Download - PIERCE COUNTY WISCONSIN · this business includes a gun safe, personal computer, filing cabinets and general office supplies. Primary on-site activities include retail sale of firearms

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, December 7, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung

Chairperson Fetzer called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm in the

County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.

Next meeting dates: December 21st, if necessary, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the November 16, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed with Fetzer not voting because of absence at the last

meeting.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home

Based Business for an on-line sporting goods business in the General Rural Flexible 8 District pursuant

to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36D, for Willis Hoade Jr & Lona Hoade, owners on property located

on Lot 3, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V6, P111, in part of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 18, T27N,

R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Lona Hoade forward: Ms. Hoade

explained they are requesting the conditional use permit for an on-line sporting goods business. It is on-line

only. This is their residence. It’s not a store front and there will be no signage. They have gone through the

Town of Clifton through two meetings and she went around to all the neighbors within 200 feet. All her

connecting properties and all signed and said they had no problem with it. The next meeting they were called to

attend to discuss it, ask questions and no one even showed up. Chairperson Fetzer asked if this is a new

business. Ms Hoade stated no, they have done this for 12 years. They started in Osh Kosh and moved to North

Carolina and they have lived in River Falls for two years but they just built a house so now they have to get

another one for the Town of Clifton. Chairperson Fetzer stated so you have been doing this the whole time. Ms

Hoade stated yes, for 12 years and never had a complaint. Sanden asked about the 1 – 10 shipments/deliveries,

pickups per month, is it UPS not semi’s? Ms Hoade stated yes, UPS, no semi’s just the local, normal UPS and

FedEx.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The applicant is seeking a CUP to operate an online sporting goods business at

his residence. Proposed merchandise includes bows, electronics, optics, lights, clothing, survival supplies,

holsters, cases, safes, firearms and various other sporting goods related items. The applicant anticipates items

being purchased via online auction marketplaces or in person at the residence. The applicant holds a type 1

Federal Firearms License (FFL) which enables him to engage in commercial dealing of firearms. Per federal

regulations, firearms being transferred must be shipped amongst dealers holding an active FFL dealer’s license

to fulfill tracking and back grounding requirements prior to delivery to the customer. Retail activities involving

the sale of consumer goods produced off-site and not accessory to any on-site produced goods require a CUP

for a Farm & Home Based Business in Pierce County’s agricultural zoning districts. The ten-acre property is

located in the Town of Clifton and is zoned General Rural Flexible 8. Pierce County Code 240-36(D) permits

farm and home based businesses accessory to permitted single-family residences upon issuance of a CUP in

agricultural districts, subject to the following:

1. The farm and home based business shall be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit. No more than

eight persons not residing on the site may be employed in the business.

PIERCE COUNTY WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF LAND MANAGEMENT & RECORDS

PLANNING, ZONING, SURVEYING & GIS

414 W. Main Street P.O. BOX 647

Ellsworth, Wisconsin 54011 715-273-6746 OR 715-273-6747

Fax: 715-273-6864

2

2. If located in the dwelling unit, the farm and home business shall occupy no more than 50% of the

dwelling unit. If located in an accessory building, the farm and home business shall not occupy an area

greater than 5,000 square feet.

3. Minimum lot size shall be 5 acres.

4. Such other conditions as specified by the Land Management Committee pursuant to Sec 240-76 shall

apply.

The property is the applicant’s primary residence. The applicant intends to utilize a 12ft x 11ft (132sq ft) office

located within the primary residence and is proposing no new structures. The applicant does not anticipate any

new employees. Adjacent zoning districts are General Rural Flexible 8 to the north and west; Primary

Agriculture to the east and Rural Residential 8 to the south. Adjacent land uses include agriculture and low

density residential. Lot access is located off of CTH FF on the south side of the property. Equipment utilized for

this business includes a gun safe, personal computer, filing cabinets and general office supplies. Primary on-site

activities include retail sale of firearms and sporting goods items and product shipping and distribution. One to

ten shipment deliveries/pickups are anticipated per month. The applicant utilizes a gun safe for storage of retail

firearms. Hours of operation are proposed to be year-round from 8:00AM – 4:00PM, Monday through Friday;

Saturday 10:00AM – 2:00PM. Sales are conducted over the phone, on-line or in-person. Pierce County Code

§240-54 establishes parking requirements for retail establishments and requires a minimum of 1 off-street

parking space per 200 feet of primary floor area which one must be ADA compliant. Ample room exists on the

premises to fulfill parking requirements. A restroom is available for customers within the existing residence.

Waste Management provides solid waste disposal services for the business. There is no signage associated with

the business on the property and no further signage is being proposed. No additional exterior lighting is

proposed. The Clifton Town Board recommended approval of this request on 11-01-2016. The Town

recommendation stated “This business is consistent with zoning and the neighbors have offered no objections.”

The applicants submitted 2 supporting letters of recommendation (attached to staff report). PCC §240-76G

discusses expiration of Conditional Use Permits and states, “All conditional use permits shall expire 12 months

from the date of issuance where no action has commenced to establish the authorized use. If a time limit has

been imposed as a condition for the permit, the permit shall expire at the end of the time limit.”

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether the proposed

use at the proposed location would be contrary to the public interest, detrimental or injurious to the public

health, public safety or character of the surrounding area. If found to be not contrary to the above, staff

recommends the LMC approve the proposed Farm & Home Based Business with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as presented in the application unless modified by a condition of this CUP.

2. The business shall be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit.

3. There shall be at least 1 off-street customer parking space. A minimum of one parking stall shall be

ADA compliant.

4. The applicant shall maintain all necessary federal and state firearm dealers’ licenses.

5. Hours of operation shall be year-round from 8:00AM – 4:00PM, Monday through Friday; Saturday

10:00AM – 2:00PM.

6. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use require issuance of a new conditional

use permit. If applicant has questions as to what constitutes expansion or intensification, Land

Management staff should be contacted.

7. This conditional use permit shall be renewed every 2 years. Permit may be renewed administratively if

no compliance issues arise.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden

stated on the aerial photo he doesn’t see the house, was it recently built? Ms Hoade stated it just got finished

and they just moved in a couple weeks ago and she also wanted to mention that they own the 20 acres of woods

back there too. It is located about 700 feet back toward the west. Sanden also mentioned the 100% on-line but it

also says or in-person at the residence. Ms Hoade stated occasionally if someone is local they can do the

transfer or selling something. That is very rare. They go through a gun broker or other sites to sell. Snow

moved to approve the Farm and Home Based Business for an On-line Sporting Goods Business for Willis

3

Hoade Jr & Lona Hoade with conditions #1 - #7 due to the fact this is not found to be contrary to the

public interest, detrimental or injurious to the public health, public safety or character of the

surrounding area/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for reclassification of an existing conditional use

permit from a Farm & Home Based Business to a Nature Based Operation for Vino in the Valley by

Larry Brenner, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 33, T26N, R16W, Town of

El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Larry Brenner forward: Mr. Brenner stated it’s

hard to believe it’s been ten years. He explained he is asking to reclassify the two conditional use permits that

were Farm and Home Based, which is, his understanding, really the only classification that fit when he brought

this before this board ten years ago. Since then a new classification has come up called Nature Based Operation

which he has been told might be a better fit. He doesn’t have any plans to change the business model as it sits

right now. The number of days is great, the number of days overall is great, the hours are fine. We found that

that works just right and he doesn’t have any will or desire to expand on that at all. As Mr. Holst once called it,

“The Pizza Palace”, is doing just fine as it is. He went in front of the El Paso Planning Commission and got

approval from them and then went in front of the El Paso Town Board and it was approved by them as well.

They did want to come up with a number of total employees that he might have on-site at any given time and

the concern might have been parking. Employees always park to the north of the building not where the public

does. So they just kind of picked a number of 50. He doesn’t ever see them going to that number. But they

wanted to put a number on it. The only time that might come into play is once a year they have the Taste of

Tuscany event for the Ellsworth School District and they staff up for that. The whole reason for doing this is to

be in compliance with staffing. Because as they’ve grown, it’s hard to exist and do business with the number of

people that they were required to keep it under. That is the reason they would like to change the classification.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: The applicant is requesting to reclassify two existing Farm and Home Based

Businesses that are located on a single parcel into a single “Nature-Based Operation”. The two businesses

include Vino in the Valley, which is an event operation where patrons are served wine, bread, cheese, pasta and

pizza. Other events include pumpkin sales along with a petting zoo in the month of October as well as

Christmas events. The other business is a farmer’s market and gift shop. The LMC originally granted approval

for the businesses in March 2007. Modifications to the permits occurred in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012. In 2007

the Farm and Home Based Business was the only option for permitting this type of operation. Farm and Home

Based Businesses have predetermined restrictions on business size and number of employees. In 2012 Pierce

County amended the zoning code to include new use classifications for uses which are dependent on agriculture

or on the surrounding natural area and the environment, which included the Nature-Based Operation

classification. The Farm and Home Based Business classification is essentially intended to allow one to use

their home as a business incubator and once a business reaches a certain size/intensity it is expected to move to

a more appropriate location. Given this, staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a reclassification to a more

applicable use category. The requested reclassification will allow the applicant more flexibility in the operation,

particularly with the number of employees staffed for events. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the

business model or the conditions of the existing CUPs. Nature-Based Operation is defined as – A site-specific

operation reliant on the property’s natural environment and characteristics and may include multiple related

uses managed as one operation. A proposed Nature-Based Operation requires that the LMC make a

determination as to whether the proposed use is, in fact, reliant on the natural environment, as well as impose

conditions to limit the scale and intensity of the use to an appropriate level. The primary event for the operation

is “Vino in the Valley” which provides outdoor dining experience on a site with views of a vineyard and the

Rush River Valley from May through the fall. The operation also has Christmas events with sleigh rides, cookie

decorating and Christmas tree sales. Limitations on the seating, days of operation and hours were imposed on

the CUP as a way to limit the scope of the business. The primary structures for the business are: a 24ft x 108ft

pavilion, a 14ft x 18ft bathroom and a 20ft x 24ft kitchen. The Town of El Paso recommended approval of this

request on November 14, 2016, with the following statement “No change in business plan except in the number

4

of employees to 50.” The existing conditions for “Vino in the Valley” are listed in the staff report #1 - #13. The

existing conditions for the Farmers Market/Gift Shop are listed in the staff report #1 - #8.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider this request and first make a determination as to

whether the proposed use is reliant on the site’s natural environment and character. If it is determined that the

operation is reliant on the site’s natural environment and character, staff recommends the LMC determine

whether the proposed use at the proposed location would be detrimental or injurious to public health and safety

or the character of the surrounding area. If determined to be site dependent and not detrimental to the above,

staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. Any proposed advertising signs or new construction shall receive all necessary permits.

2. Access shall comply with §240-57.

3. All lighting shall comply with departmental policy.

4. All traffic shall be directed to use Hwy 10 to 400th

St to 450th

Ave or Hwy 72 to Cty Rd CC to 450th

Ave.

5. Applicant shall receive all necessary permits from other state and local agencies (ie restaurant and liquor

licenses).

6. A minimum of 43 parking spaces shall be designated for this use and there shall be no on street parking.

7. Seating capacity shall not exceed 120 people.

8. Applicant shall not exceed 88 days of operation per year.

9. Hours of operation from May through September shall be Thursday and Fridays 5pm to 10pm, Saturday

Noon to 10pm and Sundays Noon to 6pm. From October through December the hours shall be Saturday

and Sunday 12pm to 6pm. Any deviation from the approved schedule shall be at the discretion of the

Town of El Paso. The Town shall notify the Department of Land Management when any such deviation

is approved.

10. Amplified sound shall not exceed 80 decibels at any location. All sound outputs, except monitor

speakers, shall be located in the service pavilion.

11. No more than 50 employees per shift.

12. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed for renewal every two years or if compliance issues arise.

Renewal may be completed administratively if no compliance issues are identified.

13. Applicant understands that intensification or expansion of use will require the issuance of a new

conditional use permit.


asked based on what was stated he is assuming there were no complaints. Roy stated no. Sanden, and that staff

agrees with this being a better fit. Roy stated yes. Holst moved to approve the reclassification of Vino in the

Valley and the Farmer’s Market/Gift Shop for Larry Brenner to a Nature-Based Operation finding the

operation is reliant on the site’s natural environment and character, with conditions #1 - #13 due to the

fact this is not found to be contrary to public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health,

public safety or the character of the surrounding area/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for a new Highway Shop to be located in the

Primary Agriculture District for the Pierce County Highway Department, owner on property located in

Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V14, P58 in part of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 25, T26N, R16W,

Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Chad Johnson forward: Mr. Johnson,

Pierce County Highway Commissioner introduced Matt Gundry with Fleming, Andre & Associates, they did

the site design.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The Highway Dept is interested in site plan review for construction of a highway

shop and salt shed and it’s classified as a Public Institutional Use in our code. In February 2016, the 6 acre

parcel was created and the applicant purchased the land. Today the applicant is seeking site plan approval for

the construction of what was just mentioned. Pierce County Code §240-75 states the purpose of site plan review

is to assure site designs promote compatibility between land uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and

structures, provide proper access to streets and transportation, protect property values and contribute to efficient

5

land use in Pierce County. The property is located in Section 25, Town of El Paso and is zoned Primary

Agriculture. Adjacent zoning districts are Primary Agriculture. Surrounding land use is agricultural and

residential. Pierce County Zoning Code Chapter 240 Attachment 1:1 Table of Uses defines public institutional

uses as a permitted use in the Primary Agriculture zoning district. Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15 Purpose

and Intent of Zoning Districts is listed in the staff report. The Highway Department has received their address

already. The applicant proposes to construct a 24’x132’x22’ salt shed and a 48’x142’x26’ shop. The shop is

proposed to have 6-bays to house 4 patrol trucks, a loader, a grader in the winter and a mowing tractor in the

summer. Outdoor lighting is proposed to be wall pack commercial security lighting. Pierce County Code §240-

54A does not list a required number of off-street parking spaces for institutional uses. This code section does

require one space per employee during the peak shift and 1 parking stall shall be ADA compliant. The Highway

Department proposes 4 employees utilizing the site and the plans show 5 parking spaces with one being ADA

compliant. A soil test was submitted recommending a mound septic system. The applicant will need to obtain

Dept. of Safety & Professional Services (DSPS) mound plan approval and a State Sanitary Permit prior to other

permits. The proposed site plan shows a line of pine trees to be planted near the west property line, the septic

drainfield to the north. A stormwater catch basin is proposed to be located on the east side of the property. The

applicant proposes to submit stormwater plans to the WI DNR for review after site plan approval has been

granted. Some of the site plan can show that. The proposed salt shed and shop plans, actually the salt shed has

been submitted to the state and received state approval and they are interested in getting their land use permit

probably Friday. Their plans for the shop are still being finalized and will need to be submitted to the state for

building plan approval and once they have that plan approval they will obtain a land use permit from our

department prior to construction. The applicant shall work with the state inspector to ensure compliance with

the Uniform Commercial Code. The applicant proposes to begin construction after the LUP is issued probably

immediately. Due to cost sharing with the state the salt shed increased in size to 132 feet.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the proposed site plan

and determine if any changes or modifications to the plan are necessary. The LMC should consider proposed

structures, architectural plans, neighboring uses, use of landscaping and open space, parking areas, driveway

location, loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and circulation, lighting, drainage,

water and sewer systems, as well as proposed operations.

Staff recommends the LMC approve the proposed public institutional use (highway shop) with the following

conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain DSPS mound plan approval and a State Sanitary Permit prior to other permits.

2. Applicants shall follow all conditions and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR, DSPS and other

agencies as required.

3. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit for any future structures.

4. Applicants shall have the site inspected by a commercial DSPS inspector to follow the uniform

commercial code and state plan approval requirements.

Holst asked Ron Foley, Town of El Paso Supervisor, how good is that road. Mr. Foley stated they just reworked

that road. Holst asked if the Town is OK with the Highway Department driving their trucks on it. Mr. Foley

stated Yes. Mr. Johnson stated he thinks what they will end up doing is post construction, doing an overlay from

their driveway to the Cty Rd CC intersection. Holst stated you are actually going to do something for a

Township for once? Are you going to do it or not? Mr. Johnson stated if the road breaks up they will do it.

Sanden asked what the reasoning for the pine trees on the west side, it seems like the south and east side, given

ag-residential across the road and the roads themselves. Mr. Johnson stated a windbreak. We could always add

more pine trees too. Chairperson Fetzer stated it’s just a field beside there. Mr. Johnson stated from the east it’s

actually a very large back slope from the highway. He thinks when you are on the highway, at least in a car

maybe not a semi-truck, you might not even see the shop. Chairperson Fetzer asked if this is going to give them

improved roads on Cty Rd CC? Mr. Johnson stated the plow is going to hit the ground as soon as it comes off

the El Paso stop sign. So you are the right guy to have on this committee. Chairperson Fetzer stated today they

went through with two sand trucks, that road was an ice skating rink yesterday and this morning. Holst stated if

6

you lived in a better part of the county you’d get better service. His roads were in excellent condition. Holst

stated you guys have more inclement weather over that way. Chairperson Fetzer stated today when they went by

with two sanding trucks and a truck in between them, he’s guessing he was packing it down, the roads

drastically improved today. He is sure you have heard plenty over the years. Mr. Johnson stated this was one of

the reasons for siting, someone is going to be first and someone is going to be last. Sanden moved to approve

the Site Plan for a Public Institutional Use (highway shop) for Pierce County Highway Department with

conditions #1 - #4/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for a new dining hall structure associated with a

conditionally permitted wedding barn located in the Primary Agriculture District for Mellissa Deyo and

Donald Dufek, owners on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 33, T27N, R17W, Town of

Martell, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Mellissa Deyo and Donald Dufek forward: Ms

Deyo stated they have to build a dining hall because they are not allowed to serve food in the barn. You can’t

eat in the barn even though they don’t cook or anything. It’s all brought in already made. They won’t let us eat

in the barn. It’s going to simply be an open-sided pavilion to serve dinner in and then the party moves up into

the barn. Holst asked if you can drink in the barn? Oh you can’t drink in the barn, guess I’d get rid of the barn.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Site Plan Review for constructing a new dining hall structure associated with a

conditionally permitted wedding barn (retreat center). The applicants received a conditional use permit from the

LMC in May 2012 to enable them to utilize their barn as a retreat center for country-style weddings and

receptions. Their original plan was to locate the dining hall in the existing barn, but it was found that in order to

do so the Dept of Safety & Professional Services (DSPS) would require significant modifications to the barn.

The applicants considered establishing the dining hall in another existing building on-site but it was determined

that renovation was cost prohibitive. The applicants are now proposing to build a new structure for the dining

hall. Since the serving of food has always been intended for the operation and was included in the original

plans, the construction of a dining hall is not considered an expansion or intensification of the use. The CUP

limits the guest count to 150 people. Pierce County Code §240-75 states the purpose of site plan review is to

assure site designs promote compatibility between land uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and

structures, provide proper access to streets and transportation, protect property values and contribute to efficient

land use in Pierce County. The property is located in Section 33, Town of Martell. The property is in the

Primary Agriculture zoning district. Adjacent zoning districts are Primary Agriculture and General Rural

Flexible. Surrounding land use is agricultural and residential. The Table of Uses lists retreat centers as a

commercial use and is permitted with a conditional use permit in the Primary Agriculture District. The intent of

Primary Agriculture is listed in the staff report. Access to the site is near the intersection of 610th

Street and

County Road N. The uniform address number (W6124 Cty Rd N) was in existence prior to the applicants

owning the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 24’x80’x12.7’ (or 24,236 cubic feet) vaulted dining

hall. Staff discussed the project with Todd Dolan, Town of Martell Building Inspector. He stated the dining hall

would be considered A-2 Occupancy and would be exempt from state review per Table 361.30-1 if less than

25,000 cubic feet. Once they receive site plan approval, the applicants will need to obtain a Land Use Permit

from the Department prior to construction. The applicants will also need to work with the Town of Martell

Building Inspector to obtain Town Building permits, if necessary. Lighting is proposed to be installed on the

interior ceiling area and on the outside of the dining hall. Pierce County Code §240-54A requires off-street

parking spaces for commercial uses and are adequately met and regulated with the issuance of the existing CUP.

