PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
January 2, 2008
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
George Hammes – Chair, Terry Hanson, Tom Rauk, Don Bina, Don Meyer, Brian Kapanke |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
Robert Keil |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
None |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jeff Bluske, Bill Jung, Chad Vandenlangenberg, Mike Weibel (Recorder) |
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. 1766 Michael Jostad, N9633 McIntosh Rd, Melrose, WI 54642; on behalf of Kevin and Jan Young. Petition to rezone from the Transitional Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A,” a 0.13-acre parcel to be added to an existing residential home site at N9633 McIntosh Road on land described as: Part of the Frac. NW-NW of Section 1, T 18 N,
R 6 W commencing at the southeast corner of said Frac. NW-NW; thence North along the East line thereof 406’ to the point of beginning: thence North 150’; thence East 45’, more or less, to the West line of McIntosh Road; thence Southwesterly on the Westerly line of said road 156.6’, more or less, to a point 30’ East, more or less, from the point of beginning; thence West 30’, more or less, to the point of beginning. Town of Farmington.
Appearing in Favor: Michael E. Jostad, N9095 Young Road, Melrose WI 54642. Trying to get front yard back, trying to sell house, discovered didn’t own to right-of-way of the road. Narrow sliver of land owned by Kevin Young. Assumed I owned to right-of-way of road but I don’t.
Question RAUK: Surrendering parcel in back to neighbor?
Answer JOSTAD: Yes, same size, this lot will remain the same size.
Question BLUSKE: How about parcels down here? (Indicates on map) Will they get deeds as well?
Answer JOSTAD: Not at this particular time, they are all aware of this problem.
Question BINA: Did you have a survey done?
Answer JOSTAD: There was a survey - described to the 40 line, not the right-of-way of the road.
Remarks JUNG: Problem created by unlicensed surveyor, followed by a surveyor who was incompetent and tried to straighten this out and made it worse.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence: Town of Farmington fax received December 14, 2007. Town approved rezone at December 11, 2007 Town Board meeting.
Department Recommendation: Approval.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve.
Question BINA: Are the other 2 lots going to change too?
Answer HAMMES: They will have to come in. Could save some cost if filed as one petition.
Vote on motion to approve.
6 - aye, 1 - excused (Keil), 0 – no.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1767 Kelly E. Johnson, N9274 State Road 108, Mindoro WI 54644. Petition to rezone from the Industrial District to Agricultural District “A,” a 40-acre parcel for development into two single family residential sites on land described as: The SW-NW of Section 10, T 18 N, R 6 W, together with a 33-ft easement. Town of Farmington.
Appearing in Favor: Kelly E. Johnson, N9274 State Road 108, Mindoro WI 54644. Was a proposed junkyard at one time – nothing out there anymore – want to sell to family as smaller lots to be affordable. Not much more than that.
Question HAMMES: Access by easement?
Answer JOHNSON: Right across front 40 access to each, 20 in the back.
Question HAMMES: What will you do with front two lots?
Answer JOHNSON: Eventually sell but they have road frontage.
Question BLUSKE: (Reviews aerial photos.) Two modular homes?
Answer JOHNSON: The one moved to back 40 I’m selling. Not set up – for sake of the weather we had to get that moved and secured. It’s all in lieu of this petition anyway.
Question BLUSKE: (Reviews aerial photo.) What is currently located on property – former Marini mobile home gone?
Answer JOHNSON: Nothing back there, mobile home for junkyard gone, box cars gone. No cars, trucks or anything back there. Everything back to the way it was.
BLUSKE: (Reviews current survey and access points.) Committee approval required for access easement for two parcels.
Question BLUSKE: What happens with this mobile home that’s right here? (Indicates on aerial photo.)
Answer JOHNSON: That will probably stay for now. Can’t do anything until spring. If someone buys both parcels in front I assume it can stay. Don’t know if that’s grandfathered in or what.
Remarks BLUSKE: We allow mobile homes, one per farm.
Remarks JOHNSON: Those are actually two farms.
Remarks BLUSKE: But it would have to stay within 35 acres.
Remarks JOHNSON: If I sold that 20 acres I would just get rid of it.
