John Derouin  W7083 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636.  I live right next to where he’s planning to put that road in.  If he puts all them driveways in my back yard it is just going to fill right up.  It does right now.  I get into my barn by crossing 2 feet of water.  If he puts all that concrete there, where’s all the water going to go?  I have a bunch of names on this petition here not to have the road.  (Bluske accepts petition for the record.)

Question HANSON:  Bill could you put up that map with the yellow part on again, I want to ask a question.  You’re saying that where that yellow is extends north into your property?

Answer DEROUIN:  Right there at that fence line, (indicated on map) I get flooded out every spring.

Question HANSON:  And that water comes off of this?

Answer DEROUIN:  Yes.

Bluske reviews aerial photo of the area with the Committee.  Review of contour elevation on the Paragon map (yellow area) with Committee.

Michelle Frankard  W7105 Heram Road  Holmen WI  54636. Have numerous concerns why opposed to this.  Other than the flooding, it does flood substantially on my property as well.  I also oppose this road being put in between my property and Derouin’s property because according to the certified deed I have here, dated 2004, the size is 66.59 feet.  I would like to know how much land will be between my land and the road.  Because if this road is put in there also needs to be drainage.  The issue that bothers me about putting this road in is it will flood me more.  That would definitely have to be plowed if that’s a County road in the wintertime.  That will bring more water to my property which already floods every spring.  Another issue I have is my son is mentally challenged, I’m a widowed mother, my husband passed away when I was pregnant with him.  If that road is put in my son could get hurt, because no one would be aware that he is mentally challenged.  Very concerned as a mother, homeowner and landowner there for my son and his safety.  The reason we have this property is to be away from busy streets and things like that.  A safe place to raise my children.  If this road is here, there is no barrier.  It also invades my privacy because with the opening of that road and where the end is, coming through there to get onto the road I’m going to have all kinds of car lights blaring through my front windows which is my livening room and dining room.  There would be no barrier there to protect my son, no signs to let people know there is a mentally challenged, handicapped child there in the area.  There would be more flooding on my property and I oppose it 100 percent.  My question is if he owned the land along County Road T why didn’t he put in the access road for this property off County Road T?  Why does it have to be so close to my property and take away my child’s safety, take away our privacy and flood us out some more?