The applicants designed a landscaping plan to screen the parking area in September 2013 and planted seven 5+

feet tall spruce trees prior to September 2014. The applicant proposes to begin purchasing materials after

permits are issued, begin construction by April 2017 and for the project to be completed by May or June 2017

before the wedding season begins.




7

location, loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and circulation, lighting, drainage,

water and sewer systems, as well as proposed operations.

Staff recommends the LMC approve the proposed dining hall associated with a conditionally permitted wedding

barn (retreat center) with the following conditions:

1. Applicants shall follow all conditions and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR, DSPS and other

agencies as required.

2. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit for this and any future structures.

3. Applicants shall work with Todd Dolan, Martell Building Inspector to follow applicable codes and

obtain a Town building permit, if necessary.

Holst moved to approve the Site Plan for constructing a dining hall for Mellissa Deyo and Donald Dufek

w/conditions #1 - #3/Aubart seconded. Holst stated he would like to apologize for the run that the State has

put you through. You worked in good faith and he thinks what you had was sufficient and he thinks you got

bent over a barrel. Ms Deyo Thanked him and stated everybody else thinks so too. Sanden stated you are really

close to that 25,000 cubic feet so hopefully the As Built dimensions will be exact. Holst stated make sure your

cement guy does a good job. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Roy stated there are two requests at this time. Ryan Bechel

and Emily Lund in Chippewa for a POWTS training on December 21st, one day training, no overnight and

Emily Lund in Eau Claire tomorrow for a WCZA conference, most of the day, no overnight. Snow moved to

approve the travel/training requests for Ryan Bechel and Emily Lund/Aubart seconded. All in favor.

Passed.

Roy stated we need to set dates for next year’s meetings, do we want to continue with the 1st & 3

rd Wednesdays

of each month. Holst asked why should we change something that’s working? Do we need any action? Aubart

stated it’s not on the agenda. Committee consensus.

Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items

Roy, We have nothing for the December 21st agenda. The next meeting will be Jan 4, 2017. In January, WISC

has two renewals, the Hager City Plant and the Bay City Mine.

Motion to adjourn at 6:44 pm by Snow/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.

County Board Room, Pierce County Courthouse,

414 W. Main St. Ellsworth, WI 54011

# Action Presenter

1 Call to order Chair

2 Next meeting dates: December 21st if necessary, all in 2016. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the November 16, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a

conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business for an

on-line sporting goods business in the General Rural Flexible 8

District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36D, for

Willis Hoade Jr & Lona Hoade, owners on property located on Lot

3, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V6 P111, in part of the SW ¼ of

the NE ¼ of Section 18, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce

County, WI.

Bechel

5 Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for

reclassification of an existing conditional use permit from a Farm &

Home Based Business to a Nature Based Operation for Vino in the

Valley, by Larry Brenner, owner on property located in the SW ¼

of the NE ¼ of Section 33, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce

County, WI.

Roy

6 Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for a new

Highway Shop to be located in the Primary Agriculture District for

the Pierce County Highway Department, owner on property located

in Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V14, P58 in part of the SE

¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 25, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso,

Pierce County, WI.

Lund

7 Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for a new

dining hall structure associated with a conditionally permitted

wedding barn located in the Primary Agriculture District for

Melissa Deyo and Donald Dufek, owners on property located in the

SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 33, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell,

Pierce County, WI.

Lund

8 Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta

9 Future agenda items. Pichotta

10 Adjourn Members Questions regarding this agenda may be made to the Department of Land Management at 715-273-6746. Upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities requiring

special accommodations for attendance at the meeting. For additional information or to make a request, contact the

Administrative Coordinator at 715-273-6851.

A quorum of County Board supervisors may be present. (11/23/16)

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, November 16, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung

Absent: Joe Fetzer

Acting Chairperson Holst called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm

in the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.

Next meeting dates: December 7th

& December 21st, if necessary, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the November 2, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed with Holst not voting because of absence at the last

meeting.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a Map Amendment (Rezone) from Rural

Residential 12 District to General Rural Flexible 8 by Bailey Webster, owner on property located in part

of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Holst invited Bailey Webster forward: Ms Webster explained she bought the land two and a

half years ago. She also owns two 5-acre lots adjacent to it where she grows organic vegetables. She put up a

greenhouse about a year after she bought the property on the 1-acre lot that she wants to have rezoned where

she grows vegetables in the spring out of the field on her other property. She has a small chicken coop that she

put up there with chickens and a small 3ft x 6ft shed with a cooler in that she sells vegetables out of in the

summer. Sanden asked what your plans are for the 1-acre that is going to be rezoned, what exactly are you

going to be doing on that 1-acre. Ms Webster explained she just wants to continue doing what she is doing

there. Pichotta explained that basically we have an enforcement issue in the sense that it’s a Rural Residential

District where structural ag is not allowed. Ms Bailey stated she doesn’t have any additional plans for the

property.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The applicant is requesting to rezone a total of 1.00 acre in Section 19 in the

Town of Oak Grove. The applicant is requesting the rezone in order to obtain appropriate permits to sustain

operation of a Direct Market Agriculture business on the premises. The parcel is currently a single family

residence. Direct Market Agricultural operations are currently occurring on the parcel. Access is off of 1180th

St

on the eastern edge of the parcel. The proposed future use of the parcel is to maintain the existing single-family

residence and the business. Adjacent land uses are agriculture, low-density residential and undeveloped land.

Adjacent zoning districts include Rural Residential 12 to the east and south, General Rural Flexible 8 to the

north and west. Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15 Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts: General Rural

Flexible is established to achieve the same objectives as the General Rural District but to allow a greater density

of residential development with the approval of the Town Board. The General Rural District is established to

maintain and enhance agricultural operations in the County. The district also provides for low density

residential development, which is consistent with the generally rural environment and allows for non-residential

uses which require relatively large land areas and/or are compatible with the surrounding rural land. The site

consists of 100% Forkhorn Sandy Loam which is considered a Prime Farmland Soil type. Pierce County’s

adopted Comprehensive Plan states: “The County will approve re-zonings or map amendments only when the

proposed change is consistent with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. The Town of Oak Grove





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

recommended approval of this request on July 18, 2016. The Town referenced the following supporting

objective under “Economic Development Goal #1” of their adopted town comprehensive plan: Objective 1:

“Promote ag-based businesses.” The Town listed the following concerns/suggested conditions regarding the

approval recommendation: 1. “Combine 1 acre lot with adjacent 5 acre General Rural Flexible-8 lot.” The

applicant owns two 5 acre (approximate) lots zoned General Rural Flexible-8 directly south of the subject

property. The lots currently consist of a mix of undeveloped land and agricultural fields. Although conditional

zoning is a legal mechanism because the applicant voluntarily implements the identified condition, and there is

no guarantee of government approval, Pierce County has not utilized this mechanism. The Town of Oak Grove,

which has an adopted comprehensive plan, has veto authority over rezones proposed within its borders. Given

the towns ability to veto the proposed rezone and the limited rationale provided by the town for recommending

the condition, it may be that the town is better situated to further define the concern that prompted the need for

the condition and to see it implemented. Staff reached out to the Town of Oak Grove regarding the

recommended condition. However, it remains unclear what specifically the proposed condition is intended to

accomplish and further clarification would be helpful.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider referring the rezone request back to the Town of

Oak Grove for further consideration and clarification of the recommended condition.

Chairperson Holst opened the hearing to the public. Debra McClure, Town of Oak Grove Supervisor, the

Town would at this point would understand that we don’t want to have conditions on a rezone and so they

would be supportive if the County wants to send that back to us to review it. Chairperson Holst stated he

believes this committee appreciates that position and he believes the applicants do also. Public hearing closed.

Sanden asked if they are urging consolidation because of minimum lot size, is that the problem. Pichotta stated

it wasn’t the rationale. In fact what was presented was something to do with parking. Typically when there is a

condition associated with a proposed rezone it’s to limit types of uses that are allowable versus something like

this. Also there is typically a clear correlation between the condition and whatever it’s intended to accomplish.

Chairperson Holst stated this is a learning process between the planning commissions, town boards and this

committee and we realize that and this is just another step in the process of learning how to do it correctly.

Snow moved to refer the request for a Map Amendment (Rezone) from Rural Residential 12 to General

Rural Flexible 8 for Bailey Webster, back to the Town of Oak Grove for further consideration and

clarification of the recommended condition/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for two structures to be located in the Commercial

District for the City of Red Wing, owner, by Wes Converse and Walters Buildings, agents on property

located in part of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 6, T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI.

Chairperson Holst invited Curt Miers forward: Mr. Miers explained they are requesting to expand Wes

Converse’s office and flight training business and if he understands it correctly, he will have to come back again

when they build a hangar in the spring. Looking at building a 36ft x 98ft office, the same as what’s there with a

breezeway between the two and then a 100ft x 120ft hangar in the spring.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicants obtained a CUP to expand the airport taxiway in 2007. A portion

of the property around the new taxiway was rezoned in October 2013 from General Rural to Commercial in

order to serve a new aviation community with public aircraft storage, maintenance, office spaces, pilot training

and education. The applicants obtained a Land Use Permit in October 2013 to build an office building and

hanger and also site plan approval from the LMC in February 2014 for the commercial construction. Applicants

are seeking site plan approval for construction of another hanger and office building. Pierce County Code §240-

75 states the purpose of site plan review is to assure site designs promote compatibility between land uses,

create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to streets and transportation, protect

property values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. This property is located in Section 6,

Town of Isabelle and is zoned Commercial. Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15 Purpose and Intent of Zoning

Districts: Commercial: The purpose of the district is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for

certain commercial and other nonresidential uses while affording protection to surrounding properties from

excessive noise, traffic, drainage or other nuisance factors. Adjacent zoning districts are General Rural and

3

Commercial. Surrounding land use is the airport. The applicant proposes to construct a 36ft x 98ft x 19.75ft

office building with a 7ft x 20ft x 19.75ft connection to the existing office building and a 100ft x 1120ft x

34.75ft hanger. Lighting is proposed to be installed on the interior ceiling area. Outdoor mounted lighting is

proposed to be wall pack commercial security lighting. Pierce County Code §240-54 requires a minimum of 1

parking space per 250 square feet of primary floor area for office use and a minimum of 1 parking stall shall be

ADA compliant. This requires a minimum of 28 parking spaces with 1 ADA compliant. The plans submitted

demonstrate ample parking area to fulfill this requirement. The new building construction is proposed over the

existing conventional drainfield. TL Sinz Plumbing Inc, from Menomonie area was hired and has an approved

sanitary permit (#472032016) to move the drainfield north of all the buildings and increase the septic system to

accommodate all four buildings and it was installed last week. There are existing stormwater catch-basins on

site and there is an existing parking area. The proposed office building received Dept of Safety and Professional

Services (DSPS) building plan approval on 10-24-2016 with Transaction ID#2776116. The applicants shall

work with the Town or State Inspector to ensure compliance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The

proposed hanger plans are being finalized and need to be submitted to DSPS for plan approval this spring and

they will obtain a land use permit prior to construction. The applicant proposes to begin construction

immediately. They want to get their land use permit tomorrow and then they plan to have everything wrapped

up in the spring of 2017.




location, loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and circulation, lighting , drainage,

water and sewer systems, as well as proposed operations. Staff recommends the LMC approve the proposed site

plan as presented with the following conditions:

1. Applicants shall follow all conditions and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR, Department of

Safety and Professional Services and other agencies as required.



3. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit for any future structures.

Sanden asked if it would be prudent to put a one year time limit on it just in case something blows up. Pichotta

stated there is a time limit on the issuance of land use permits, they do expire. Chairperson Holst stated he feels

that would cover it. Pichotta explained this is one of those cases, often times when commercial buildings are

proposed, their relation to existing residential neighborhoods and there is a need for screening but given this is

an airport setting, a lot of our typical considerations don’t come into play. Chairperson Holst stated we have that

fine string of cedars along the highway anyway. You hardly see these structures. Mr. Miers stated they try to

limit that as much as possible because the leaves blow and suck into a motor. There are a whole lot of things we

can’t do there that we would typically do. Chairperson Holst stated you are very straight forward with what you

have presented here. What you have done there already is topnotch and I assume it will continue to be. He has

known Wes for a long time.

Sanden moved to approve the Site Plan for City of Red Wing, Wes Converse and Walters Buildings as

presented with conditions #1 - #3/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has no requests at this time.


Conditional use permit application for Farm & Home Based Business for On-line Sporting Goods Outlet in the

Town of Clifton

Conditional use permit application where Vino in the Valley is requesting to change from a Farm & Home

Based Business to a Nature Based Business

We have Site Plan Review for a Wedding Barn in the Town of Martell, if you recall, they are going to be

putting in a dining hall that isn’t an intensification or expansion because it was something they had always

4

proposed to do but they can’t because their building doesn’t meet DSPS standards so they want to create a new

structure which will require Site Plan Approval.

Site Plan Review for Pierce County Highway Shop out on County Rd CC.

Motion to adjourn at 6:21 pm by Sanden/Snow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, November 16, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: December 7th

& December 21st if necessary, all

in 2016.

Chair


Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a Map

Amendment (Rezone) from Rural Residential 12 District to General

Rural Flexible 8 District by Bailey Webster, owner on property

located in part of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19, T26N,

R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

5 Discuss take action on a request for Site Plan Review for two

structures to be located in the Commercial District for the City of

Red Wing, owner, by Wes Converse and Walters Buildings, agents

on property located in part of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 6,

T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI.

Lund







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, November 2, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund and Tracie Albrightson

Absent: Joe Fetzer and Jeff Holst

Acting Chairperson Aubart called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm


Next meeting dates: November 16th

, December 7th

and 21st, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the September 21, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request to amend the conditional use permit for a Private Outdoor Recreation

Use (commercial paintball playing field) in the Primary Agriculture District for Aaron Tholey, agent for

Timothy & Carolyn Jennings, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 5, T27N,

R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Vintage Paintball Park would like to add three more shipping containers to their current two to make it a total of

five. They need more storage for the park; it’s not going to have an effect on the field expansion in any kind of

way or any more noise coming from their area at all. When they initially started looking at the expansion they

went to the township of Clifton and initially it was a lot bigger deal and then the numbers just didn’t add up.

They were talking about potentially putting in a garage type structure where it was going to be a permanent

structure with electricity, a well, etc. Right now they are piping water from Tim Jennings well and keeping the

big compressors in his barn and they are lining the air for the air pressure tanks back from that. So instead of

putting the electricity and moving all that stuff back, that is going to stay the same. The committee received an

email showing the proposed placement of the shipping containers. It really is just storage and potentially a little

bit of work shop space where they can get in out of the weather a little bit. The boundaries of the area are not

moving it is just some more shipping containers. With the initial CUP, they were allowed two. It went from

being kind of a big deal to more of they can’t afford to do that, so this will help make it run smoothly for these

guys.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicants obtained a CUP for a Private Outdoor Recreational Use

(Commercial Paintball Playing Field) from the LMC on 8-4-2010. The commercial paintball playing field,

called Vintage Paintball Park, began full operations in 2010 and continues to date. Renewal of the CUP has

been conducted administratively given that there have not been any complaints regarding the operation. The

applicants are requesting to amend condition #2 of the CUP. They currently utilize 2 storage/shipping

containers on the property for storage and are requesting the ability to place 3 additional containers. The

additional storage would enable them to store paintball equipment, a lawn mower, outdoor tools, a skid loader,

ladders, and more out of the elements. They also propose to disassemble most of the existing obstacle course

enable its placement in the containers over the winter. The property is located in Section 5, Town of Clifton.

Given that the proposed additional storage capacity (additional shipping containers) would not intensify or

expand the existing permitted use, issuance of a new conditional use permit is not necessary to accommodate

this request (§240-76A). The commercial paintball playing field is located ± 400 feet west of 1160th

Street. The

attached maps illustrate where the course has typically been placed. The land owner previously indicated that

the paintball playing field is located on land that is not best suited for agriculture. The paintball course utilizes





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

inflatable bunkers, recycled electrical spools, and collapsible / movable buildings as obstacles. Safety netting is

put up for games and later taken down. Equipment is put away before winter in storage containers. With the

original CUP approval, a lean-to shelter and 3 on-premise advertising signs were permitted. The portion of the

Pierce County Code relating to signage was recently amended and now limits the number of signs in the

Primary Agriculture District to 2. Given the prior approval, the use of 3 signs may continue as a preexisting

nonconformity. The owner indicated that no permanent structures will be built on the playing field. The

Clifton Town Board recommended approval of the original request on 7-6-2010. The Town’s approval stated,

“Be sure the parties follow the Pierce County guidelines.” The Town Chairman was contacted regarding this

requested modification and expressed no specific concerns. A neighboring property owner has recently

expressed concerns regarding the operation. Specific concerns relate primarily to the noise level associated

with the permitted use and the potential for expansion. The neighbor has been made aware of this agenda item.

The existing conditions for this CUP are listed as follows: 1) A Uniform Address Number shall be assigned and

located at the driveway entrance off of 1160th

Street. 2) Applicants shall be limited to two (2) – 8 ft x 8 ft x 40 ft

proposed shipping containers on the property. 3) Adequate portable satellite waste stations (1 to 50 people) shall

be provided. 4) Solid waste dumpsters or waste containers shall be located on-site and maintained. 5) Hours of

operation shall be daily 9 AM to 9 PM, or as otherwise established by the LMC. 6) The applicant shall be

limited to 10 employees. 7) A copy of any changes or additional liability insurance shall be submitted to the

Land Management Department. 8) The CUP shall be renewed every two years. Renewal may be completed

administratively if no complaints or compliance issues arise. 9) Applicant understands that expansion of

intensification of this use may require modification to this conditional use permit, or potentially, the issuance of

a new conditional use permit.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Land Management Committee consider whether the

proposed amendment to condition #2 would be detrimental or injurious to the public interest, public health and

safety, or the character of the surrounding area. If the proposed amendment is determined to be appropriate,

staff recommends the following: 2) Applicant shall be limited to five (5) - 8 ft x 8 ft x 40 ft shipping containers

on the site. Containers shall be shielded from public view to the extent practical. Shielding shall be

accomplished through placement and/or vegetative screening.

Aubart clarified that this does not intensify the current use; making this change to the additional containers?