Appearing in Favor: Dan Hall, W3881 Fulton St, Mindoro WI 54644. Planning on purchasing the 20 acres, will be residential – woods, trees to remain just as is.
Question HAMMES: Any plans to subdivide? Any animals?
Answer HALL: No, just two dogs.
Question BLUSKE: Do you object to Residential District “A?”
Answer HALL: I would like to keep that Ag “A” – don’t want it to be built on – in future could use the property for agriculture.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence: Town of Farmington e-mail – November 6, 2007 – Town approved rezone to Ag “A.”
Department Recommendation – Options:
1. Keep Industrial, don’t feel this is a good spot for this.
2. Residential “A” – for two lots.
3. Ag “A” – no mobile homes – 2 lots.
4. Rezone to Exclusive Ag – 1 home.
Bluske discusses easement access options. Concur with Ag “A” zoning – conditional for only 2 residential parcels – restrictions to be recorded with conditions.
Motion Bina to approve as Ag “A” – seconded by Hanson.
Question HANSON: Fits Town Land Use Plan?
Answer BLUSKE: Town does not have a Plan.
Question RAUK: Easement can serve only one residence, if someone wants other 20 acres do they need to get that approved? Right now the easement allows one parcel?
Answer BLUSKE: Right.
Question RAUK: Issues of ground contamination could occur out there, who’s responsible?
Answer BLUSKE: The current land owner.
Vote on motion.
5 – aye, 1 – no (Hammes), 1 – excused (Keil).
ZONING PETITION NO. 1768 Daniel J. and Gretchen Todryk, W194 Davis Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A,” a 4.95-acre parcel for continued residential use on land described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 54 in Volume 10. Town of Burns.
Appearing in Favor: Dan Todryk, W194 Davis Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Had purchased property 2 years ago from Dale Arndt. He had purchased 10 acres from his dad and sold 4.95 acres to us. I am now living there. Have talked to Town – they have not met on this. They’ve told me if a restricted deed on parcel they would have no problem. I have no objection to that.
Question BLUSKE: (Reviews aerial photo of site.) Any animals? Next buyer to have animals?
Answer TODRYK: No, I have a dog, potential buyer had mentioned possibly having horses.
Opposition: None.
Department Recommendation: Approval to Ag “A” with deed restriction – no further subdivision of the parcel.
Motion Meyer/Kapanke to approve a Conditional Zoning – no subdivision of the parcel.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 768 Clifton J. and Lorna L. Wolfe, d/b/a C. Wolfe Tree Service LLP, W2348 Koltermann Road, West Salem WI 54669. Petition to amend condition number 3 of their existing Conditional Use Permit No. 723 to allow for the piling, accumulation and burning of trees, stumps and brush for future burning on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as: The SE-SE of Section 1, T 16 N, R 6 W and a 66-ft wide parcel in the SW-SW of Section 6, T 16 N, R 5 W described as EXCEPTION #2 in document number 1451844. Town of Bangor and Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: Clifton Wolfe, W2348 Koltermann Road, West Salem WI 54669. Would like to be able to burn brush – need to change Conditional Use to do that.
Bluske reviews aerial photo of site and notes brush pile on site for a year now.
Question BLUSKE: Why is that there?
Answer WOLFE: Wasn’t presented to us that way, thought we could pile brush there. Have burned for last 11 years, didn’t think it would be a problem.
Bluske reviews conditions of current Conditional Use Permit.
BLUSKE: Condition #3 states that no piling of wood and stumps, limbs or brush on site, so #3 is what’s in violation and that’s what he’s asking to change.
Question BLUSKE: Woods very close, how would you control a burn?
Answer WOLFE: Would burn only when snow on the ground. Have burned some probably 6 years ago, only 1 fire out there, other fires down by the farmhouse.
Question BLUSKE: Have you looked at alternatives to get rid of the wood?
Answer WOLFE: Not enough to justify equipment. I give wood away to people. I wouldn’t have enough chips to take to Excel – they only take them by the semi-loads.
Question BINA: How long have you been accumulating?
Answer WOLFE: That’s 1 year, we burn then once a year.
Question BINA: Burning in that ditch is a concern – pretty good watershed there.
Remarks WOLFE: DNR is coming out to look at burn site to tell us if that is good site or not. Could move site up farther if this doesn’t work.
