Zoning Code Advisory Committee Minutes

MINUTES

ZONING CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

October 22, 2009

ZCAC Members present: Marlin Noffke, Ken Chroge, James Martin, Steve Martin, Richard Ferfecki, Kevin Conradt, Joseph DeBaker, Steven Schlender, David Schmidt, Bill Nischke, Dan Meidam, Ed Stuebe, Ray Heinritz, Brian Taubel, Steve Wegner, and Brian Moesch.

ZCAC Members absent: Mike Thiex, Jon Zwirschitz, Gary Uelmen, Tom Tauferner, John Stezenski, Michael Zimdars, Bill Bowers,Joyce Reichert, and Terry Tipton.

Others present: Melinda Barlow,Tim Reed, and Mark Roffers.

Location & Time: County Board Room–2nd Floor of Courthouse at 7:00 PM

1)Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.

2)There was no need to deviate from the posted agenda.

3)Public comments: Mr. Marlin Noffke stated that the Committee should be cognizant of the administrative costs of the new code, particularly during the current economic time.

Mr. Tim Reed responded that the Committee is charged with creating the best zoning code for Shawano County and the County Board is responsible for prioritizing services.

Mr. Mark Roffers commented that the new ordinance should not cost more to enforce due to greater efficiencies and a more streamlined process.

Mr. Reed stated that the Committee should also look at the permitting process through the applicant’s perspective.

Mr. Kevin Conradt said that a reduction in conditional use permit and variance applications would provide cost savings.

4)Approval of the Minutes from the September 24, 2009 meeting. Mr. Richard Ferfecki stated that his comments should read, “…a letter on the Right to Farm was sent to all people seeking building permits” and …”the Town requires liquid manure to be kniefed within a ½ mile of residential areas.” Dan Meidammotioned to approve the September 24, 2009 minutes as amended. Motioned seconded byBill Nischke. Motion carried 16-0.

5)Briefly review memo on Sate law provision related to agriculture use and zoning. Mr. Roffers provided the Committee with a summary of the memorandum dated October 13, 2009 which was included in meeting packet. Mr. Roffers stated that the right to farm law is zoning neutral; rather the farm operation needs to pre-date the complainant. Mr. Roffers relayed that with Use Value Assessment agricultural land is taxed as farmland rather than for any development potential. In order to be classified as farmland the land needs to contain crops or pasture. Mr. Roffers advised that these items should not guide the Committee’s work but that the Committee should remain updated on future budgetary amendments.

Mr. Joe DeBaker inquired why the purchase price of agricultural land ranges between $3,000-$3,500 an acre and the property is taxed on a value of $400 an acre.

Mr. Roffers stated that the purchase price most likely includes other rights included in the land, including potential residential development.

Mr. Brian Moesch stated that this may assist with the long term ownership of agricultural land.

Mr. Roffers reiterated that both the Right to Farm legislation and Use Value Assessment place greater value on use rather than the underlying zoning district.

6)Complete and hand in directions worksheet for agricultural/forestry zoning standards.

Mr. James Martin stated that it was helpful to have a worksheet to share with the Town.

The Committee completed and submitted the worksheet. The results will be presented at the next Zoning Code Advisory Committee meeting.

7)Summary of Residential Focus Group Meeting. Ms. Melinda Barlow stated that the Realtor and Builder Associations as well as area developers had been contacted to participate in a focus group meeting discussing the permitting process under the current zoning code. Unfortunately, only two individuals were able to participate in the meeting and the meeting had to be cancelled. The meeting is planned to be rescheduled when members of the development community would be available to attend.

8)Complete discussion on questions and responses regarding residential zoning standards. Mr. Roffers provided an overview of the proposed residential zoning districts: Rural Residential, Sewered Residential, Planned Unit Development. Mr. Roffers stated that often additional standards are necessary within a tighter development pattern. Mr. Roffers informed the Committee that the Planned Unit Development district would contain specific standards agreed upon by the Town, Developer and County.

Mr. Moesch inquired how the new zoning code would accommodate existing unsewered development in the RS-20 zone. Mr. Moesch relayed that there are areas in the Town of Wescott with higher density unsewered residential development. Mr. Moesch stated that it would pose a hardship to existing property owners if the lots were non-conforming after adoption of the new zoning ordinance.

Mr. Roffers replied that there would be two ways the revised code could deal with this issue. The code could contain a provision on how to accommodate legal, non-conforming lots which would allow for redevelopment and reconstruction. The other method could be to create another residential zoning district to accommodate the substandard lots. This zoning district could be limited to pre-existing legal lots of record and development served by community water and wastewater treatment systems.

Ms. Barlow inquired if this could be accommodated within a potential Shoreland Residential Zoning District.

Mr. Roffers stated that Shoreland development could be addressed in the Sewered Residential Zoning District.

Ms. Barlow inquired if there was a way to administratively address bulk and dimensional variance applications.