Lund stated no. She stated the neighbor is present. Reed Sponsler, Town of Clifton, stated they moved there in

December of 2010 and this permit was approved in August 2010. They thought it had been there forever; he had

no idea a conditional use permit was there. Since he has moved there, he had counted it earlier that day, there

are about 60ish structures that are there all year. He provided an aerial from Google Maps. He also provided a

picture of what it used to be when he moved there, and you can see the land is and was farmed at one point;

round bales in a field. Recently he has been researching this; he would argue that the buildings are not taken

down in the winter and stored in sheds. According to the definitions in article 240; a structure that is

built/erected and intended to be there in place for more than nine months is considered to be a permanent

structure. So all year long, he showed a view of the structures, off his porch, that was not there when he moved

there and a view from his bedroom window, some of those were there when he moved there. He is in opposition

to any expansion of the paintball park. He argues that storage allows them to have more ability to serve more

people, have more equipment therefore possibly build more buildings eventually. He doesn’t think he should

have to look at that, he thinks it should be screened from his view. Sanded asked Reed’s directional position to

the park and Reed stated, south. Lund showed a map from the original conditional use permit to show where his

house is. Reed stated there was no real site plan ever put together for this. He was under the assumption that all

the buildings would be on skids, collapsible or inflatable, but that is just not the case. The house has been there

since 1920 and it is up on top of a hill and he is basically looking down at the paintball park. When there is corn

on the field it’s not so bad, but 8 months out of the year there isn’t corn on the field and every other year it is

soy beans. Snow clarified we are not addressing the buildings on this site tonight, we are only addressing

whether they can add these three storage containers? Pichotta stated correct. Snow asked if that was a see-

through fence all the way around the park. Jennings stated it is safety netting to contain the paintballs from

injuring bystanders or getting outside of the field. The structures that are there have no roof, there is no

3

foundation. They do run an occasional game in the winter where he plows the snow out for it and they have

collage/university/high school teams that come out on a nice winter day. That is why those structures stay up.

Because they are not on skids, the 4 x 4 posts are put in the ground about a foot to a foot and a half because the

wind comes up through that valley and peels them right out of there. If they were not anchored down by cables,

it would be safety hazard for the players. So they stuck the posts in the ground; if they had to, they could be

lifted out but it just isn’t practical to do that. When the wind comes out of the north and if they weren’t

anchored, then there would be sheet metal all over the place and plywood. The nets get ripped down two or

three times a year. So that is why they are not on skids and why they technically don’t come down every season.

They do have the ability to do some winter games when conditions permit. The inflatable are what they are

talking about. The inflatables come up for tournament courses and those all get put into containers for the

winter to try and keep the mice out of them; that’s why the buildings stay there or why they look like they are

building that stay there. Aubart stated Snow is correct in stated this is for condition number 2 and the

modification of that; if someone has issues regarding different portions of the code or whatever that you could

drive that back to the department. Pichotta stated as far as the structures needing a permit, a conditional use

permit is basically a land use permit that is issued by the committee typically with conditions. In the application

it was stated that there would be these structures placed and so the reality is that each specific structure doesn’t

need a permit because the concept of multiple structures was endorsed by the committee and authorized with

through issuance of a CUP; so that’s not really an issue. The difficulty with this is your proximity is kind of up

above looking down. Typically we would screen uses; it is often times from public view verses a view from

someone like yourself. So he is not sure if there is a good solution to screening at this point. But the point of us

being at the meeting to consider condition number two and weather it is appropriate to allow three additional

storage containers. It seems likely that based on this discussion here tonight that the next renewal will be in

front of the committee. The concerns of the neighbor are not violations so he doesn’t know if that will trigger it

to bring it back in front of the committee more quickly but certainly, they next renewal will be brought back to

the committee. Sanded asked when the last renewal was. Roy stated a couple of months ago. Sanded stated he

thought about the noise concerns and wondered if that has to be addressed. Reed stated noise isn’t his major

concern; it’s the buildings being there all year; they paintball in them for four months out of a year. They are in

the ground according to your definition is article 240, they are permanent; he is not saying they have to have

permits, he is just saying none of that was there when he moved there. He offered to possibly buy some land

from Tim and put some trees on it right next to his house. His house is pretty much on the property line so if he

puts trees up they are going to be trimmed up on Tim’s field and pushing up on his side. He feels that what

needs to be met in the CUP; adversely affected the neighborhood, not harmonious with the surrounding area

things of that nature. He doesn’t want to have it expand anymore and he doesn’t want to have to look at it. It

wasn’t there when he moved there; he thought a conditional use permit had to be talked to about with neighbors

if they were expanding, etc. There was no site plan or anything like that, they just put up buildings. Lund stated

in the original plan though it started from nothing. The original plan was to go where it is now. They just

happened to finally get there. Reed stated he had no idea there was going to be buildings built on that side of the

hill. Pichotta stated timing of it was just very poor from Reed’s perspective. Pichotta suggested Reed engage in

some discussion with the park owners and see if there is some sort of something that can be done to somehow

accommodate his concerns. The next renewal will be brought in front of the committee. Pichotta stated that if

there is an expansion of the playing field onto adjacent properties that would trigger the need for a new CUP as

would an intensification of the use if they were to start to provide some sort of a service that they are not

currently doing. He encourages communication between the parties. Reed stated he offered to buy some land

from them that is right there and plant some trees but that was a no go. He has talked and explained his concern

to the land owner and the owner of the paintball park before we even got here. But they are driving ahead with

more containers which to him means more people and eventually more buildings. He realizes the foot print

hasn’t got any bigger, but there are things in the zoning ordinance that they have to meet; you can’t have just

random buildings that look like calf sheds. Pichotta stated our recommendation is that you consider whether or

not it would be appropriate to allow three additional storage containers. If so, the department recommended a

condition. Sanded doesn’t know the nuances of the discussions but it would seem that buying the piece of land

4

and planting trees would be a great solution. He is sorry that that hasn’t happened and hopefully you can come

up with a solution.

Sanden moved to approve the amendment of condition number two to read: Applicant shall be limited to

five (5) – 8 ft x 8 ft x 40 ft shipping containers on the site. /Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the

General Rural Flexible 8 District for Rumpca Excavating, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the

SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ all in Section 29, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: Rumpca Excavating owns and operates a nonmetallic mine on 80 acres which was

expanded in 2002 requiring the issuance of a conditional use permit. The materials mined are gravel and

limestone. The operation plan states that the 60 of the 80 acres will be mined and extraction will extend to the

elevation of approximately 900 feet. Current mining activity is at an approximate elevation of 1000 feet. The

property is located in Section 29, Town of Clifton, zoned General Rural Flexible 8. The legal description for

this property is in the E ½ of the SE ¼ in Section 29, T27N, R19W in the Town of Clifton. The property is

zoned General Rural Flexible-8. The mining site has approximately 10 unreclaimed acres. Access to the mine

is off of County Road MM. Portable crushing equipment is brought in to make C/5 Gravel, Recycled C/5 and

Screened Hard Rock and trucks are used to haul the product. Blasting is conducted by a bonded professional

explosive company. Blasting infrequently takes place on this site. No explosives are stored onsite. Hours of

operation are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 7:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. Blasting is

between the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Crushing is done between the hours of 7:00

am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. A 100 foot setback has been maintained for all extraction. A scale and

scale house are located on the site. The neighboring property to the east had been previously mined to near the

property line. If prior excavation is determined to have occurred across the property line, the applicant would

like the ability to mine within the 100 foot setback to connect the two neighboring extraction areas. That would

require a future policy exception as its own agenda item. No complaints have been received about this

operation. Staff has contacted the Town of Clifton Chairperson regarding this renewal and no complaints or

concerns were reported. The current conditions are listed as follows: 1) Applicant shall follow all

recommendations and received all necessary permits from other agencies. 2) A 100-ft setback shall be

maintained from all property lines for all mining activities. 3) Applicant shall comply with DNR NR 135

Annual Reclamation Permits. 4) Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given adequate notice, at

least 48 hours, of any blasting, and all blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed blaster. 5) Well tests

for nitrates, suspended solids and dissolved solids shall be conducted annually for all wells within 1000 feet of

the prosed mining operation. 6) The applicant shall notify the Zoning Office if groundwater is encountered. 7)

Dust control measures shall be implemented along haul roads. 8) Hours of operation are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm

Monday through Friday and 7:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. 9) Recycling of concrete, asphalt and bricks into

Class give materials is allowed. 10) Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans. 11) Applicant agrees

that any unforeseen erosion issued shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county. 12) This CUP renewal

shall expire in two years. 13) A new reclamation plan shall be completed if extraction differs from the approved

plan on file. 14) Any expansion or intensification shall require a new conditional use permit and potentially a

rezone depending on the intensity of the use.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the above and

determine whether existing conditions remain adequate to protect public health, safety and the character of the

area. If determined to be adequate, staff recommends the LMC renew this conditional use permit with the

conditions 1-14, no changes recommended.

Snow moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for Rumpca

Excavating/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.


General Rural District for Bechel Sand & Gravel LLC, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE

¼ of Section 5, T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI.

5

Staff Report – Brad Roy: Bechel Sand and Gravel acquired this property several years ago and continued the

existing mining operation. Diesing Trucking obtained the original CUP for this site in 2006. Mining had

previously taken place on this site, but was discontinued prior to 2001. Because the use was discontinued before

2001, no reclamation had taken place. Sand is mined from the site and waste industrial sand has been deposited

in the mine. Portable processing equipment is utilized when necessary. The mine, prior to 2001, was considered

to be “grandfathered.” Due to this, mining activities that took place prior to that time were not consistent with

many of the mining regulations currently in place. All new mining activity has been consistent with the current

rules and requirements. The property is in Section 5 in the Town of Isabelle and is zoned General Rural. The

mining site has approximately 3.5 unreclaimed acres; the total extent of the mine will be approximately 6.5

acres. Access to the mine is off of 150th

Avenue. Sand screening and sizing equipment is placed on the site

when necessary. There is no blasting on this site; sand is extracted with excavating equipment and trucks.

There are numerous residences located within close proximity to the site; staff has not received any complaints

about this operation. A 100 foot setback will be maintained from property lines for all new extractions. Staff has

contacted the Town of Isabelle Chairperson regarding this renewal but did not receive a response so he took that

as there were no issues or concerns. Current conditions are listed as follows: 1) Hours of operation remain

consistent with daylight hours Monday through Friday, Saturday hours will be 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. 2) Applicant

shall receive all necessary permits from other agencies. 3) Applicant shall comply with DNR NR 135 Annual

Reclamation permits. 4) A 100-ft setback shall be maintained from all property lines for all mining activities,

which includes stockpiling and equipment placement. 5) Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues

that arise shall be address to the satisfaction of the county. 6) Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans

and shall be completed within one year of ceasing mining operations. 7) This CUP renewal shall expire in two

years.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the above and if it is

found that no changes or modifications are necessary to protect the public interest, public health, safety or

character of the area, renew this conditional use permit with conditions 1 through 7, no changes recommended.

Aubart asked if this was an active site; is it currently being utilized. Matthew Health stated yes, it is pretty

frequent; right now this is the main pit they get their bedding sand out of. So it is fairly active. Sanded asked

what does it mean by; “mining had previously taken place on this site but was discontinued prior to 2001”? Roy

stated there was a mine there; he doesn’t know when it started, as there was no permit on the file so it’s a

grandfathered use. In 2001 with the State reclamation requirements, basically every mine was given the

opportunity to just discontinue and you would not have to reclaim it. It was discontinued before that. Sanded

stated when he read it, he felt it implied that it had been dormant since 2001. Roy stated it has been active since

2006.

Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for Bechel

Sand & Gravel LLC with conditions 1 through 7/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta state he has no travel/training requests for their

consideration tonight.


Public hearing to consider a request for a rezone form RR-12 to General Rural Flex for Bailey Webster in the

Town of Oak Grove. Request for Site Plan Review for two Commercial structures at the Red Wing Airport

proposed by Wes Converse and Walters Buildings.

Motion to adjourn at 6:29 pm by Snow/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted by T. Albrightson


MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, November 2, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: November 16th

, December 7th

& December 21st

if necessary, all in 2016.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the September 21, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Discuss take action on a request to amend the conditional use

permit for a Private Outdoor Recreation Use (commercial paintball

playing field) in the Primary Agriculture District for Aaron Tholey,

agent for Timothy & Carolyn Jennings, owners on property located

in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 5, T27N, R19W, Town of

Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use

permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the General Rural Flexible 8

District for Rumpca Excavating, owner on property located in the

NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ all in Section 29,

T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the General Rural District for

Bechel Sand & Gravel LLC, owner on property located in the SW

¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 5, T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce

County, WI.

Roy







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, September 21, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow


Absent: Joe Fetzer and Jeff Holst

Acting Chairperson Aubart called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm


Next meeting dates: October 5th

& 19th

, November 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the September 7, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining by the

Pierce County Highway Department, agent for Gregory Bisel, on property located in the W ½ of the NW

¼ of Section 5, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Aubart invited Chad

Johnson forward: Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Bisel owns a nonmetallic mining operation along Hwy 10. The Pierce County

Highway Department is the current operator of the site. The mining site is approximately 17 acres and active

mining area is approximately 6.5 acres. Mineral extraction has extended into the 100 foot setback on the north

end of the property line, however this activity had taken place before 1998 and there has been no mineral

extraction within the setback since that time. A mining road encircles the outside edge of the mine and crosses

the north property line. Last we heard, the Highway Department is working with the property owners about a

potential lease. The existing highwalls are approximately 100 feet in height. The original plan states that the

highwalls will be benched to limit the heights to 35 to 50 feet. That plan also states that the mine will be

restored to slopes of 3:1. A dry run is present on the property. The mining area has not disturbed the dry run at

this point, but future expansion may become an issue. The rock is removed by drilling and blasting. Crushing

and processing of the rock takes place onsite. Storage of the product is in the active mine as well as on an

adjacent property across Hwy 10. Activity on the adjacent property is considered to be a pre-existing

nonconforming use, so a permit is not required on that site. There are no wells on the property; therefore no

washing takes place onsite. The operation typically removes 30,000 to 40,000 tons of material each year.

Blasting takes place dependent upon when material is needed. Hours of operation are 7:30am to 3:30pm

Monday through Friday, except in June, July and August; hours of operation shall be 6:00am to 6:00pm. There

have been no erosion issues on the south wall facing Hwy 10. A groundwater response plan has not been

submitted at this time. The applicant is developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Spill

Pollution Control and Countermeasures Plan. It is anticipated that these plans will be completed in the near

future and will satisfy condition #3. The water table elevation is approximately 20 feet below the mine floor.

Staff contacted the Town of Salem Chairperson regarding this renewal. No concerns were reported. The

existing conditions are listed #1 - #13 in the staff report.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether established

conditions are adequate to protect the public interest, public health and safety, and the character of the area. If

no additions or modifications are deemed necessary, staff recommends this conditional use permit be renewed

with the following conditions:





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

1. Hours of operation shall be 7:30am to 3:30pm Monday through Friday, except in June, July and August;

hours of operation shall be 6:00am to 6:00pm.

2. A 100 foot setback shall be maintained from all property boundaries. In areas where prior mining has

extended within this setback no further encroachment shall occur.

3. A groundwater response plan detailing resources used to protect the quality of groundwater beneath and

adjacent to the extraction operation and proposed response to encountering groundwater shall be

submitted to the Zoning Office. The Zoning Office shall be notified if groundwater is encountered and

further operations shall cease until the response plan is implemented.

4. Reclamation of the mine shall adhere to the original plan which states that slopes shall be restored to

3:1. Due to the location of the northern highwall and the potential for land development on the northern

adjacent parcel highwalls or steep slopes would create unsafe conditions.

5. The owner shall notify the Zoning Office when the operator of the mine is no longer a public entity.

Modifications to the permit may be required at that time.

6. Applicant shall comply with NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.

7. All blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed blaster.

8. Residential property owners located within 1000 feet of mining operations shall be given a two day

notice of any planned blasting.

9. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all existing wells

within 1000 feet of the proposed mining operation annually.

10. Any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Office or the Land

Conservation Department.

11. Applicant shall receive all necessary permits from other agencies.

12. This CUP is valid for two years and may be renewed upon request. The owner/operator is responsible

for requesting renewal. Operations conducted without a valid permit shall be subject to enforcement

action.

13. A renewal fee of $200.00 plus $20 per acre of expansion shall be paid.

Sanden asked about the benching when is that anticipated to be done or is that continued upon when material is

needed. Chad Johnson state they have improved the benching since the last time we were here as far as reducing

the amount of face that’s at the 100 feet. The 100 foot face is right up against the north property line. So we

have to finalize plans with the property owner to the north. Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the

conditional use permit for Nonmetallic mining for Pierce County Highway Department with conditions

#1 - #13/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining (Gilles Quarry) by

American Materials, agent for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the NW

¼ and the W ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 23, T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: This nonmetallic mining operation was originally permitted in 1978. American

Materials received an updated permit in 1998. All permits have been kept current since that time. The operation

involves mining dolomite/limestone and subsequent crushing and sizing. Muskie Proppant recently purchased

this property and secured the mineral rights on adjoining properties with the intent of opening a new frac sand

mine. This change in ownership has not impacted the American Materials operation. The mining site is

approximately 9 unreclaimed acres. Access is off of Hwy 10. The surrounding uses are farmland and woodland.

Overburden is stripped and stored onsite. Extraction is completed with drilling and blasting. All blasting is done

by a certified blaster. Portable equipment is brought to the site for processing. The highwalls on the site are

currently approximately 40 feet in height. There has been no blasting on the site since 2007, so no well samples

have been collected since that time. Hours of operation are 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday through Friday and

6:00am to 12:00pm on Saturday. Renewal fees for this mine are $200 + $20 per acre of expansion. No

complaints have been received about the operation. The Town of Union Chairperson was contacted regarding

this renewal. No concerns were reported. The existing conditions are listed #1 - #10 in the staff report.


conditions remain adequate to protect the public interest, public health and safety and the character of the area.

3

If no additions or modifications are deemed necessary, staff recommends this CUP be renewed with the

following conditions #1 - #10 with no changes recommended:

1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from other agencies.

2. A 100-ft setback shall be maintained from all property lines for all mining activities.

3. Applicant shall comply with DNR NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.

4. Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given adequate notice, at least 48 hours, of any

blasting and all blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed blaster.

5. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all wells within 1000

feet of the mining operation before blasting commences and annually thereafter. Applicant shall not be

required to test wells on properties where owners have not granted access.

6. Hours of operation are 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday through Friday and 6:00am to 12:00pm on Saturday.

7. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans.

8. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county.