Question BINA: Jeff, if DNR designing something?
Answer BLUSKE: DNR doesn’t usually design, they react to a plan that is submitted for review.
Discussion of burning permits in the Town of Bangor.
Question RAUK: Curious – you said you burned once before this – if this is one years worth?
Answer WOLFE: Have burned smaller piles before on different farm.
Question RAUK: If you couldn’t put burn site there where would you put it? Move material?
Answer WOLFE: I like it there, but have truck and loader so I could move it if I had to. Water run could be made to go around it.
Appearing in Opposition:
Rich Schomburg, Hamilton Town Chairman, Hamilton, W3679 County Road C, West
Salem WI 54669. Residents haven’t complained, have had complaints from Town of
Bangor residents in the summertime – smoldering causes problem.
Jimmy Hubert. Live 600 yards from burn pile he’s proposing. He has moved pile from down by pole barn, smoldering fire is really bad – smolders for 2 or 3 days. Bangor gave him a burning permit. I spoke with Tom Stibbe, DNR surprised anyone would issue a permit. Have to have a flat area. I moved there nine years ago. He’s been burning ever since. I live in valley. If it’s damp, smoke really hangs in the valley – it’s just a nuisance. He has other options, other tree companies chip and take to Excel.
Roy Koltermann, W2341 Davis Road, West Salem WI 54669. Smoke is the biggest thing – live up the valley, don’t like the smell.
Correspondence: Letter from Gregg Stangl – Director of Land Conservation Department read into record. Release of particulate matter, non-point source of pollution (wood ash) and nutrients. Recommend recycling or value added wood ships, for bedding of livestock.
Department Recommendation:
Recommend denial, not adverse to stockpile if being chipped – hasn’t been
offered as an option.
Question BINA: If DNR and Wolfe come up with a plan would you consider?
Answer BLUSKE: No.
Remarks HAMMES: Have to look at this as a health concern.
Remarks BINA: RDF plant, Isle-La-Plume site, options?
Motion Rauk/Meyer to deny.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 559 – TERMINATION NO. 4 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 559 filed by James and Xenika Barbara Poehling, W2701 Evans Dwyer Road, Coon Valley WI 54623, and passed by the County Board on August 16, 2001 to board companion animals, up to 12 animals – such as 7 dogs and 5 cats, in the lower level of their home. Reason for terminating – their business has not been in operation for over two years. Town of Greenfield.
Termination request letter received from Xenika Poehling – have not operated conditional use for over 2 years.
No opposition.
Motion Hanson/Bina to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 559.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 566 – TERMINATION NO. 5 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 566 filed by Robert P. and Patricia R. Manke, W1097 Manke-Hesselberg Road, Bangor WI 54614, and passed by the County Board on October 18, 2001 to operate a sand pit that is less than one acre in size and to strip and sell black dirt from a pond maintenance project. Reason for terminating – both uses have been discontinued for a period exceeding 12 months. Town of Bangor and Town of Burns.
Termination request letter received from Robert Manke – Conditional Use no longer being utilized.
None opposed.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 566.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 650 – TERMINATION NO. 6 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 650 filed by Pat Sacia, on behalf of Gerald and Roberta Sacia, N9699 State Road 108, Melrose WI 54642, and passed by the County Board on May 20, 2004 to operate a sales and repair service for bows and archery equipment in a 30-ft x 36-ft pole shed at their residence. Reason for terminating – the use has been discontinued for a period in excess of 12 consecutive months. Town of Farmington.
Termination request letter received from Gerald Sacia. Conditional Use no longer being utilized.
None opposed.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 650.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 730 – TERMINATION NO. 7 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 730 filed by Larry C.E. Gilbertson, 107 Gaarder Rd W, Holmen WI 54636, and passed by the County Board on September 21, 2006 to run Hooper Auto Sales which includes the sale of cars, trucks, motorized campers, snowmobiles, motorcycles, garden tractors, ATV recreational vehicles and marine vehicles, together with one lighted 4-ft x 8-ft sign and one commander board at N7735 Amsterdam Prairie Road, Holmen WI 54636. Reason for terminating: The Conditional Use has not continued in conformity with the conditions of the permit. Town of Holland.