Mr. Conradt stated that a 10’ side yard setback on one side of the structure is necessary to allow for vehicle access to the rear yard.

Mr. Roffers stated that differential side yard setbacks are possible.

Mr. Roffers referred the Committee to Question 3 on the Residential Districts and Standards sheet.

Mr. Conradt stated that there is an issue with rental use on lake front properties.

Mr. Roffers stated that the code could contain a definition for Tourist Rooming Houses which would provide standards for this type of use.

Mr. Ferfecki stated that duplexes should be a conditional use within single family residential zoning districts.

Mr. Noffke stated that many Amish have 3 or 4 generations within a single family residential structure.

Mr. Roffers stated that this would not be considered a duplex or multifamily use because there is not a clear definition between dwelling units.

Mr. Reed stated that the Planning Department has received applications for two single family residences connected by a breezeway; this has lead to concerns regarding on site waste disposal and potential resale.

Mr. Roffers commented that there should be more flexible standards in rural areas than in residential areas and asked the Committee if duplexes should be a conditional use in single family residential zones.

Ms. Barlow stated that there is a need to offer a variety of housing options and that accessory dwelling units may be a feasible component of the new code.

Mr. Conradt commented that the Board of Adjustment has had several cases with apartments being constructed over detached garages and problems with tourist rooming houses.

Mr. Noffke stated that there are other avenues of enforcement for tourist rooming houses than the new Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. DeBaker commented that the ability to collect room tax may be incentive to monitor tourist rooming houses.

Mr. Roffers inquired how the Committee would like to address mobile homes in the revised ordinance.

Mr. Nischke stated that mobile homes should be allowed on a temporary case-by-case basis.

Mr. Roffers asked if this should be as a conditional or temporary use permit process.

Mr. Noffke stated as a temporary use under Staff’s discretion.

Mr. Heinritz stated that many times mobile homes are not used on a temporary basis and individuals are looking to use them on a permanent basis.

Mr. Roffers replied that the zoning code would have standards related to placement and sanitary waste disposal.

Mr. Roffers referred to the Committee to question 7 on handout 8 Residential Zoning Standards.

Mr. Ferfecki stated that a 5th wheel camper was placed in the Town of Angelica under a conditional use permit.

Mr. Roffers asked how long the trailer was parked and how temporary occupancy should be defined.

Mr. Moesch stated that recreational vehicles are frequently occupied in residential areas and that there are usually no problems associated with this use.

Mr. Roffers stated that perhaps one temporarily occupied recreational vehicle could be allowed on a residential lot.

Mr. Reed stated that temporary and occasional should be well defined within the revised code.

Mr. Heinritz stated that this often transitions into a full time use and there is a need for clear standards. Mr. Heinritz commented that recreational vehicles should be allowed in residential areas on only a temporary basis.

Mr. Nischke commented that it would be easy to determine how many recreational vehicles are located on a parcel.

Mr. DeBaker stated that duration of use is important, obviously weekend use is acceptable, however, permanent use is not.

Mr. Conradt commented that perhaps there should be some differentiation between residential zoning districts.

Mr. Noffke stated this should be enforced as part of the nuisance ordinance upon referral from the local town.

Mr. Wegner stated that the nuisance process can be length and inefficient.

Mr. Roffers directed the Committee to question 6 on handout 8 Residential Zoning Standards.

Mr. Conradt stated that the Home Occupation process functions well in determining what non-residential uses should be allowed in residential zones.

Mr. Roffers stated some uses are outside the purview of the County such as day cares and group homes with 8 or less individuals.

Mr. Steve Martin inquired about limiting the number of domestic animals for sanitary reasons.

Mr. Roffers stated this is possible at the municipal level. Mr. Roffers asked the Committee what farm animals should be allowed in residential zones.

Mr. Moesch stated that there should be a Rural Residential (2.5-10) zoning district where animal units should be dependent on the acreage owned. The acreage would consist of the non-residential area of the property and that expansion beyond the standards set forth in the code could be allowed under a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit could require greater setbacks for buildings with animals.

Mr. Ferkecki commented that there can be instances where small farms with horses cause greater pollution issues than larger farming operations.

Mr. DeBaker commented that there is plenty of agricultural land allowing residential use, and inquired if there is a need for a rural residential zone allowing animals.

Mr. Roffers inquired if all accessory structure should comply with all setback requirements or if there should be reduced setbacks from accessory structures.

The Committee came to a consensus that all accessory structures should meet the same setback requirements as the principal structure.

9)Other Issues. The Committee did not discuss any other issues.

10)Next Steps. The next Committee meeting is scheduled for December 10 at 7:00 PM in the Shawano County Board Room.

11)Letters and correspondence: None presented.

12)Adjournment: The Committee came to a consensus to adjourn at 9:10 PM.

Respectively submitted,

Melinda Barlow