9. Applicant shall pay renewal fees.

10. This CUP shall expire in two years.

Sanden stated he assumes with the new property and mineral rights that were purchased, when they start that

operation they will have to come back. Roy stated he believes it would be two separate permits. The operations

would remain separate. Until Muskie gets a final plan, what their plan would even impact this mine. There is a

ravine in between the two. Pichotta stated additional mining on this existing parcel wouldn’t require a new CUP

it would be covered under this one. But he thinks Muskie intends to begin mining on the adjacent pieces. Roy

stated for clarity, we would prefer to keep them as two separate CUP’s. The mining would be completely

different operations. Snow moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic

Mining for American Materials, agent for Muskie Proppant LLC with conditions #1 - #10/Sanden

seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for a Height Exemption, pursuant to Chapter 240-29D, by New Cingular

Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T), agent for 3 proposed Wireless Communication Service Facilities to be

located in; the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 7, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Boni Lavelle-Bjerke,

owner, the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 8, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Ernest Koukal, owner, and

the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 23, T26N, R17W, Town of Ellsworth, Richard Holm, owner, Pierce

County, WI. Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: AT&T is seeking height exemptions to construct three new Wireless

Communication Service Facilities (WCSF) exceeding 35’ in height in the towns of Ellsworth, Clifton and

Martell. The complete project proposals include erecting self-support wireless communication towers,

constructing prefabricated equipment shelters and installing supporting equipment to improve broadband and

wireless services in the county. Newly adopted code amendments removed conditional use permit requirements

for Wireless Communication Service Facilities. AT&T is proposing three new towers. PCC §240-29D states,

Industrial and commercial structure heights may be granted height exemptions by the Land Management

Committee, provided that all required setback and yards are increased by not less than one foot for each foot the

structure exceeds 35 feet. PCC §240-41C(3)(d)1 states, “If engineering certification reveals that the WCSF

support structure, or an existing structure, is designed to collapse within a smaller area than the requirements of

§240-29D, the certified fall zone shall be applied to the setback requirements of §240-29D. PCC §240-27B

addresses county highway setbacks and states county highways shall be 100 feet from the centerline of the road

or 67 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater. PCC §240-27C addresses setbacks and states

town highways shall be 75 feet from the centerline of the road or 42 feet from the edge of the right-of-way,

whichever is greater. PCC §240-88 Relevant definitions are listed in the staff report. Staff visited all 3 tower

sites and observed no structures located within the 150 foot fall zones of the proposed tower locations. The

Ellsworth tower is located on property zoned General Rural Flexible. Access to the Ellsworth site is off of 530th

Street. The site, to be leased by AT&T, is currently agricultural land owned by Richard Holm. Neighboring land

uses are agriculture to the north, east and south. There is a residence located on the property south of the

proposed tower location. The tower is a 150 foot monopole. Right-of-way setback is 157 feet from 530th

St; side

4

and rear yard setbacks are 125 feet. The applicant is proposing the tower to be 159’11” from the 530th

St right-

of-way and 197’7” from the nearest side or rear property line. No certified fall zone engineering is proposed for

this site. The proposed Martell tower is located on property that is zoned Primary Agriculture. Access to the

Martell site is off of 690th

Street. The site, to be leased by AT&T, is currently Ag land owned by Ernest Koukal.

Neighboring land uses are agriculture to the north, south and west; undeveloped land to the east. Two

residences exist south and west of the proposed tower location. This is also a 150 foot monopole. Right-of-way

setback is 157 feet to 690th

Street; side and rear yard setbacks are 125 feet. In the proposed location, the tower is

165 feet from the 690th

Street right-of-way and 165 feet from the nearest side or rear property line. Certified fall

zone engineering certifications are not proposed for this tower. The Clifton tower is located on property zoned

Rural Residential8. Access to the Clifton site is off of CTH F. The site will also be leased by and is currently

pasture land owned by Boni LaVelle-Bjerke. Neighboring land uses are agriculture to the north and east,

undeveloped land to the south. There is a residence located on the property west of the proposed tower location.

This is also a 150 foot monopole. Required right-of-way setbacks are 182 feet to CTH F; 157 feet to 820th

Ave.

Side and rear yard setbacks are 125 feet. The applicant has submitted engineering certifications with a proposed

certified fall zone of 75 feet, reducing right-of-way setbacks to 107 feet from CTH F and 82 feet from 820th

Ave. Side and rear yard line setbacks are 50 feet. Applicant is proposing the tower to be 160’11” from the CTH

F right-of-way, 347 feet from the 820th

Ave right-of-way and 169’4” from the nearest side or rear property line.

Staff will verify appropriate setbacks prior to issuing a Land Use Permit for the structures.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the proposed WCSF

height exemptions and determine, if any changes or modifications are necessary. If none, staff recommends the

LMC grant approval of the height exemptions.

Sanden asked if there have been any violations. Sanden moved to approve the height exemptions for New

Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T) for 3 Wireless Communication Service Facilities to be located in

the Towns of Clifton, Martell and Ellsworth for owners, LaVelle-Bjerke, Koukal and Holm/Snow


Discuss take action on draft Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2016 - 2020. Staff Report – Brad

Roy: The Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission (MRRPC) has updated Pierce County’s Outdoor

Recreation Plan and has submitted a final draft plan for review and approval. The purpose of the plan is to

provide information to help develop and improve the county’s recreation resources and to make the County and

other participating local governments eligible for WDNR grants. A draft of this plan was presented to the LMC

on September 2, 2015. However, we did not receive a final copy from the MRRPC until recently. Staff wanted

to present the plan again prior to public hearing due to the amount of time since last presented. The plan lists the

County’s “goals and actions” to improve the recreational opportunities in the county, which are listed on pages

45-46. These were developed by the Parks Committee on July 24, 2014 and the Land Management Committee

on September 17, 2014. The draft plan is enclosed for your review.

Roy stated members from the Town of River Falls are here. They have their own plan which they would like

submitted with that and will work with Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission as to the best

approach to include their plan within ours. It should be pretty simple he just doesn’t know what the best format

for them is. Pichotta stated it will probably get stuck as an appendage under community plans. Roy stated we

will work with them and then he will let the committee know what the best approach is.

Staff Recommendation: The LMC should review the plan to determine if any changes or additions are

necessary and direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider its adoption.

Sanden asked if staff has seen the River Falls Plan yet. Roy stated he has not. Sanden asked if you anticipate

any conflict or inconsistencies between the two. Pichotta stated he doesn’t imagine there would be any

inconsistencies. Basically what this plan does is it enables projects that are discussed in here whether it be in the

individual community plans or in this plan itself to be eligible for some funding sources that they wouldn’t

otherwise be. It lends credence to grant applications if it’s included in this plan. Sanden asked on page 45 & 46,

how do we read those that don’t have a priority listing. Is that to be considered low priority or no priority? Roy

stated he would consider it low, probably one of those that if the opportunity came up for a specific grant, we

could pursue it but we aren’t actively pursuing it. Sanden so this should be judged like a guideline not like a

5

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or something. Pichotta no, we are not held to anything that is in here. It’s

not a roadmap that we must follow. It is projects that the county feels are worth pursuing. Sanden asked if he

could characterize any substantial changes that have been made. Pichotta stated there have been no changes. He

isn’t sure what happened at Mississippi River Regional Planning but despite occasional phone calls to them to

ask what the status was; we simply heard nothing back. Eventually we were provided with a draft which we had

been waiting for. Sanden stated best case scenario, they had some ideas in mind for changes and that never

made it through the process. Pichotta stated he thinks it became a low priority for them and they had more

pressing projects. Snow stated some of these recreation goals have been completed; construction of the bridge

to access the trails at the Trimbelle Recreation Area, we have constructed a new boat ramp at Trenton Island.

He knows they are working on some grants right now for a new snowmobile bridge down by Vino. Chairperson

Aubart asked for clarification, the River Falls Township addendum, all we are doing is just moving it forward to

a public hearing. That could be added at any time. Pichotta stated that could be added at any time before or after

the public hearing. The public hearing is an opportunity to hear whether folks think things should be changed or

added. If a need is identified at the public hearing it would certainly be appropriate after that point to add it. Roy

stated every Village and City submit something as part of this plan. He has no idea where they are on those

processes, or if they are still gathering that information. That is typically left to the regional planning

commission. Pichotta asked so we haven’t gotten that information from Mississippi River Regional Planning? Is

that our responsibility to collect those plans or does Dave Bonifas typically do it? Roy stated they’ve always

collected it and handled it on their end. Snow asked if we need a motion to adopt this recreation plan. Pichotta

stated no, just direct staff to schedule a public hearing. We didn’t want to schedule a public hearing in front of

the committee without you seeing it in the last year. Roy asked the River Falls folks if they had any questions.

Katie Pata stated no, it sounds great.

Sanden moved to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider adoption of the Pierce County

Outdoor Recreation Plan/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has two requests for your consideration;

the first is for Kevin Etherton, our GIS guy, to attend the GIS/LIS conference in the Duluth Conference Center,

October 26th

– 28th

. The cost is $275.00 and he would need to stay in a hotel for a couple days. Pichotta

reminded the committee that we get a grant for this sort of thing through the Land Records Program. So there

will be no impact on our budget. The other request is for Shari Hartung to attend a Skillpath Seminar on

Coaching and Teambuilding Skills for Managers and Supervisors. Training would be a daytime thing, with no

hotel required and the cost being $199.00. We have that available in our training budget. Sanden asked where

the training is taking place. Pichotta stated in the City of Bloomington. Snow moved to approve the two

travel/training requests/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.


Pichotta stated at this point, we have no agenda items, no public hearings or renewals for the next meeting. He

could come up with a house cleaning item or two but rather than do that he would suggest we take that evening

off. Chairperson Aubart stated that sounds like a plan. So October 19th

will be the next meeting.

Motion to adjourn at 6:25 pm by Sanden/Snow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.


LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. County Board Room, Pierce County Courthouse,

414 W. Main St. Ellsworth, WI 54011 # Action Presenter 1 Call to order Chair 2 Next meeting dates: October 5th & 19th, November 2nd & 16th, all in

2016. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the September 7, 2016 Land Management Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining by the Pierce County Highway Department, agent for Gregory Bisel, on property located in the W ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 5, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

5 Discuss take action on renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining (Gilles Quarry) by American Materials, agent for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ and the W ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 23, T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

6 Discuss take action on a request for a Height Exemption, pursuant to Chapter 240-29D, by New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT&T), agent, for 3 proposed Wireless Communication Service Facilities to be located in; the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 7, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Boni Lavelle-Bjerke, owner, the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 8, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Ernest Koukal, owner, and the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 23, T26N, R17W, Town of Ellsworth, Richard Holm, owner, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

7 Discuss take action on draft Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2016-2020

Roy

8 Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta 9 Future agenda items. Pichotta 10 Adjourn Members

Questions regarding this agenda may be made to the Department of Land Management at 715-273-6746. Upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities requiring special accommodations for attendance at the meeting. For additional information or to make a request, contact the Administrative Coordinator at 715-273-6851. A quorum of County Board supervisors may be present. (9/9/16)

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, September 7, 2016





Next meeting dates: September 21st, October 5

th & 19

th, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Snow moved to approve the August 17, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a Map Amendment (Rezone) of 30 acres from

Light Industrial to General Rural Flexible 8 by Lee Nesbitt, agent for Leon & Donna Nesbitt, owners on

property located in part of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 35, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce

County, WI. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: In 2008, the LMC and County Board of Supervisors approved the rezone of

38.39 acres from GRF8 to LI. That rezone was done to permit a commercial nursery and retail shop. The

applicants are now requesting to rezone 33 acres back to GRF8 because the use has been agricultural (crops,

tree production, apple orchard, garden and berry patch). The 5.39 acres with Nesbitt Nursery retail, shop and

storage buildings will remain in the LI district. Commercial uses are conditionally permitted in Light Industrial

zoning district. The parcel is located in Section 35, Town of Oak Grove. Adjacent land uses are agriculture,

residential and forest. The entire property is surrounded by General Rural Flexible8. Pierce County’s adopted

Comprehensive Plan states: “The County will approve re-zonings or map amendments only when the proposed

change is consistent with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. In cases where a town has not

adopted a comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved only when consistent with the Pierce County Plan

(encouraged vs discouraged). In such cases, Pierce County will solicit a non-binding town recommendation

regarding the proposed rezone.” The Town of Oak Grove recommended approval of this request on 3-21-2016

and stated, “Surrounding property is GRF8, so the change would not create a problem with the surrounding

uses.” The Town cited Goal #2 of the Land Use chapter – promote and encourage growth and development in

appropriate areas within the Town of Oak Grove. The Town noted the need to protect existing agricultural lands

(Objective 2) and also stated that the rezone “fit in appropriately” with neighboring uses. Pierce County Zoning

Code §240-15 Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts are included in the staff report as is the value of the land

that is proposed to be rezoned. You will see that about 30% is prime farmland, 35% is farmland of statewide

importance.

Staff Recommendation: Given that the Oak Grove Town Board of Supervisors has determined this proposed

rezone of 33 acres from Light Industrial to General Rural Flexible 8 is consistent with their comprehensive plan,

staff recommends that the LMC approve this rezone request and forward a recommendation to the County

Board of Supervisors.


asked if by peeling off the majority of the property and having five acres left over, do we run the risk of spot

zoning? Pichotta stated that he would say no. A spot zone is when someone who is similarly situated couldn’t

expect the same treatment or a land use decision that is not consistent with one’s comprehensive plan. Because

it’s consistent with their comp plan and they have determined it to be so, he would suggest that takes it out of





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

that realm. Sanden asked about the size of five acres and that it’s not adjacent to Light Industrial Zoning does

that come into play? Pichotta suggested that you could have an issue only if it wasn’t consistent with a comp

plan – for example if you had a situation where you had light rail coming through and you determined that it

was appropriate for a small area where the light rail was going to stop to be zoned commercial/industrial, or

something like that. Even if it was a very small piece it could be reasonably considered to be a stand-alone

district as long as it was consistent with the comp plan. Chairperson Fetzer asked the applicant if he had

anything to add. Mr. Nesbitt stated not at this time. Holst moved to approve the request for a Map

Amendment (Rezone) from LI to GRF8 and forward a recommendation to the Board of

Supervisors/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home

Based Business for farm machinery and parts sales in the General Rural Flexible District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36D, for Scott & Gayle Knight, owners on property located in the NW

¼ of the NW ¼ and the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 11, T26N, R17W, Town of Ellsworth, Pierce

County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Scott forward:

Staff Report-Ryan Bechel: Mr. Knight operates Knight’s Tractor, a used farm machinery sales and machinery

parts business. The business has apparently been in operation since the applicant purchased the subject property

in 2003. Staff became aware of the operation following an anonymous complaint. In addition to the business,

the applicant farms the surrounding agricultural land. The applicant sources farm machinery and parts from the

surrounding area to display them for sale at the property. Equipment is also advertised on the business’s website

which is the primary avenue through which customers view and purchase his items. The 37.81 acre property is

located in the Town of Ellsworth. The property is zoned General Rural Flexible. Pierce County Code 240-36D

permits farm and home based businesses subject to the following four perimeters:

1. The farm and home based business shall be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit. No more than

eight persons not residing on the site may be employed in the business.

2. If located in the dwelling unit, the farm and home business shall occupy no more than 50% of the

dwelling unit. If located in an accessory building, the farm and home business shall not occupy an area

greater than 5,000 square feet.

3. Minimum lot size shall be 5 acres.

4. Such other conditions as specified by the Land Management Committee pursuant to Chapter 240-76

shall apply.

The property is the applicant’s primary residence. The applicant utilizes a 32ft x 40ft (1280 sq ft) existing shed

for the business. No new structures are proposed with this request. The applicant employs one part-time

employee. Adjacent zoning districts are Primary Agriculture to the north and west; General Rural Flexible to

the east and south. Adjacent land uses are agricultural and low density residential. Lot access is located off of

US Hwy 63 on the west side of the property. Equipment utilized for this business includes a tractor-loader and a

front-end loader. The equipment is also used in the applicant’s farming operation. The main activities on-site

are the loading and unloading of trucks with machinery and equipment. Machinery is trucked to the site via

semi-trailers and offloaded at an off-street location near the applicant’s storage buildings. Shipment delivery is

anticipated at once per week during peak periods. The business currently occupies approximately 6.5 acres. The

majority of the equipment is situated approximately 500 feet from the centerline of US Hwy 63 near the center

of the property and towards the eastern property line. The applicant stated that he displays some machinery in

the south western portion of the property parallel to US Hwy 63 after fall harvest. Pierce County Code does not

specify a limit for exterior operational space for a Farm and Home Based Business. The applicant indicated he

does not desire to expand operational space at this time. Hours of operation are proposed to be from civil

daylight to civil sunset, 7-days per week. The lot is typically not open to customer’s at-will. Sales are primarily

conducted over the phone, on-line, or in-person by appointment only. Pierce County Code §240-54 establishes

parking requirements and stipulates in cases where a uses parking requirements are not specifically listed, the

minimum number of parking spots shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the

requirements for similar uses. A minimum of 3 parking spots shall be provided, plus one for each employee on

site at a given time. A minimum of one parking stall shall be ADA compliant. Ample room exists on the

3

premises to fulfill parking requirements. A restroom is available for customers within the existing residence.

P.I.G. of Hager City, WI provides solid waste disposal bins and removal services for the business. There is no

signage associated with the business on the property. The applicant is not proposing a sign at this time. An

existing “dusk to dawn” light pole provides exterior lighting for the property. No additional exterior lighting is

proposed. The Ellsworth Town Board recommended approval of this request on 8-1-2016. The Town

recommendation stated “chapter 7 of the Town Comprehensive Plan addresses agriculture and supports

economic activity and development that does not detract from the rural way of life in the town. Mr. Knight, in

an agricultural community and his home based Ag business of selling farm equipment and machinery conforms

to the objectives of supporting agriculture. The Town promotes maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the town

and to protect the natural resources in the town.” The Town Board also cited the following concern’ “The Town

is concerned about the amount of equipment Mr. Knight has on display and does not want his whole 38 acres

filled with equipment.” PCC 240-76G discusses expiration of Conditional Use Permits and states, “All

conditional use permits shall expire 12 months from the date of issuance where no action has commenced to

establish the authorized use.




recommends the LMC approve the proposed Farm & Home Based Business with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as presented in the application.

2. The business shall be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit.

3. There shall be at least three customer parking spaces plus one for each employee; a minimum of one

parking stall shall be ADA compliant.

4. Machinery shall not be loaded or off-loaded in the US Hwy 63 R-O-W.

5. No machinery shall be located in the US Hwy 63 R-O-W.

6. Exterior operational space for storing and displaying equipment shall be limited to 10 acres.

7. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require issuance of a new

conditional use permit. If applicant has questions as to what constitutes expansion or intensification,

Land Management staff should be contacted.

8. This conditional use permit shall be renewed every 2 years. Permit may be renewed administratively if

no compliance issues arise.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. Barry Barringer, Trenton Township, asked if he could

ask a few questions after the committee has made their decision. He is just wondering about Farm & Home

Based Businesses and how that figures into the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan and other Township

Comprehensive Plans? Is there a definition for rural businesses at this time where you don’t have to have a

residence involved? Where are we on that? Pichotta stated yes, we do allow rural businesses. We have three

major classifications for rural businesses: Home Occupation which is allowable even in the residential districts,

Home Business which has a two acre minimum lot size, also limits on the size you can use in an accessory

structure. Then you have the Farm & Home Based Business. All of those categories are essentially intended to

allow one to pursue entrepreneurial activities and to basically use their home as a business incubator to grow

their business and if it gets to a certain size, where they require more than the 5,000 square feet in an accessory

structure or eight employees at any one time, the expectation is that they would either limit it to that size or they

would move it to an appropriate district whether it be Commercial, Industrial or Light Industrial. After our last

comp plan update, we created a number of different business categories, mostly relating to agri-business, agri-

tourism, nature based operations. So if one wants to do something of that nature, there is not necessarily the

requirement that there have to be a residence present on the property. Those are also permitted through the

conditional use permitting process. As far as the plans of the Town and the County, basically what the County

has said in their comprehensive plan is that they will seek to further the goals and objectives of the town’s

adopted comprehensive plan. If a Town wanted to have an impact on a particular use that was conditionally

permitted, what they would do, would be to cite the goals, objectives and/or policy that are applicable in their

town’s comprehensive plan and describe how their recommendation would further their comprehensive plan. If

it was a reasonable interpretation of their plan there would be the expectation that this committee would follow

4

that recommendation. Pichotta stated that he is not sure if that answers your questions, but hope it does. Mr.

Barringer stated he thinks it does, thanks. Chairperson Fetzer asked if there is any further public comment. No

more public input. Public hearing closed. Holst moved to approve the Farm & Home Based Business for

machinery and parts sales for Scott Knight with conditions #1 - #8/Snow seconded. Holst stated Scott

provides a service to not only the ag community in the area but the ag community throughout the United States.