Permit has not been operated in conformance with provisions of the Conditional Use Permit.
Appearing in Favor: Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. This request is a little different than those previous. This is more a request for revocation. Recall history of this property – we tried a revocation of the Conditional Use Permit in the past. At that time Terry Gilbertson was the holder of the permit, the Board allowed Larry Gilbertson, the father, to bring in a new petition for a Conditional Use Permit. That is the permit we are under now, number 730. Since that time when Conditional Use Permit No. 730 was approved I have issued 2 or 3 citations to Mr. Larry Gilbertson, both with guilty findings for violations of the Conditional Use Permit. Since then his dealer’s license has been suspended once, it has been surrendered to the DMV, so there is no dealer’s license out there. There are a couple of things I need to bring to light since the history document I wrote. (At this point, the Chair swears in Mr. Vandenlangenberg.) Everything I’ve said is true. Since the history document the DNR has been out there on an open burning violation. A letter was received from Eau Claire stating they (DNR) will be pursuing action against them for an open burning violation. They had an open burning violation on the site a year ago. So this is a second offence within a year and two months. The other thing – I did get a phone call from their attorney asking for a 30-day delay, I believe they were going to bring in a letter today. I want to state that I do not agree with that, it’s clear to me that they have not been able to operate under a Conditional Use Permit in the past. I don’t see any reason to continue with a Conditional Use Permit out there. They have the option to bring in a new application for a Conditional Use if this is terminated. They can still look for a commercial property. Conditional Use Permit out there is just not working.
Question BINA: Status of this with DNR is what?
Answer VANDENLANGENBERG: It’s an open burning violation. I believe there were 8 or 10 different violations. (Vandenlangenberg reviews DNR letter with Committee.) There was a December 7, 2007 site visit by DNR.
Question BINA: So DNR has been investigating each and every one of these along with the County.
Answer VANDENLANGENBERG: No, this was a recent violation since I filed this termination petition. I think they list 5 different violations. I believe they are going to be seeking fines.
Vandenlangenberg reads the conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 730 into the record. There are a total of 12 conditions. Condition numbers 10, 11 and 12 have been violated.
Question KAPANKE: What is the cost of a citation?
Answer VANDENLANGENBERG: $249.00.
Question KAPANKE: They’ve been paid?
Answer VANDENLANGENBERG: This recent citation was paid, the previous citations – there were 2 of them at the same time – we mitigated them at the pre-trial conference to do an average of the 2 so they paid a reduced forfeiture.
Opposition to Revocation:
Larry Gilbertson, 107 Gaarder Rd W, Holmen WI 54636. I would like to say we have that 350 feet definitely clear as of now. The building itself has got 5 stalls in it with 3 hoists. My request would be if we live up to everything that we at least have a body shop, like we did before.
Remarks HAMMES: Well right now that would be something different, so if I understand this correctly, Jeff, they would have to file for a new Conditional Use Permit, right now we’re on the termination of this one.
Reply L. GILBERTSON: Okay, I see, kinda figured that was the way it was.
Remarks VANDENLANGENBERG: The existing Conditional Use does include body work.
Remarks BLUSKE: But if it’s terminated they would have to come back in. We can’t terminate parts of it.
Terry Gilbertson, N7735 Amsterdam Prairie Rd, Holmen WI 54636. I had moved to location on Highway 35 and double X about 25 years ago. Before moving here I had a body shop that I ran for 5 years. I went to get a Conditional Use Permit before moving to this location and body work is basically all that was stated because that’s all I did. My mother convinced me to do the used car thing so I gave it a whirl and for many reasons that didn’t work out so that’s now in the past. Like my father mentioned earlier we took a house tape and measured from the center line 351 feet and painted a mark on the road, put in a stake, then measured 351 feet on other end and if you site between the stakes there’s nothing within that line of site. I didn’t want someone always giving me hell about the scenic easement. I was told 20 years ago the scenic easement was 250 feet so I put up a short fence in front of where I used to have cars parked. The fence was put up 300 feet from the road and the fence was on diagonal and stained and have received a lot of compliments over the years from people I don’t even know. But obviously I bother a lot of people because I get cited etc., etc. I take a lot of pride in my place, mow everything really nice and neat and at this stage of the game as my father mentioned earlier, auto-body work is what I’m going to be doing probably all my life anyway; that’s what I enjoy doing anyway. At this stage of the game I don’t oppose the termination of the Conditional Use Permit given to my father, but the thing is I still wish to do auto-body work at the same location and I’ll make sure I don’t violate conditions of the permit. Any questions?