He does a good job doing what he does, it’s relatively attractive for what he does and if he tries to expand it

much more than from where he is, he’s going to get in that wet whole he will lose his inventory. He’s kind of

limited as to what he can do. All in favor. Passed.


Industrial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A, for William F. Holst III, owner on

property located in the N ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 33, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Bill Holst forward: Jeff Holst recused himself from discussion and voting

on this issue due to possible conflict of interest. Staff Report – Brad Roy: The applicant received a conditional use permit (CUP) for nonmetallic mining to

expand an existing mining operation on September 3, 2014. A screening plan was presented and approved by

the LMC in March, 2015. The screening plan and operation were again discussed in May 2015 and a

modification was made to the screening plan relating to tree height. The expanded area is approximately 22

acres and the area to be mined is approximately 20 acres. The applicant anticipates that new area will take many

years, up to 50, to extract all of the material. The adjoining pre-existing nonconforming mine has 110 open

acres. A small Ready-Mix plant is also located on the adjoining site. The LMC approved an application for a

sand processing and rail load out facility on a portion of the adjoining property. The property is zoned Industrial

and General Rural Flexible. Access to the site is off 830th

St. The site is currently used for agriculture.

Surrounding uses include mining, agriculture, industrial uses and higher-density residential. The required berm

has been constructed and required trees planted. The applicant owns a farm site on the property. The structures

will be demolished when the rental agreement expires. There will be no blasting or chemicals used, extraction

will be done with frontend-loaders. The mined materials will be hauled north to the pre-existing nonconforming

mine for processing. Processing will include crushing, screening, sorting, grading and blending with use of

conveyors, screeners, stackers and other equipment. All washing of the sand will take place in the pre-existing

nonconforming mine. The washing will be needed to remove fines and will use an existing high capacity well.

Servicing and fueling of equipment will take place in the pre-existing nonconforming mine. Extractions will go

approximately 40 feet below the existing grade. This will result in the floor of the pit elevation of 712 and only

a few feet above the water table. Ground water has been encountered in the adjoining mine. When most of the

mineral deposit above the water table has been removed, the applicant will explore the possibility of mining

below the water table. This decision will need to be made at a future time. The applicant cannot determine if

mining below the water table will be economically feasible many years into the future. The entire site, new and

existing mining areas, will be internally drained. The applicant intends to operate 24 hours per day, seven days

per week. The application states that mining will not occur within 100 feet of the property lines, which is

consistent with the Mining Policy. The Mining Policy also requires that no mining may occur within 200 feet of

existing residences. The reclamation plan states that the proposed post-mining land use will be industrial uses,

which is consistent with the current zoning district. A portion of the site is cataloged as an archeological site.

The applicant is working with the State Archeologist on this issue. It was recently verified that a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan and a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan are not required for this

site by the DNR. Those plans are typically the major component of a Ground Water Response Plan which is

required by Condition #4. Due to questions about whether the plans were required, the Ground Water Response

Plan has yet to be completed. Well tests were completed in 2015 and submitted to the Department. Staff has yet

to receive tests for 2016. The Town of Trenton Chairperson was contacted regarding this renewal. At this time,

staff has not received any comments or concerns. The existing conditions #1 - #18 are listed in the staff report.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether the current

conditions remain adequate to protect the public health, safety and character of the surrounding area. If

determined to be appropriate, staff recommends the LMC renew this conditional use permit with the following

5

conditions, as well as any additional conditions deemed appropriate: (Conditions 3, 12, 16, 17 and 18 have been

removed due to completion of requirement).

1. Activities shall be conducted consistent with the application unless modified by another condition of

approval.

2. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR,

Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies if required.

3. A ground water response plan which details resources to be used to protect the quality of ground water

beneath and adjacent to the extraction operation, and a proposed response to encountering ground water,

shall be provided within 6 months.

4. Prior to extraction of any material from below the water table the applicant shall present proposed plans

to the LMC for review and approval.

5. Applicant agrees that any erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county.

6. Applicant shall pay the Nonmetallic Mining fee to the Zoning Office prior to any material extraction

from the site.

7. A 100-foot buffer shall be maintained from the active mining to the property boundaries. A 200-foot

buffer shall be maintained around existing offsite residences.

8. Hours of operation within areas zoned General Rural Flexible (GRF) shall be limited to 6am to 7pm

Monday through Friday.

9. Testing of the wells on properties within 1000’ of mining activity shall be comprehensively tested,

including for suspended solids, nitrates and dissolved solids and chlorides, annually. Base line data shall

be obtained prior to mineral extraction. Test results and the base line data tests shall be provided to the

Department of Land Management.

10. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for structures, signs or activities not discussed in this plan

from the Zoning Office.

11. Any lighting shall comply with the Land Management Department Policy.

12. Applicant understands that any intensification or expansion of the use will require the issuance of a new

Conditional Use Permit.

13. This permit shall expire in two years.

Bill Holst stated he ordered another round of tests for the wells for this year. After this year, he doesn’t see that

he should be required to do that every year because we will have completed a baseline and he is not doing any

mining on this property below the water table. He thought the purpose was to establish the baseline and that he

feels will have been completed. Chairperson Fetzer asked how many years he has done this. Mr. Holst stated

this is the second year. Chairperson Fetzer asked how many years do we typically require? Pichotta stated with

WISC we have them testing every year. Pichotta stated really the baseline is established to enable one to use the

results of the yearly test to determine whether or not something has changed. He would be hesitant to do away

with the requirement in its entirety because the proximity to homes. We don’t require this for all nonmetallic

mines, it’s only mines that are operating in close proximity to the water table, like WISC who is underground

but are in close proximity to the water table. He would be hesitant especially when we hold others to that

standard, to just do away with it. The other thing that makes this site particularly unique is the proximity to

residential - you have the industrial area and then there is the ring of houses around it. The reality is this protects

Mr. Holst too, if someone has concerns about their water, he can point to the well test results. He thinks it may

be appropriate to have a discussion at some point; perhaps there could be a limiting of the number of wells

tested, but enough to ensure that the sampling is adequate. Chairperson Fetzer asked how many houses are

within the 1,000 feet? Mr. Holst stated there’s only 11 that would let us do the tests, the others wouldn’t let the

guys in to test their water. It’s about $2500.00 and it goes up every year. Pichotta stated the concern isn’t

necessarily that they are mining in the ground water, it is a concern if there was a spill of some sort. Testing is

how one would figure out if that occurred. Sanden asked if the residences are “down river” as far as the ground

water flowage? Pichotta indicated that they are. Sanden asked what if we look at these well test for several years

and we didn’t see any change then we could revisit and do it every two or three years. Pichotta indicated that

discussion would be appropriate. Mr. Holst thanked the committee for their consideration. Chairperson Fetzer

asked Dr. Sanden what he would think. Sanden stated after three years if there was no change, significantly,

6

then maybe go to every two years. Maybe we could consult a hydrologist and see what the wisdom is, if they

would agree with that. Roy stated, if this held, it will be renewed in 2018, so you would have 2016, 2017 tests

possibly 2018 test before the next renewal. That would give you three or four, we can compare numbers.

Sanden asked if you would have to wait for a renewal to make changes. Roy stated we couldn’t do it

administratively. It would have to come to the committee for modification. Sanden asked if he can direct staff to

talk to a hydrologist to see what they would recommend, he would be open to it if things were stable. Pichotta

stated absolutely. He thinks as long as there is a methodology that can be followed and can reasonably address

concerns, it’s certainly worthwhile to discuss. Chairperson Fetzer would be comfortable with that also. Mr.

Holst asked if Pierce County Highway Dept does that every year. Roy stated the adjoining property there is a

grandfathered mine. Pichotta, pre-existing, nonconformity, we don’t have the ability to regulate pre-existing,

nonconformities. Town of Trenton didn’t come into County Zoning until the late 80’s, anything existing prior to

that time, especially when it comes to gravel pits, we’ve got no ability to regulate. Sanden moved to approve

the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic mining for William F. Holst III, due to the fact

this is not contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or

the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #13/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed

with Jeff Holst not voting.

Discuss take action on Pierce County Comprehensive Plan survey results and proposed implementation

of plan. Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: In an effort to collect as much input from the public as possible, the

Pierce County Land Management Department and Committee developed an online citizen survey to gather

opinions and identify attitudes of the various county stakeholders. The survey was made available to the public

for response over a 6 week period from June 20th

through July 31st 2016. As anticipated, the number of survey

participants was substantially lower than that of the survey conducted in 2009 with a total of 117 citizens

participating in the survey. The goal of the survey was to gather as much information as possible to develop an

understanding of how community attitudes may have evolved since the plan’s initial adoption by capturing a

snapshot of community attitudes concerning planning, development and citizen-government interactions. The

information gathered through the survey will be used to help evaluate the Comprehensive Plan’s goals,

objectives and policies. Additionally; staff reviewed survey data to help identify and prioritize implementation

strategies for the implementation element of the comprehensive plan update.

Survey Methodology

An efficient, economical, user-targeted questionnaire delivered via an online format was developed by Land

Management staff and approved by the Land Management Committee. The “targeted” survey format divided

participants into 3 main cohorts (Residents, Non-resident Landowners, Small Business Owners) based on

respondents most prominent role (self-identified) in the Pierce County Community. This method was selected

as it allowed questions to be tailored to each specific cohort, in addition to general questions provided to all

participants. Knowing the “role” a participant plays in the Pierce County community allowed staff to foster a

deeper understanding of community attitudes from responses, while operating on a lower volume of survey

respondents. The “Survey Matrix” graphic provided on the next page, illustrates this survey format. Participants

were asked approximately 12-16 questions depending on their selected cohort, with an estimated 5 to 10

minutes required to complete the survey. Public access to the survey was made available through the Pierce

County Website’s main page and via a link on the Pierce County Land Management Department’s main web

page. Notices of the survey were published in the Pierce County Herald and provided on the Pierce County web

page. Additionally, notices were mailed to towns and municipalities with instructions for accessing and

completing the survey and encouraging participation. There is the survey matrix in the staff report. Basically

everybody got asked a common question set of general questions and those that identified themselves as elected

officials got another specific question set and there were three other question sets tailored for the non-resident

land owners and the small business owners.

Introductory Question

Diving into the results, the first big question looking at what respondents identified as a role in the community;

89% identified as residents, 9% as small business owners and only 2 respondents say they were non-resident

land owners.

7

Next question looked at whether they were an Elected Official.

83% did not hold an elected office; 19% did. Of those, that would be a total of about 19 respondents and 5 of

those were in the city or village which we didn’t direct them to the Elected Officials question set. Chairperson

stated he found it interesting that no County Board members responded to the survey. Holst suggested some of

them might have taken them under a different guise.

Common Question Set

Bechel stated the results for the common question set asked of everybody first looking at whether the

respondents were in the unincorporated or incorporated areas, about a 60%/40% in favor of the unincorporated.

The next question asked them to rate the current efforts of Pierce County to regulate and guide development. It

is fairly equal distribution there, 36% being the greatest for About the right amount of planning and regulation;

same question asked of respondents regarding the Town. About 50% said it was the right amount of planning

and regulation and then it was split between too much and not enough. Sanden asked what is 17 out of a total of

how many for Pierce County? Bechel stated 41,019. Sanden stated a fraction of 1%. Holst stated he doesn’t

think it’s real accurate. Pichotta stated certainly not statistically valid. Bechel stating moving on, what type of

additional land use regulation would you support? About half the respondents said ground water protection,

larger minimum lot sizes came in the lowest at 13%. What is your opinion of expanding/developing additional

areas for community/industrial/retail use? Half of the respondents said Focus development to existing business

districts or Develop commercial/retail areas in cities and villages. Very few respondents said they were against

any expansion or development, only 3%. Sanden asked, they were allowed to select more than one? Bechel said

correct. The next table is asking if respondent’s felt there was a need for any more of the following: a

50/40%split with everything a yes with the exception of major discount retailers, the majority of them said no.

Dining establishments probably had the highest yes rate at 65%. Have you interacted with the Land

Management Department within the last two years and if so, which of the following would most improve your

experiences with Pierce County Land Management. Over half the people hadn’t had any interaction with our

department and of those people that had, the highest number said no changes and services are satisfactory at

16%. Pierce County Comprehensive Plan is a long-term guidance document designed to capture the “vision” for

the future held by the Pierce County community. Which of the following statements do you feel shares your

“vision” of Pierce County’s future? The top three answers there would be protection of streams, rivers, natural

areas, maintaining Pierce County’s rural character and investment and development are focused in existing

communities to ensure they remain functional and desirable. Sanden stated even though it’s a small sample it

does reflect what we saw in the bigger samples. Due to strong community support identified through the 2009

comprehensive plan development process, Pierce County adopted new regulations broadening opportunities to

establish businesses in agricultural districts (e.g. agri-business, agri-tourism, nature-based operations). Do you

feel there is a need for additional regulatory flexibility in agricultural districts to accommodate entrepreneurs

and small business owners? Basically a split between no change and didn’t know or have no opinion. Same

thing for regulations should be either tightened or relaxed. They weren’t leaning either one way or another on

that one.

Resident Specific Question Set - about 104 people for this one.

What characteristics about Pierce County do you find most desirable: rural atmosphere stuck out and so did

natural beauty. This kind of falls in line with what we saw in the last survey. Same question but least desirable:

lack of retail options, half the respondents selected that one as the least desirable characteristic.

Non-Resident Landowners Specific Question Set

Nothing much to look at here, there were only two people and they both chose different sides of the road.

Small Business Owners Specific Question Set – 11 respondents for these questions.

Characterizing their business, about five said services industry, five said ag production and one in

manufacturing. Which of the following statements most characterizes your opinion of the Pierce County

business climate; about half said unwelcoming, not business friendly and a tie between don’t know and no

opinion of welcoming; business friendly. The note on the side, when you break down the data a little more,

about half the small business owners, five were in the municipalities so breaking these back on how they feel

about Pierce County specific. Rules and regulations may not be a close relationship as the data shows on here.

Next question In your experience, how do Pierce County’s land use procedures (permitting fees, timelines,

8

inspections, and other requirements) compare to other levels of jurisdiction your business is subject to, such as

federal, state, municipal and town land use procedures? Over half said Pierce County’s procedures are similar to

those of other jurisdictions. Pierce County has sought to involve towns in conditionally permitted uses by

requiring conditional use permit applicants to solicit a town recommendation concerning a proposed use. In

your experience, how has this requirement shaped your view of the conditional use permitting process? 36%

thought it was positive and provided an opportunity to diffuse conflicts and address complaints and the other

half thought it was prohibitive. With respect to your business, what characteristics about Pierce County do you

find most desirable. Rural atmosphere, Natural beauty, Ag community those same kind of themes were the top

responses there. The flip side of that, which do you find least desirable? None of the above was by far the

number one, with maybe a third saying lack of available workforce.

Elected Officials General Question Set

Which of the following best describes your level of familiarity with Pierce County’s Comprehensive Plan? All

over the board with somewhat familiar and not very familiar. Which of the following best describes your level

of familiarity with your town’s comprehensive plan? 67% or two thirds said they were very familiar with their

town’s comprehensive plan. Chairperson Fetzer stated that doesn’t seem surprising to you? I guess with the 100

people that came on maybe they’re the ones that read their town’s comp plan. Pichotta noted that we did send a

notice to the town boards asking folks to participate in the survey. Bechel stated this sample size is actually

fifteen people that participated and we excluded those that were elected officials and part of the city and

villages. Pierce County, through its comp plan, establish a process through which a town can further the goals

and objective of their adopted comprehensive plan when considering the establishment of conditionally

permitted uses. How would you characterize your understanding of how this mechanism functions? Pretty

scattered responses, once again, fully understand the legal concept had the highest at 33% and pretty close was

somewhat familiar and completely unfamiliar with the mechanism. As a town elected official, how often do you

estimate your town consults the adopted comprehensive plan when considering Conditional Use Permits and/or

Rezone applications? 40% said usually, Never received 6%. To the best of your knowledge, has your town

adopted any of the following? A general spattering through there, about two-thirds has the ones that we would

expect, subdivision/land division ordinances, mining ordinances, those sorts of things. The last one, just asking

if they recognize any opportunities for any governmental cooperation amongst state, county, municipal and

town governments. They had an opportunity to fill in and there we got three responses as well. Any thoughts or

questions? Holst stated he believes that whoever mentioned the poor internet service is right on the nuts here

because in 2007 we mailed out 25,000 surveys and we had a response of 44%, now today we did it over the

internet the median of choice and what did we get 117. So he thinks maybe the mail worked. Pichotta stated you

have to remember we spend a whole bunch of money on that last one. This one was just a kind of testing the

winds. Sanden asked if staff saw any significant changes or difference from what we saw last time? Pichotta

stated not really. He thought that was encouraging, especially given that a lot of the respondents were from the

town level and the results that we got are relatively positive. Holst stated he thought that when we did it the way

we did it that we could have gotten a skewed response if we would have had an organized group that wanted to

screw the thing up they could have. We didn’t see that. Sanden stated that means that probably they felt it was

open and fair. Bechel stated moving on into Implementation.

Introduction

The comprehensive plan is the primary instrument the county will utilize to plan for and guide the growth and

development of Pierce County over the next twenty years. To be effective, this plan should be actively used as a

tool to guide decisions concerning the included elements such as land use, planning, management, public health

and services, transportation, housing and economic development. The plan has been prepared to present a vision

for the county in terms of population growth, land development and infrastructure development. This vision

simply identifies an intention – a statement of what the county would like to achieve. However, this statement

says very little about how it can be achieved. This element is intended to provide a link between the vision,

goals, objectives, policies and reality through the various proposed implementation actions that can be used to

translate the plan into action. Having the appropriate tools to implement the action steps in this comprehensive

plan is critical. There are several regulatory tools and administrative mechanisms/techniques that can be utilized

to implement the policies. This chapter summarizes many of the action steps the county could take to implement

9

the policies. This chapter also identifies actions that can be cooperatively taken by the county and individual

communities and by the communities themselves, to implement the policies in the county comprehensive plan.

It has been said that a plan is only as good as its implementation. Ultimately, in the case of Pierce County, local

governmental bodies (elected and appointed) will make decisions that determine whether or not the plan can be

realized. All of this affects how the plan relates to the future development of Pierce County. Over the twenty-

year life of the plan, hundreds of decisions will be made that will impact its success. Therefore, it is important

that each of these decision-making bodies understand the basic tenets of the plan and make decisions and

recommendations with it in mind.

Amendments

The comprehensive plan is considered to be a flexible guide to decision making rather than an inflexible

blueprint for development. Decisions regarding the location of different land uses are based on prevailing

knowledge of the characteristics and expressed priorities of Pierce County leaders and its residents, as well as

anticipated growth and development patterns. As this knowledge or comprehension of these and other factors

expands and makes existing proposals undesirable, the plan may require amendments. Amendments should be

made only after a realistic evaluation of existing conditions and the potential impact of such a change is made.

Amendments should not be made merely to accommodate the daily pressures of development and/or

government. It is important to recognize that planning is a process that should occur on a continuing basis if the

county is to take advantage of new opportunities as conditions change. An effective planning program should be

continually reviewed and updated to reflect the processes of actual development and the changing attitudes and

priorities of the County’s residents and landowners. Resource information should be gathered and studied to

determine trends and reevaluate projections, forecasts and the plan. In five years (ten years at a maximum), the

comprehensive plan should be again reviewed to make any necessary policy and recommendation changes in

relation to the direction and character of community development at that time.

2009 Implementation Plan – this highlights a few of the accomplishments we’ve had since 2009.

Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources – working with towns to ensure their comp plans recognize a

responsibility in ensuring continuance of ag and protection of cultural and natural resources. Sixteen of the

seventeen towns now have comp plans since Pierce County adopted theirs in 2009. Under Economic

Development the ag business operation zoning code amendments which Andy recited tonight. Those are a part

of that as well as some code amendments; wireless communication service facilities. Looking at Land Use,

Emily worked on a map depicting county wide plat development locations. Under Planning we created the form

and updated the Town Recommendation Form that’s used for all CUP’s & Rezones. Parts and Rec Plan was

completed and plan adoption is this year yet. On the back page, mostly dealing with technology and electronics;

all of our minutes, staff reports are now available on-line. Sanitary info is now all on-line and some of our

permitting procedures and brochures are all on-line, as well as our interactive GIS. Various internal data bases

have been created to house all that information as well. That was the existing Implementation Plan, the new one

pretty much mirrors that. A lot of it has stayed in and When Action Completed has been changed from a

specific date to On-going for the most part. A few of the new proposed ones under Ag, Natural and Cultural

Resources support the establishment of Ag Enterprise areas within the county. Something we have been doing

as they have arisen. The same case when considering impacts to known cultural resources when reviewing

development plans and/or permits. Another thing that we have been doing, including it now as an

implementation step in our comprehensive plan. Under Land Use, economic development did not change

anything in there unless the committee can think of anything in these steps as we go through them. Land Use:

proposing to add review in non-structural lot uses and standards in our open-space uses, particularly looking at

clarify some of our language. Looking at camping, along those lines. Housing, nothing has been added or

removed from there. Transportation, added work with towns and the DOT to ensure safe and efficient truck

routes during CUP’s as appropriate. Something that we regularly do, mostly looking at those with our

commercial, industrial and light industrial uses for heavy trucks. Community Facilities, Planning, Regulatory

Techniques, Finance and Budgeting; nothing has been changed in there aside from changing some of the dates

to becoming an On-going program. Under Intergovernmental Relations the last point there, continue to explore

opportunities to enhance awareness and understanding of Pierce County planning & zoning department policies

and procedures. Through the comprehensive plan process we have received a couple of suggestions that points

10

for more planning or more informational opportunities. So maybe looking at something along those lines in the

future, implementation action stuff. Information, about the same as well. Pichotta stated jumping back under

Finance and Budgeting, evaluate the land management fee schedule to ensure adequate recapture of costs of

providing services. If you recall we touched on that a few years ago and ended up not really doing too much of

anything with it, we will broach that subject again and just see where we are at with that and see if there is any

desire to do anything in regard to that. As far as the opportunities to enhance awareness and understanding,

actually he is thinking we have been approached from some folks in the Town of Trenton who are interested in

having staff put together an informational sessions relating to some of the concepts in land management and

zoning that being density transfers, subdivision review, floodplain, those sorts of things. So we are thinking we

will put together a series of workshops, that we will hold over the course of this winter and we will invite

anybody from Town Planning Commissions or Town Boards who are interested in getting some additional

information or additional understanding, to come in and attend those. It’s our intention to actually act on a

couple of these things relatively quickly. A lot of this is on-going and as we worked our way through the entire

plan he was happy to see that we did a good job in the first place so it didn’t require too much, seemed like our

direction was good and the folks that are subject to county zoning seem to be working well within it and

recognizing that it is a kind of partnership between the county and the towns. All in all he is happy with how

this has gone. Should the committee approve this tonight, our next step is to schedule a public hearing. It’s a

different kind of public hearing. It’s a Class I so you have to advertise it a month out. In the meantime, once that

is scheduled, we would send out copies of this on disk to all the municipalities located within the county as well

as those touching it, Goodhue, Red Wing, Dunn, Pepin, those sorts of folks and give them an opportunity to

provide comment and hold the public hearing. Once the public hearing is held, it would be moved on to the

county board of supervisor and F & P as an ordinance that requires two readings prior to adoption. Sanden

asked if he found this process helpful kind of like internal review and see where you want to go. Pichotta stated

yes, he thinks so, he thinks it was some validation that the committee did the right thing as far as kicking the

door open as far as Agri-Business, Agri-Tourism. He thinks that was good and well accepted. Holst stated our

vineyards and some of that stuff sometimes the establishments after a while become accepted but initially there

is some feedback. Chairperson Fetzer stated there was some trepidation early. Pichotta stated he doesn’t

disagree but anytime you are proposing a change from what is there now, many of the people in proximity will

be instinctively against it. Holst stated not all of them run as smoothly as others. Sanden stated you put a lot of

time into it, he was hoping you would get a nice benefit out of the process. Pichotta stated it’s good too, to

reassess the demographic data and see if anything has substantially changed in the county and see if that in of

itself warrants some changes. There is definitely value in it. Snow moved to accept the Pierce County

Comprehensive Plan as presented and proposed implementation of plan/Sanden seconded. Aubart asked if

this goes through 2035, what it says on here. Pichotta stated the timeframe is usually out twenty years but you

revisit it, typically in five or ten. All in favor. Passed.



Renewal of a conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining for the Bisel pit in the Town of Salem

Renewal of a conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining for the Gilles Quarry by American Materials, agent

for Muskie Proppant in the Town of Union

Chairperson Fetzer asked if there has been anything happening with Muskie Proppant

Request by Verizon Wireless for Height Exemption on 3 proposed towers, one is located in the Town of

Clifton, one in the Town of Martell & the other is in the Town of Ellsworth.

Final draft of the Rec Plan back from the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission, we’re going to

bring it to the committee prior to holding a public hearing.

Motion to adjourn at 7:08 pm by Sanden/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: September 21st, October 5

th & 19

th, all in 2016. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the August 17, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


Amendment (Rezone) of 30 acres from Light Industrial to General

Rural Flexible 8 by Lee Nesbitt, agent for Leon & Donna Nesbitt,

owners on property located in part of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of

Section 35, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Lund


conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business for farm

machinery and parts sales in the General Rural Flexible District,

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36D, for Scott &

Gayle Knight, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the NW

¼ and the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 11, T26N, R17W, Town

of Ellsworth, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A, for William F. Holst III,

owner on property located in the N ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 33,

T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

7 Discuss take action on Pierce County Comprehensive Plan survey

results and proposed implementation of plan.

Bechel







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, August 17, 2016


Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: September 7th

& 21st, October 5

th & 19

th, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Snow moved to approve the August 3, 2016 Land Management Committee


Public hearing to consider and take action on proposed amendments to Chapter 240 of the Zoning

Ordinance relating to the removal of Shoreland regulations and to create Ordinance Chapter 242-

Shoreland Zoning (NR115). Staff Report – Emily Lund: Wisconsin lawmakers passed 2015 WI ACT 55 making shoreland rules uniform

and mandated that all Counties have the minimum state standards adopted by October 1, 2016. Lawmakers

continued changing the shoreland rules and adopted 2015 WI Act 167 on 2-29-16 and 2015 WI Act 391/2015

AB 582 on 4-27-16. The shoreland code will apply to all unincorporated areas, including the Town of River

Falls. Shoreland standards apply to the use of property within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage and 300 feet

of a stream or river. Shoreland zoning ordinances do not apply to lands adjacent to artificially constructed

drainage ditches, ponds or stormwater retention basins that are not hydrologically connected to a natural

navigable water body. The DNR may not issue an opinion as to whether or not a variance should be granted or

denied without the request of the Board of Adjustment (by letter or spoken in the minutes). The DNR also

cannot appeal a BOA shoreland decision. Mandates: As discussed at the April 20, 2016 LMC meeting, the

mandated changes include the following:

Counties are prevented from adopting more restrictive regulations than state standards.

Counties are prohibited from requiring previously developed land to establish a vegetative buffer or

expansion of an existing vegetative buffer.

Counties are required to allow viewing access corridors 35’ for every 100’ and allowed to run

contiguously rather than separated by a certain distance.

Counties are required to implement Impervious Surface standards. Pierce County’s standard is,

“Construction, reconstruction, expansion, replacement, relocation of any impervious surface on parcels

located entirely within 300 ft of OHWM; 0-15% allowed; 15-30% allowed with Mitigation; >30% not

allowed.”

Impervious surface standards shall take into consideration systems or discharges that allow infiltration

into the soil.

Counties are required to develop mitigation standards for certain types of new development.

Provide a reduced setback requirement for principal structures by setback averaging.

Cannot prohibit or regulate outdoor lighting.

Cannot prohibit or regulate, or impose fees for maintenance, repair or replacement of nonconforming

structures that do not increase the size of the footprint.

Cannot prohibit lateral expansions up to 200 square feet of nonconforming principal structures that are

at least 35’ from the OHWM, over the lifetime of the structure.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

Cannot prohibit or regulate or impose fees for vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, unless

vertical expansion is above 35 feet above grade.

Cannot prohibit the relocation of nonconforming principal structures if certain standards are met.

Cannot require inspections or improvements at the time of selling a property.

Provide a rezoning process for land inaccurately mapped as a wetland in the Shoreland-Wetland District.

At the April 20, 2016 meeting, the LMC gave staff direction on numerous options within the shoreland code,

including the following:

Vegetation. The regulation area remains within the first 35 ft from the OHWM.

Filling & Grading. Depending on slope and the amount of disturbance, a Land Use Permit is required for

filling and grading in the shoreland area.

o A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will no longer be required given that a technical plan review is

more appropriate for this type of activity. Staff will utilize the Land Conservation Department

(LCD) to assist in the review.

o Land Conservation Department projects (e.g. rip-rap projects, swales, detention ponds, etc.) built

to NRCS Technical Standards will be exempted from permitting requirements.

Impervious Surfaces. Where runoff is collected and appropriately discharged, the impervious surface

standards are exempted.

Mitigation. Mitigation is required for the impervious surface standards, when exempted structures are

added to the site and for nonconforming structure modifications. This is a point based system that is

proportional to the impervious surface created. Total project points are applied against mitigation

options that are also assigned points based on their effectiveness. The mitigation plan shall be

enforceable obligations of the property owner that adequately offset the impacts of the permitted

expansion.

DNR Comments:

Staff submitted the draft Ch 242 Shoreland Zoning ordinance to the DNR on 6-22-2016. DNR review

comments were received on 8-2-2016. DNR comments were minimal and issues identified include: the

inadvertent omission of verbiage regarding the ability to work with a surveyor to determine the OHWM; to list

a standard description of an exempt structure; to add a descriptive word (non-navigable) to an allowed

exemption for maintenance of agricultural drainage ditches; to remove a redundant code reference; and to add a

CUP section to comply with minimum standards even though it will not be utilized. Staff called the DNR to

discuss their review comments, staff made suggested changes and the DNR has indicated that they are satisfied

with the revisions and that the ordinance will be certified when adopted by Pierce County. DNR staff asked the

Department to consider adding language for relaxation of standards for persons with disabilities (ADA). DNR

staff noted that variances are not the appropriate route for addressing these sorts of circumstances. To address

this, staff included PCC §242-46B(12).

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the proposed amendment

and, if determined to be appropriate, approve said amendments and forward a recommendation to the Finance

and Personnel Committee and to the County Board of Supervisors for approval. Staff further recommends that

adoption on the first reading by the County Board of Supervisors be considered to enable compliance with the

October 1, 2016 deadline.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Pichotta

stated that this ordinance is based on the DNR’s model Shoreland Ordinance with some options that were

identified by the committee. Given this he suggested that it probably wasn’t necessary to go through it line by

line or even page by page but we certainly can if the committee would like to. Are there any questions,

comments or concerns, perhaps about any of the mandated areas or some of the options that we had discussed

earlier? Holst stated he noticed this included the Town of River Falls, is that in the State or just for our

information? Lund stated it was for their information. Pichotta noted that the inclusion of shoreland regulations

in Chapter 240 could be confusing because general zoning didn’t apply for the Town of River Falls, but yet

certain provisions that were contained within it did. Sanden asked if staff ended up putting in the CUP section

even though it won’t be used. Pichotta stated yes. Pichotta also noted that the ADA provision enables the

Zoning Administrator to allow for relaxation of the standards in order to accommodate an ADA disability.

3

Sanden asked if the DNR is saying the ADA should be addressed this way and not through variances. Is that

just for expediency? Pichotta stated it’s because a variance is supposed to be based on limitations of the

property, not the property owner. Sanden stated let’s say the property did not contain a ramp and because of the

person’s disability wanted to include it but it would have infringed on that setback, would that not been a classic

variance type of issue? Lund stated that there is an exemption in the code for that situation. Sanden moved to

approve the amendments to Chapter 240 Zoning of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the Removal of

Shoreland regulations and to create Ordinance Chapter 242 – Shoreland Zoning (NR115) and forward a

recommendation to the Finance and Personnel Committee and to the County Board of Supervisors

further recommending adoption on the first reading by the County Board of Supervisors to comply with

the October 1, 2016 deadline/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.


Industrial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A, for William F. Holst III, owner on

property located in the N ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 33, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI. Jeff Holst recused himself from discussion and voting due to the fact there may be a conflict of

interest.

Staff Report-Brad Roy: The applicant has a mining permit that will expire on September 3. However, he was

unable to attend the meeting tonight so we are requesting a renewal for 30 days and this item has been

scheduled for the September 7th

meeting. A 30 day renewal will make sure it doesn’t expire, with the existing

conditions.

Snow moved to renew the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for 30 days, for William F.

Holst III, with the existing 18 conditions/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed with Jeff Holst not voting.

Status report on a conditional use permit for a Private Outdoor Recreation/Dual Sport Event that was

held on July 16th

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39E, for Valley Springs Motorcycle Club

Inc, by Scott Freier, agent on properties located in the Towns of El Paso, Hartland, Isabelle, Salem,

Trenton and Trimbelle, all in Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Scott Freier forward: Mr.

Freier explained everything went well and they had no complaints. He noted that the Sheriff’s Department did

patrol it. The recreational officer rode the entire event. He had a car blow a stop sign and pull out in front of him

so he got a chance to pull someone over with his new dual sport bike. Holst stated now they will be wanting one

of them. Mr. Freier stated the County already has one. He was told it was acquired through a grant and that

Burlington Northern had sponsored the motorcycle.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The Dual-Sport Ride event was held on July 16, 2016. The Department did not

receive any complaints regarding this event. This status report is required per condition #9. The Club proposes

to hold an event next year with expanded properties; given this they will likely be submitting a new CUP

application in the near future. The LMC approved this CUP for a Private Outdoor Recreational Use on June 15,

2016 with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as submitted in the application and as presented to the LMC, unless

modified by another condition of this CUP.

2. Applicant shall also comply with all relevant local and state ordinances and regulations and secure all

necessary permits and licenses (e.g. Dept. SPS, Department of Public Health).

3. The dual-sport event may be held annually. The event shall not exceed two (2)-days in duration. Staff

shall be contacted regarding any modifications to approved plans or any change in properties to be

utilized for off road activities, to determine if a new CUP is necessary.

4. Hours of operation shall be 8am to 6pm or as otherwise established by the LMC.

5. Emergency services (Sheriff’s Dept and EMS) shall be given adequate notice of event and route.

6. Any advertising signs shall comply with the zoning code standards and any necessary permits shall be

secured prior to sign installation on property.

7. A copy of the insurance and any changes to the insurance shall be submitted to the Land Management

Department.

8. Camping shall be limited to the Gas-Lite property, contingent on owner approval.

4

9. The CUP shall expire in 2 years, with a status report given to the LMC prior to any additional events.

10. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use may require modification to this

conditional use permit, or potentially, the issuance of a new conditional use permit.

11. Applicant shall notify towns and the Land Management Department of future events.

Scott is here tonight to provide a status report consistent with condition #9. Mr. Freier stated they did hold it at

the Gas Lite and everything went good there. The week before the event, the storm took out a lot of the land that

they were able to go on. They couldn’t get the trails all cleared because of the massive amount of trees that were

down so they ended up running the event for the first half and then went back across the same land so they

could get their event in anyway. The storm took out most of the Wieser property that they were going to ride on.

So the night before they were remarking their whole route so they could run it backwards at a certain point and

map it. It worked out fine. Some of the landowners, when they were picking up signs, were wondering when the

event was. They told them it happened already. They had one gal that was curious with her horses right along

the road but Jeremy took care of that. They had 42 riders that signed up to ride and then with the club people

that were policing it or watching the event, they had about 50 bikes go through. Some of the property got hit

twice. As far as that, everything went good. Mr. Freier stated that he would like to submit a request for blanket

approval for the County. First he would like to take it to the Townships for a blanket and if he gets their

approval for a blanket, because of what happened this year with the land taken away because of the storm, they

rerouted it and still down the same roads but they would like the option of using whatever roads are in the

County or the Township. Holst stated it’s a public road. Mr. Freier stated some of the loopholes were to map out

the actual map of the roads they were going to use. He is asking to use any of the roads so he can adjust his

route as needed. With that, if he gets that through the Townships, which he doesn’t see any reason why they

won’t accept that, if the County would accept that as a blanket through the County. He will also submit, with

the CUP, the new land owners and minus the ones out that they won’t be using anymore. So you will still have

all the information on property owners. They can comply with all that, so he doesn’t have to go to every

Township, every year and get this all approved. It’s quite a task. Chairperson Fetzer asked if he is still going to

be sending information to the Townships. Mr. Freier stated all they really wanted was the information that the

County had. It gets to them anyway. After he has this whole process done once and they understand what it is

and we’ve had the event, he feels it will be easy to go there and explain. To have to do this process every year

and all these Township meetings and get it approved. He would get a blanket from them and have a form for

them to sign. Pichotta stated certainly there are some ways to streamline the process but he isn’t sure that

blanket approval can be granted. The roads are public so it’s not actually the roads that are being authorized to

use, it’s the private property. He doesn’t see a Town being willing to just give carte blanche permission to use

any property within the Town. Holst stated they don’t have that authority. That’s private property. Mr. Freier

stated he isn’t looking for the Township to give him approval. He will have the property owner’s sign through

the CUP and the same format. He will have their letters saying he can use it. All he is asking for is that right

now he has to have an approved route on the roads. Holst stated you will need an approved route anyway even

if you do, which you do have a blanket because it’s public roads. Mr. Freier stated that’s his point. Holst stated

you are still going to have to have an approved route. Mr. Freier stated so why is that if he has the availability to

use all the roads, why does he have to have an actual map of the roads he is going to use. Holst stated you

would want it for the Sheriff’s Dept and the EMS insure safety. Holst stated we would need one within 24 hours

of the event. Mr. Freier asked why is that? Holst stated for health and public safety. It’s the only thing we are

concerned about. Let’s say you are running in River Falls Township and you are supposed to be on Road A but

the new one said you are on Road B. Well they had the directions to Road A, just things like that. Mr. Freier

stated he really can’t control where they go. If he says there is a gas stop over here. They may take four other

roads to get to that gas stop. He really has no control over that nor does he want control. He has motorcycles

that say this gas station doesn’t have 91 octane so they went clear to Plum City or they go to Pepin. His issue is

that he can’t control that, nor does he really want to. The idea is to have an organized event on the roads and go

off-road. He understands the idea of having the property owners signed up so you know it’s approved but the

actual roads that he is taking, he doesn’t see why that is such a big issue. Pichotta asked if his concern is

providing the route map or that he has to go to each Town twice? He thought you wanted to streamline this

process in order to ensure that you do not to have to go to a Town Planning Commission and then the Town

5

Board and just to get them to sign off on the activities within their Town. Mr. Freier that is part of it, yes, the

idea is, he had to reroute the route a little bit. He had to go on roads that he wasn’t planning on to keep it safe so

he didn’t have people meeting on the road. There were only 40 bikes and not like there aren’t cars meeting

every day. To do that he had to use roads that weren’t on his map, he didn’t feel bad about, but it’s in the

ordinances that he give you the actual map and the roads. If he does that, then you have a reason to not give him

a permit because he’s not going on his route. Lund stated the start of the route map came about when she was

working with Sue and she said this is where they are going to go. Then for us, on the zoning map, we definitely

need to know who is giving you approval to cross their property. Mr. Freier, all my land owners, we would still

do that process. He has to do that anyway, the paper gives him something if something does happen. He just

doesn’t know why he has to give an actual map because when things do change, there is no way he can have a

County meeting when the storm hit a week before the ride. Sanden asked if there couldn’t be a map with a

disclaimer. Mr. Freier stated he can give us a proposed map that he gives his riders and that is fine. He just

doesn’t want it as one of his conditions and then have to stick with that. Pichotta asked which condition are you

referring to? Holst stated it’s not listed. Mr. Freier stated it was part of the CUP, it was a requirement to get the

CUP was to get the map. Lund stated it was a requirement to get the CUP and then Sue added to it. Mr. Freier

stated so I don’t need to put my roads on necessarily? Pichotta stated no, it’s based on properties. Our

notification is not based on the roads that go by but on properties that you have permission to go on.