Remarks HAMMES: Terry, I agree you keep the lawn mowed and looking nice. I’ve been by there many times. As far as the auto-body, if you want to do that you’re going to have to file for a Conditional Use to do that. This is for termination of the existing permit.
Reply T. GILBERTSON: I understand that.
Question HAMMES: You said you had no objections to the termination of your dad’s permit?
Answer T. GILBERTSON: I have none.
Question BINA: In your views you got cited a couple times for burning out there, what seems to be the problem?
Answer T. GILBERTSON: I had talked to the fire chief in Holmen about that several times. He had told me, I have a number in my office to call when I want to burn. I took the time to build a steel firebox. I’d say I built this at least 15 years ago. The fire box is 4 feet square, it’s 2 feet high and has a steel grate on hinges. I can fold it shut and lock it so nothing can blow out of it. The Fire Department has seen this, it’s nothing new. Whenever I do burn it’s primarily household stuff. I’ve lived at this location 25 years. I don’t burn that much and when I read this two-thirds full of ashes it sounded like a joke to me because the only ashes in my small dumpster, a 2-yard dumpster, very small, but when I throw the ashes from the firebox, all you’re going to see is the ashes on top, that’s all you’re going to see. I have the dumpster dumped by Harter’s, just takes a phone call, I pay for the dump and so much a pound. That’s how it works. The burning is done in a steel box with a grate, I don’t go wild making big fires, never have. I have some tires behind my place – they get hauled away by a gentleman. I pay two dollars a tire, don’t have a ton of tires, just a few.
Remarks BINA: But on your existing Conditional Use Permit we didn’t allow burning at all, so that then is a problem. So if you’re going to be asking for a permit to fix cars you better work something out with the burning from there too.
Question BINA: Does the Town of Holland allow burning in the back yards?
Answer HAMMES: No ordinance against it at the moment but we’re thinking about
it.
Remarks T. GILBERTSON: I don’t do anything to keep a secret from anyone. When the two gentlemen were out to see me from DNR, one was from DNR, one was somebody else, I told them I’d gladly show them anything. I have nothing to hide. So the letter I received from them, a part read here, was so long it was almost goofy and much not even true, I at least read it. I was caught by surprise, big time. But I will go out of my way to make sure I stand within the legal limits, if I have to have a permit of any kind to burn anything, that’s fine, I’ll do everything right and if no permit is ever issued that’s fine too.
Question HAMMES: Jeff, when is the deadline for filing for the next meeting?
Answer BLUSKE: January 11th.
Remarks HAMMES: So if you want to file for a permit to do body work and get it on the fast track you have to file by January 11.
Question T. GILBERTSON: And I go where to do this?
Answer HAMMES: The Zoning Department.
Reply T. GILBERTSON: Sure, I’ll do that.
Question HAMMES: Anything more you would like to say on the termination of this Conditional Use?
Answer T. GILBERTSON: Do not oppose termination of Conditional Use Permit that was used for selling cars, because basically we don’t sell cars so everything is terminated there.
Discussion by Bluske, Committee and Terry Gilbertson regarding provisions in the DNR letter previously mentioned, dumping of materials from shop drain on surface soil around shop; and hazardous waste disposal, auto-body, car shops.
Remarks HAMMES: For the record the DNR letter we are referring to is written to Mr. Terry Gilbertson, Midwest Auto Sales and Body Shop – December 20, 2007, received December 21, 2007, case track number 2007-WCCE-064. According to this the gentlemen out there were Wisconsin DNR Waste Management Specialist Scott Szymanski and Conservation Warden Henry Bauman. Letter was signed by Ginger Cooper, Environmental Enforcement Specialist – West Central Region – Eau Claire.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 730.
5 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – abstain (Hammes), 1 – excused (Keil).
Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Keil).
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.
Mike Weibel, Recorder