Chairperson Fetzer stated, off-roading on. Mr. Freier asked so I don’t have to give you all the roads? Pichotta

stated the only thing that will require you to know your route is condition #5: Emergency services (Sheriff’s

Dept and EMS) shall be given adequate notice of event and route. Mr. Freier asked if he could provide that at

any time? Basically it’s just an email he can send his route to. Pichotta stated as long as it’s adequate in the eyes

of the Sheriff’s Dept. Mr. Freier asked what is adequate? Pichotta stated he is not the Sheriff’s Dept so he can’t

answer that. Mr. Freier stated he had heard the comment that the County didn’t know we were doing this event.

You brought that to my attention. The Sheriff’s Dept knew about it, one of their people were on my route so I’m

not sure. Pichotta agreed stating that is why that issue was not brought up in the staff report. Mr. Freier stated he

has a GPS map and that is what he is giving all of his riders. He is asking if that is acceptable to the committee.

Pichotta stated to talk to the Sheriff’s Dept. Holst stated get it in writing. Lund stated she thinks the route got

created because Sue asked if we could help. Mr. Freier stated the Townships were curious but when he got

down to that level they stated he could go where ever he wanted. Mr. Freier asked if there is a possibility of

getting a blanket like the snowmobile association runs their trails. Can we treat this like that? Pichotta suggested

to the applicant that this is a discussion we wouldn’t necessarily have to have in front of the Land Management

Committee. If you were to have the same properties year after year we could even do renewals administratively.

Once you have a CUP, if you use those same properties again, we could simply renew the CUP and you could

use them again the next time but his understanding is that you want to change those properties and it’s those

changes in properties that lead to the need for another public hearing because you are actually expanding the use

onto additional properties. If you had a laundry list of properties and you had permission from all of those land

owners and that was what was acted on by this committee, you could use that year after year as those properties

did not change. Mr. Freier stated that won’t happen for a couple years because he is growing. Pichotta stated

once everybody is comfortable with what you are doing, you will probably get to that point. Mr. Freier stated he

will probably proceed to the Townships and try to get everything OK’d again for this season. So basically I

have to have all those landowners in again. Lund stated you can stop by the office and we can get you a new

application. Mr. Freier stated once we get the AMA to grab one of the dates that he has submitted; that is when

he will pursue the CUP. Pichotta stated the way he reads condition #9: The CUP shall expire in 2 years, with a

status report given to the LMC prior to any additional events. If you were to use the same properties next year

or some subset of the approved properties, you don’t even need to go to the Towns or come back to us. You can

hold another event next year. Mr. Freier stated he has a number of people that want to see me go through their

property. Pichotta stated it will only be those Towns that you have new property in that you have to visit, so not

as difficult as the first time. Mr. Freier stated that’s a two year deal so after next year does he have to do this all

again. Pichotta stated only if you add properties otherwise this could be renewed by this committee. Mr. Freier

stated that process is done now it’s only at the County level unless I add properties, thanks for clarifying that for

me. Chairperson Fetzer stated he is glad everything worked out well. Mr. Freier stated it was nothing but

6

positive from the riders, they were pretty amazed that we didn’t have more people. But no one saw a route

before, now that it’s here and we will have more time, we only had 30 days to get it out there for people to

come. So hopefully next year, they will have a full event.

Discuss take action on Proposed 2017 Land Management Department Budget. Pichotta: you should have

materials that were mailed out and a couple of things were put in your folders. He will go through each item but

the memo basically outlines the changes between ’16 and ’17 which is minimal and primarily due to health

insurance and personnel costs. The fact that we purchased a pick-up truck in 2016 basically enabled us to come

in at very close to zero. The overall proposed budget is about $400.00 different than this year. As far as

Planning, Zoning, GIS & Surveyor, there is information provided on each one, basically, each one went up $4

or $5 thousand. The Land Records Modernization Fund and Grant, as you recall, the Land Information

Program; we retain fees associated with the recording of documents from the Register of Deeds Office. They

are placed in the Land Records Modernization Fund and utilized to implement the Land Records Modernization

Plan. The Land Information Council was created to help update the Land Records Modernization Plan and also

to identify priorities for the upcoming year and recommend expenditures out of the Land Records

Modernization Fund and Grant Program. If you recall, the changes to this program a couple years ago resulted

in a guaranteed $100,000.00 per County per year. You get what you retain and whatever it takes to make that to

$100,000.00 the State gives you through a grant. The Land Information Council has recommended:

$41,504 Pictometry – it will be our last payment

$10,000 For the last part to COGO the Town of Clifton

$5,000 For parcel updates and changes

$2,411 For County Highway printing (2000 maps) we are proposing to create a nice highway map with

insets of the County. That we would give out to the Departments as well as sell.

$4,500 GIS Maintenance

$4,000 ArcGIS Licenses (Annual)

$4,950 Upgrade to ESRI Standard License (One Time Fee)

$2,250 Spatial Analysis – ESRI Extension (One Time Fee)

$13,500 40” Scanner/44” Printer Combo (Surveyor/GIS Room) this would replace existing equipment

that is 13 or 14 years old which is getting pretty antiquated in the technology realm.

$2,800 LINK (ProWest) Maintenance Annual

$880 ArcGIS for Server Upgrade 10.4.1 (ProWest LINK)

$91,795 Total Potential Expenditure (Grant and Land Records Fund)

Revenues: he will go through page by page. He had been optimistic and thought we were going to generate

more in revenues this year than we had last. We were on track to do so and then it just really slowed down. He

is comfortable saying we are going to probably be at the same level we are this year. He has over time become

more pessimistic about revenues. You have about 10 pages in front of you; a Department Proposed Budget

Worksheet. It goes through with the various line items and then the final column is the percent change. There is

not much change proposed in the County Planner budget. Health Insurance just goes up, never goes down. The

Zoning budget, we are proposing to increase travel by $400. One of the reasons for increasing travel in the

Zoning budget is because we have replaced our Zoning Specialist with Ryan who is also POWTS Certified so

we now have another body that is able to go out and do septic inspections. In order for him to maintain his

credentials he needs to attend some of these meetings also. So there is a little more travel that will take place.

Not proposing to buy any more vehicles. The Surveyor budget: Nothing substantial going on there. We should

be able to go another 10 years with the new equipment purchased. GIS: Nothing substantial here. The next

sheets are revenue sheets what is anticipated to come in in fees. Zoning permits in 2015 the actual was $70,345.

He had anticipated $65,000. I’m anticipating $65,000 for 2017 also. Holst asked where about is the Department

right now. Pichotta stated probably at about $40,000. We were on track. Holst stated you still may have a rush

this fall. Pichotta stated he thinks we will hit $65,000 but he doesn’t think that we will exceed $70,000. At one

point this year, he had thought we would exceed $80,000. Just based on what we were seeing on a monthly

basis. Surveyor revenue, the actual was $8,550 in 2015, not quite that level of activity this year. Next page is 7a

7

which is another revenue account. That is Zoning Aids; that is the Wisconsin Fund to help folks replace septic

systems. It has averaged about $15,000 historically. In 2015 it was $36,000 that was a bit of an anomaly. He is

pretty sure we’ll see about $15,000 next year. 7b is the expense account associated with that revenue account.

It’s essentially pass through funds. So that of course is also $15,000. Next we have State Aid Land Information

Grant; 2015 actual was $49,152 which means that through the Register of Deeds Office we have retained

$51,000 and change. It’s the combination in numbers that adds up to that $100,000. GIS Revenue; Selling maps

and digital data and lastly Land Information Grant. In your folders you should have two sheets which are the 3-

Year Budget & Staffing Summary as well as the Capital Improvements Plan. As you will see, he is anticipating

the operating budget to remain the same, staffing levels to remain the same and he is not requesting any capital

improvements in the next three years. Specific Capital Improvements which is our existing equipment. We have

the three vehicles and the surveyor equipment: he isn’t anticipating replacing that anytime between now and

2021. Holst stated you did a very good job. Chairperson Fetzer stated his only comment is the front page where

you are only $400 different, he is very impressed going through it. Aubart asked why the retirement dollars

percentage varies? Some are at 5%, some at 7%. Pichotta stated it does seem like it would be a constant. Holst

stated it should be a constant. Pichotta stated he doesn’t know that he is able to answer that because those are

numbers provided by Administration. Pichotta stated that he will look into it. Snow moved to approve the

proposed 2017 Land Management Department Budget/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.



Rezone, 30 acres, in the Town of Oak Grove for Nesbitt Nursery from Light Industrial to General Rural

Flexible.

Public hearing for a Farm & Home Based Business for Scott Knight for the sale of farm equipment in the Town

of Ellsworth.

Renewal of a CUP for William F. Holst III in the Town of Trenton

Discuss take action on Pierce County Comprehensive Plan survey results and proposed implementation of plan.

Motion to adjourn at 6:54 pm by Snow/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, August 17, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: September 7th

& 21st, October 5

th & 19

th, all in

2016.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the August 3, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Public hearing to consider and take action on proposed

amendments to Chapter 240 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the

removal of Shoreland regulations and to create Ordinance Chapter

242 -Shoreland Zoning (NR115).

Lund


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A, for William F. Holst III,

owner on property located in the N ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 33,

T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

6 Status report on a conditional use permit for a Private Outdoor

Recreation / Dual Sport Event that was held on July 16th

pursuant

to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39E, for Valley Springs

Motorcycle Club Inc, by Scott Freier, agent on properties located in

the Towns of El Paso, Hartland, Isabelle, Salem, Trenton, and

Trimbelle, all in Pierce County, WI.

Lund

7 Discuss take action on Proposed 2017 Land Management

Department Budget.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, August 3, 2016


Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: August 17th

, September 7th

& 21st, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the July 20, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a Map Amendment (Rezone) from Rural

Residential 20 to General Rural Flexible District for Daniel & Jean Ryan, owners on property located in

the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson

Fetzer invited Mr. Ryan forward: Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The applicant is requesting to rezone a total of 3.09 acres consisting of a 2.28

acre parcel and an adjacent 0.81 acre parcel located in Section 34 in the town of Trenton. The applicant is

requesting the rezone in order to obtain a permit to construct an agricultural structure on the eastern parcel.

Pierce County Code does not permit the construction of agricultural structures in non-agricultural zoning

districts. The property is located in the Town of Trenton. The western parcel is currently utilized for row crop

agriculture. The eastern parcel is currently vacant land being utilized for agricultural equipment storage. There

are no residential uses occurring on either parcel at this time. The applicant does not anticipate utilizing the

parcels for residential use in the near future. The parcels are accessed off 815th

St which runs north to south

between the 2 parcels. The proposed future use of the eastern parcel is to obtain a permit to construct a principal

agricultural structure to accommodate the applicant’s agricultural equipment storage needs. The western parcel

will continue to be utilized for row crop agriculture. Adjacent land uses are agriculture, higher-density

residential and industrial. Adjacent zoning districts include Rural Residential 20 to the east, south and west;

Industrial to the north. Pierce County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan states: “The County will approve re-

zonings or map amendments only when the proposed change is consistent with an adopted or amended town

comprehensive plan. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved

only when consistent with the Pierce County Plan (encouraged vs. discouraged). In such cases, Pierce County

will solicit a non-binding town recommendation regarding the proposed rezone.” The Town of Trenton

recommended approval of this request on May 10th

2016, stating that approval was “recommended by the town

planning commission and that the plan is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.” The Town attached

a copy of the Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources chapter of their adopted comprehensive plan and

sited the following goals and objectives Cultural Resources Goal #1 and Agricultural Resource Objectives #1.

Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15 lists the Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts: The purpose and intent of

the Rural Residential 20 District is established to provide for the densest residential development in the

unincorporated areas of the county. The district is intended to be used where residential development is

encouraged on lots without public sewer and water and in locations where such a density of development is

compatible with surrounding uses. The district is intended to enhance residential areas by restricting

nonresidential development.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

General Rural Flexible is established to achieve the same objectives as the General Rural (GR) District but to

allow a greater density of residential development with the approval of the town board.

General Rural is established to maintain and enhance agricultural operations in the county. The district also

provides for low-density residential development which is consistent with a generally rural environment and

allows for nonresidential uses which require relatively large land areas and/or are compatible with surrounding

rural land. The Value of Land for Agriculture is listed in the staff report with 71% not defined as a prime

agricultural soil.

Staff Recommendation: Given that the Trenton Town Board of Supervisors has determined this proposed

rezone of 3.09 acres from Rural Residential 20 to General Rural Flexible is consistent with their comprehensive

plan, staff recommends the LMC approve this rezone request and forward a recommendation to the County

Board of Supervisors.


stated due to it being adjacent to Industrial area any down zone would be a good thing, by reducing any further

conflict between residential and Industrial and given that the Town supports this.

Sanden moved to approve the map amendment (rezone) from Rural Residential 20 to General Rural

Flexible for Daniel & Jean Ryan and forward a recommendation to the County Board of

Supervisors/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit to allow the

Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-67A(2), for Joseph Dohmen, owner on property located in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section

33, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Mr. Dohmen

forward: Staff Report – Emily Lund: Conditional Use Permit for the Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure. The

applicant’s property is located at W1560 County Road G, near Elmwood. The existing house has an open porch

that is 56 ft from the center line of County Rd G and the outside house wall is 60 ft from the centerline of

County Rd G. The applicant proposes to construct a 2-car attached garage that is 26 ft x 28 ft east of the existing

house. They propose to maintain a 66.5 ft setback from the centerline of County Rd G. This parcel is located in

Section 33, Town of Spring Lake. The property is zoned General Rural. Pierce County Code (PCC) states all

structures fronting on county highways shall be 100 feet from the center line of the road or 67 feet from the

edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater. PCC §240-67A(2) also states, “Additions to or extensions of

nonconforming structures are permitted, provided that such additions or extensions comply with all the

provisions of this chapter or a conditional use permit is granted as provided in §240-76.” PCC 240-76A states

“Applicability. A conditional use permit shall be required for the establishment of each use permitted as a

conditional use and for an addition to or expansion of a nonconforming structure or expansion or intensification

of a nonconforming use.” Permit renewal is not required for this request. The Town of Spring Lake

recommended approval of this request on July 12, 2016. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan,

so it is assumed that the plan is silent on this request. The Town recommendation is attached.

6:10pm Ken Snow arrives at the meeting.


determine whether the proposed expansion would be contrary to the public interest, or detrimental or injurious

to public health, safety or the character of the area. If found to be not contrary to the above, staff recommends

the LMC grant this conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as submitted in the application and as presented to the LMC. If plans are

modified, the applicant shall go back to the Town for review and back to the LMC for reconsideration.

2. The applicants shall maintain the 66.5 ft setback from the centerline of County Rd G.

3. The applicants shall follow Piece County Solid Waste Code Ch. 201 and Wisconsin Administrative

Code NR 447 for disposal of used and unusable building materials.

4. The proposed expansion shall be completed within 12 months of CUP approval.

3

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Holst

stated this looks pretty straight forward and he has a good set of drawings. Holst moved to approve the

conditional use permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure for Joseph Dohmen with conditions

#1 - #4 due to the fact this is not found to be contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or injurious

to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area/Aubart seconded. All in favor.

Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit to allow the

Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in the Rural Residential 20 District, pursuant to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for Larry J. Gerdes Irrevocable Family Trust, owner on property located in

the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 28, T25N, R17W, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report-Ryan Bechel: The applicant owns a corner lot at the intersection of 230th

Ave and County Road

EE located in the unincorporated Village of Esdaile. The applicant is requesting to expand an existing

nonconforming structure located 26 ft from the centerline of 230th

Ave. The proposed expansion is a 20 ft x 20

ft open-sided addition attached to the south end of the existing garage encroaching no further into the 230th

Ave

right-of-way setback than the existing garage. The proposed expansion would be utilized by the applicant to

accommodate vehicle and general storage needs. The third acre property is located in the Town of Harland and

is zoned Rural Residential 20. Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-27C addresses town road setbacks and states;

“except as provided in Subsection E, the required setback for all structures fronting on all town highways shall

be 75 feet from the centerline of the road or 42 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater.”

PCC §240-67A(2) addresses nonconforming structures and states “Additions to or extensions of nonconforming

structures are permitted, provided that such additions or extensions comply with all the provisions of this

chapter or a conditional use permit is granted. PCC §240-76A details applicability. “A conditional use permit

shall be required for the establishment of each use permitted as a conditional use and for an addition to or

expansion of a nonconforming structure, or expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use.” Lot access is

located off of 230th

Ave in the southeast corner of the property. The proposed addition would meet the required

100 ft minimum setback to County Road EE. Permit renewal is not required for this request. The existing

topography is level throughout the property. A portion of the existing garage and the entirety of the proposed

addition would be within the Vision Clearance Triangle area of County Road EE and 230th

Ave. The adopted

policy regarding Vision Clearance Triangles states: “For corner lots you are required to keep the intersection

corner clear of buildings, dense vegetation or other obstructions to maintain clear sight-lines for motorists. The

clear area is a triangle measured back along the road centerlines from where the centerlines of the roads

intersect. The distance to measure depends upon the class of road; Town/private roads = 150 feet, County Roads

= 200 feet and State/Federal Roads = 300.” As noted above, the placement of structures within the Vision

Clearance Triangle area is typically prohibited. However, a review of the existing development pattern in

Esdaile reveals numerous instances of structures located within the vision clearance area. These structures were

constructed prior to the enactment of current restrictions. The LMC should take into consideration the existing

development pattern and the speed limit when considering the merits of this request and its potential impact on

public health and safety. The Town of Hartland recommended approval of this request on July 12, 2016, listing

no recommended conditions. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan. It is assumed that the plan is

silent on this request. The Town recommendation is attached.




recommends the LMC approve the proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure with the following

conditions:

1. The applicant shall maintain a minimum setback of 26 ft from the centerline of 230th

Avenue.

2. The proposed expansion shall not be located within the 230th

Avenue Right-of-Way.



asked what the speed limit in the Village of Esdaile? Bechel stated its 25 mph at that particular location.

4

Chairperson Fetzer asked from both of those roads? Bechel stated on County Rd EE. The posted speed limit is

quite a ways back on 230th

Ave. Chairperson Fetzer stated so everything is going pretty slow through there.

Pichotta stated we did receive one phone call from someone who expressed a concern about the existing trailer

sitting there creates a little bit of a hazard when you are trying to get on EE. Typically we wouldn’t be

comfortable with something like this but given the existing development pattern and existing speed limit, it

seems like the typical concerns may not apply, but if they were going 55 mph that would be serious issue and

would likely create a public safety hazard. Chairperson Fetzer asked if the trailer is there year-round. Mr.

Gerdes stated no, it’s gone now. Holst moved to approve the conditional use permit for expansion of a

nonconforming structure for Larry J. Gerdes Irrevocable Family Trust with conditions #1 - #3 due to the

fact this is not contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety

or the character of the surrounding area/Snow seconded. Mr. Gerdes stated he gave the committee a plan

for a wooden structure and he found out that a metal structure that is the same snow load, would that make any

difference? The posts will be smaller. Bechel asked if the dimensions will remain the same. Mr. Gerdes stated

actually it will be a little bit shorter because the posts are back in a little ways. A metal roof and the snow load

is the same. It’s less expensive and it will be quicker to put up. Chairperson Fetzer stated it shouldn’t pose any

problems as long as it’s the same size. All in favor. Passed.



Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Chapter 240 relating to the removal of Shoreland

regulations and the creation of Chapter 242 which will be a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance

Renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District for William Holst III in

the Town of Trenton.

Status report on the CUP for the Dual Sport Event held a couple weeks ago for Scott Freier.

2017 Land Management Department Budget

Motion to adjourn at 6:27 pm by Aubart/Snow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: August 17th

, September 7th

& 21st, all in 2016. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the July 20, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


Amendment (Rezone) from Rural Residential 20 to General Rural

Flexible for Daniel & Jean Ryan, owners on property located in the

SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton,

Pierce County, WI.

Bechel


conditional use permit to allow the Expansion of a Nonconforming

Structure in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for Joseph Dohmen, owner on property

located in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 33, T27N, R15W,

Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI.

Lund


conditional use permit to allow the Expansion of a Nonconforming

Structure in the Rural Residential 20 District, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for Larry J. Gerdes Irrevocable

Family Trust, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼

of Section 28, T25N, R17W, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, July 20, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow

Absent: Joe Fetzer

Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: August 3rd

& 17th

, September 7th

& 21st, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the July 6, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed with Eric Sanden abstaining from voting because of absence

at the last meeting.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Sludge Disposal

in the General Rural Flexible District by David Sauer, Cedar Corporation, agent for Ralston Purina &

Nestle Purina Petcare Co., agent on property owned by William E. Schroeder, located in the N ½ of the

SW ¼ and all of the SE ¼ of Section 29 and the N ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 32, T25N, R17W, Town of

Hartland, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Holst invited Colin Cain forward: Mr. Cain stated that we were

here a year ago asking for permission. We had some land approved. That land is still approved but the last two

times that we went through this process, it ended up getting so late in the year, that we rushed and didn’t do a

complete job like we would have liked too. So this year he tried to find someone, Mr. Schroeder and he had

conversation and he offered to make land available and said that he would be putting soybeans on and we would

have a little more time to perform the operation before the ground freezes in the fall. That is why they are

requesting this additional land to be approved for the process. He is hoping that it does provide them with a

little more time this way. Again they certainly intend to follow all the restrictions/guidelines that the DNR puts

out. Sanden asked if there is anything different from the 2015 request? It seems like it went pretty smoothly,

which is what he likes to hear that there were no issues. Has anything changed substantially? Mr. Cain stated

nothing has changed as far as the process. Sanden asked about the quantity. Mr. Cain stated it will be less than

what they had hoped to do last year but they weren’t able to get as much moved as they expected last year.

Staff Report-Emily Lund: There are two wastewater settling basins at their Ralston Nestle Purina Petcare Co

that needs occasional sludge removal. The request today is to have a new site called Field 14 located in Section

29 & 32 of Hartland, owned by William Schroeder. They want to land apply after soybeans are harvested this

fall. The applicants have also submitted this request to the WI DNR. The property is zoned General Rural

Flexible. The Hartland Town Board recommended approval of this request on 6-14-2016 with the following

statement (attached), “Conditional approval based on letter of credit from Bank or Security Deposit to cover

potential road damage, $60,000 value.” The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan, so it is assumed

that the plan is silent on this request. Lots of technical information was submitted. NR214.18(2)(f) indicated

that sludge spreading sites are limited to slopes of 12% or less when the temperatures are above freezing and

2% or less when the ground is frozen or snow covered. Sludge spreading needs to follow these and possibly

other WI DNR setbacks distances which are listed in the staff report. It is recommended that the properties

receiving sludge update their NRCS 590 Nutrient Management Plan after this spreading takes place.


determine whether the proposed land spreading of sludge at the proposed locations would be contrary to the





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

public interest, or would be detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or character of the area. If found to

be not contrary to the above, staff recommends the LMC grant this conditional use permit with the following

conditions:

1. Applicant shall adhere to all conditions and recommendations of the WI DNR.

2. Applicant shall update the land spreading site maps to reflect required WI DNR setbacks and slopes.

3. Sludge shall be applied only during daylight hours.

4. Sludge application shall cease if the ground becomes frozen or too wet for land injection.

5. Field access points shall be protected to control field soils and sludge from being tracked onto public

roads.

6. Sludge spreading locations need to follow all WI DNR specified slope and setback requirements (i.e. to

wells, to dwellings, to surface water, to dry runs with or without vegetative buffers, to bedrock or

groundwater).

7. Any damage to roads shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A financial surety to address potential

road damage shall be provided consistent with the Town of Hartland’s request.

8. Applicant shall contact the Land Management Department when sludge spreading begins.

9. This conditional use permit will be active for 16 months from the date of issuance.

Chairperson Holst opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed.

Snow moved to approve the conditional use permit for Sludge Disposal for Ralston Purina & Nestle

Purina Petcare Co. with conditions #1 - #9, due to the fact this is not contrary to the public interest, nor

detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area/Aubart


Discuss take action on a deferred renewal of a conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand

Processing Facility) located in an Industrial District for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner on property

located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson

Holst invited Chris Boe forward: Mr. Boe introduced himself as the HSE Manager for Muskie and Taylor

Frac, and stated they would just like to renew the conditional use permit from where they were last year.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: This facility was permitted in 2011 and began full operation in 2012. Muskie was

originally processing sand from a mine located in Pepin County and then later secured material from a mine

located in Dunn County. Muskie, for a time, also processed sand acquired from a Wieser Concrete mine that is

located in the Town of Salem. Due to market conditions and low demand, Muskie shut down processing

operations on June 30th

, 2015. They have sand stockpiled at the site to assist with start-up operations. They

continue to water the stockpiles, maintain roadways and mow the property as needed, typically weekly. Chris

Boe, the Health, Safety & Environmental Manager, visits the facility once a month. At this time, they are unsure

when they will start-up operations again. If the market condition continues, no production is planned for 2016

and 2017. However, they plan restart production in 2018. When in operation, sand is trucked to the site, off-

loaded, conveyed to a raw sand stockpile, then dried and processed for sale. The facility also has byproduct

storage stockpiles, storm water ponds, a high capacity well, process water treatment facilities and elevators for

the storage silos. The final product is trucked primarily to St Paul or Chippewa Falls to be loaded on rail as well

as loaded for over-the-road shipping to North Dakota and Montana. The property is in Section 7, Town of

Union and zoned Industrial. The hours of operation are generally five days a week 12 hours per day 6:00am to

6:00pm for the quad axle trucks; semi-trucks hauling are spread out over 20 hours per day. A Fugitive Dust Plan

has been submitted. The plan details potential sources, control measures and daily record keeping. No

complaints have been received recently. Staff has contacted the Town of Union Chairman regarding this

renewal request; the Town did not have any concerns at this time. There has been no processing of material

since the facility shutdown on June 30, 2015. Staff consulted with the Pierce County Corporation Counsel’s

Office regarding the status of this use. It was determined that the activities taking place onsite are, although

minimal, enough for the use to be considered “active.” Given this, review for renewal is appropriate. The

existing conditions are listed in the staff report #1 - #13.


conditions continue to be adequate to protect the public interest, public health and safety and the character of

3

the area and determine if any modifications are necessary. If no changes are necessary, staff recommends the

LMC renew the CUP with the following conditions:


Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies, if required.



3. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification for this use will require modification to the


4. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for any construction and signage for the site.

5. Raw product and load out stockpiles shall be limited to 35 feet in height above grade.

6. No jake brakes shall be used in sensitive areas when approaching the facility along the designated haul

route.

7. The Fugitive Dust Plan shall be adhered to.

8. Byproduct shall be utilized in the reclamation of an existing licensed nonmetallic mine or disposed of or

stockpiled consistent with Pierce County Solid Waste Code.

9. Any potential new or modified haul route shall be reported to the Land Management Department and

road agreements shall be secured from applicable municipalities prior to route use.

10. The facility shall be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LMC for silica emissions if

current or future studies suggest a significant public health threat exists.

11. All polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permit requirements.

12. Any unforeseen dust and/or erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the County.

13. The conditional use permit shall expire in 1 year.

Pichotta stated he received a phone call regarding this issue. There were two concerns or questions that were

brought up. One was, it was noted that the lights are off at night. Mr. Boe stated yes, they are. Pichotta asked if

they have any security concerns. Mr. Boe stated monthly they go there, more frequently than that especially in

the spring to fall they are maintaining the lawns. They are there every week to 14 days. They are making their

presence known at the facility. To address the concern, yes they are looking into a security system. Pichotta

stated the other concern is about watering of the stockpiles and whether it was blowing off the site. He did get

another call from Union Town Chairperson, Bill Bechel, who spoke to the neighboring land owner who had

stated that they didn’t have any issues nor had he noticed any sand leaving the site. Sanden asked about this

expiring in one year, given that they are not expecting to start up until 2018 would it be prudent to expend that

to the typical two-year. Pichotta stated they are recommending it be a year, given the uncertainty of it, in a year

they may have a sense of what is going on and it’s almost more of a status report. Mr. Boe stated he is

comfortable with that. Obviously, it would be great to get two years but he understands the committee’s

position. Pichotta stated also the applicant has a pending app for a 160 acre open-pit mine in the Town of

Union. Sanden stated it would be nice to hear an update on the security system also. Mr. Boe stated he can send

updates to the committee through Emily and let you know. Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the

conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand Processing Facility) for Muskie Proppant LLC

with conditions #1 - #13/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed new design of Uniform Address Number (UAN) signs.

Staff Report-Andy Pichotta: As part of recent discussions with county law enforcement, it was noted that our

existing address signs can be difficult to see. Basically as you know when you drive by, the sign is facing the

road. Many Counties have moved to a sign that is perpendicular to the road and it’s got letters/numbers on both

sides so it is more readily visible. The cost associated with a two sided sign is approximately $4.95 more than

that of the current signage utilized. The single sided UAN signs currently used cost $13.35 each and the

proposed two sided sign costs $18.30. LM staff would continue to affix the actual address numbers to the signs.

The costs associated with a new sign would continue to be $50 and $25 for a replacement sign. We could revisit

that when we take a look at our fee structure which we will need to do in the next year or two. Chairperson

Holst asked how come the new signs are twice what a replacement sign is. Pichotta stated because we have to

actually do measurements and create the address number, and then enter it into the system. There are more steps

4

involved. Chairperson Holst stated it’s not just for the sign, it’s for the process. Pichotta stated that he had been

thinking that we would use up our existing supply. He has second guessed that and is now thinking that what we

ought to do is draw a line in the sand and move forward with new signs. We have some towns, like the Town of

Rock Elm – for which we have eleven signs on hand. It could be five or eight years before we create eleven new

addresses in the Town of Rock Elm. We don’t want to have it where some of the Towns where we are

permitting houses more quickly and we are using one style of sign versus another. It would require that we eat

the cost on about 125 signs that we have on hand which is roughly $1700 - $1800. Although, if a change to the

new signs results in emergency services finding one person quicker, it’s probably worth it.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider the above information and determine whether a

change to a two sided UAN sign is appropriate. Aubart asked if there is going to be some kind of program for

replacing existing signs. Pichotta stated there is not, we will just move forward. All the new ones will be the

new style. However, if one has an existing sign and wants to replace it with the new style, they can do so for

$25. Aubart stated at their individual request. Pichotta stated yes. Otherwise it would become quite expensive

for us to systematically go out and replace all of the existing signs. He has noticed when he was driving through

Barron County the other day; you can see a mix of the old signs. That is clearly how they are doing it also.

Aubart noted that it’s pretty much impossible to monitor the age of the old signs, some, depending on if they are

maintained, get damaged, some are really faded at this point. There is no standard. Pichotta, usually when those

signs get faded like that, that’s when folks come in and ask what they need to do to get a new sign. Aubart

stated he has been on the other side of this and sometimes they are hard to find. If it’s an emergency, you want

to get there and he is whole-heartedly in support if it’s more visible - that is what we should do. Chairperson

Holst stated some are faded and some people just don’t maintain them or stuff cut away from them. Snow stated

he is frequently, in his job, out in rural America meeting with folks and often drive by driveways because you

can’t see the signs. The smart phone is telling you that you have arrived and where is it? For my job, it would be

much easier and he does understand from a safety standpoint when you can see it from both directions and you

are looking forward instead of looking off in one direction or the other. Pichotta stated perhaps we could pursue

a strategy to make folks aware of the new signs. Sanden asked if these are two-sided signs or two signs back-to-

back? What kind of post would they require because his is on a T-Post. Pichotta stated it is a two sided sign on a

U-Post. Some counties do a brochure on how to place and affix them. We will look into doing that. Chairperson

Holst stated he saw some while driving out east this weekend and they look considerably better than the ones

we have. Snow asked if the question is whether we are going to eat the cost on the signs we have. Sanden stated

he thinks we have to.

Snow moved to approve the two-sided UAN sign and scrap the existing inventory/Sanden seconded. All in

favor. Passed.



Rezone request in the Town of Trenton for Dan Ryan from Rural Residential 20 to General Rural Flexible in

Section 34.

Public hearing request for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in Spring Lake Township for Joe Dohmen.

Public hearing request for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in Hartland Township for Larry Gerdes

Irrevocable Family Trust.

Motion to adjourn at 6:26 pm by Sanden/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, July 20, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: August 3rd

& 17th

, September 7th

& 21st, all in

2016.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the July 6, 2016 Land Management Committee

meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for Sludge Disposal in the General Rural

Flexible District by David Sauer, Cedar Corporation, agent for

Ralston Purina & Nestle Purina Petcare Co., agent on property

owned by William E. Schroeder, located in the N ½ of the SW ¼

and all of the SE ¼ of Section 29 and the N ½ of the NE ¼ of

Section 32, T25N, R17W, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on a deferred renewal of a conditional use

permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand Processing Facility)

located in an Industrial District for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner

on property located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W,

Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

6 Discuss take action on proposed new design of Uniform Address

Number (UAN) signs.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, July 6, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst and Ken Snow

Absent: Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Ryan Bechel, Brad Roy and Tracie Wold



Next meeting dates: July 20th

, August 3rd

& 17th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Holst moved to approve the June 15, 2016 Land Management Committee


Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand

Processing Facility) located in an Industrial District for William F. Holst III, owner on property located

in Sections 28, 33 and 34, all in T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Jeff Holst recused himself from this agenda item.

Staff Report-Brad Roy: In 2012, WISC obtained a permit for a Mineral Processing and Rail Load-Out Facility

in the Town of Trenton. The permit was valid for two years and could be administratively renewed. In 2014,

WISC presented staff with information which demonstrated that they had taken action to establish the use

without actually constructing the facility. Staff renewed the permit administratively for another two years. The

permit is set to expire on July 18, 2016 and there has yet to be any construction of the facility. WISC no longer

has any intention of constructing a processing and rail load-out facility on the site. WISC has also indicated that

they do not have any record of activity occurring on the site since the last renewal. The original proposal

detailed operations for sand to be received, washed, dried, screened and shipped either by rail car or truck. The

materials would have come from the WISC mining operation nearby in the Town of Diamond Bluff. Height

exemptions and Variances were granted for structures greater than 35 feet. The property owner, William F.

Holst III, is now proposing to establish a new mineral processing and rail load-out facility on the site. Mr. Holst

has been working with Total Excavating to construct a facility to process sand from the Weiser mine in the

Town of Salem and claims that he has taken action on the site to further the use each year since 2013. The

property is located in Sections 28, 33, and 34, T25N, R18W in the Town of Trenton. The property is zoned

Industrial. Adjacent land uses are nonmetallic mining to the east and west, residential to the north across Hwy.

35 and agriculture to the south. High density residential, Rural Residential 20 District, is located near the

proposed site approximately one-half mile to the south. No structures have been built. The permit was renewed

administratively in 2014. At that time, WISC submitted information requesting a renewal and a list of actions

taken onsite, which was largely securing state permits and meeting survey requirements. The renewal request

also revealed that the delay in site activity was due to a mining moratorium by the Town of Oak Grove. The

material for this facility was to come from the Diamond Bluff/Oak Grove mine. On April 26, 2016, Wisconsin

Industrial Sand notified staff that they did not intend to renew the permit and that they have no record of activity

occurring at the site since the previous renewal. The owner (now applicant) now wishes to renew the permit and

construct a different sand processing and rail load-out facility. He claims that he began filling and grading on

the site in 2013 and that work has been ongoing and continues today. Aerial photos confirm a large amount of

fill has been deposited on the site since 2012. In 2014, Mr. Holst installed a berm along County Road K. The





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

establishment of the berm was a condition of the original permit (as requested by the Town of Trenton). Staff

has sought a legal determination from the Pierce County Corporation Counsel’s Office as to whether or not the

“use” had ceased for 12 months and would thus be terminated pursuant to §240-76(I). Which states, “If an

established conditional use is not conducted in conformity with the permit or this chapter, the conditional use

permit may be terminated by action of the Land Management Committee. If an established use permitted as a

conditional use ceases for a period of more than 12 months, the conditional use permit shall terminate, and all

future activity shall require a new conditional use permit.” The approved and proposed facilities have many

similarities, but are not identical. Each facility would receive, wash, dry, screen silica sand for shipment. Each

facility proposed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The originally permitted use and the proposed

use are essentially the same. However differences in processing techniques could create different impacts. The

original WISC plan was for the sand to be handled primarily inside structures and protected from the elements.

It is unclear at this point as to what likely impacts the Holst processing facility would have on the area. Raw

sand will be transported to the site by truck from Hwy. 35 and entering the site from 830th

St. In the original

plan the sand would come from the north on Hwy. 35, the proposed plan has trucks coming from the south on

Hwy. 35. A new Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be needed to determine if any road improvements are

required. The new proposal states that outbound rail shipments will average 200 cars per week. Loading trucks

for shipment will consist of a conveyor and a hopper. Truck shipments are secondary and will be

predominantly local. In both plans unsalable product would be used for mine reclamation. Both plans call for

the construction of six rail sidings to the BNSF Railroad. The sidings will be used for storage and in the loading

process. Both plans need two high-capacity wells. The water will be used to wash the sand and remove the clay

and silt-sized particles. The wash water will be recycled using a closed-loop sand dewatering system, ponds,

pumps and pipes. The WDNR permits high capacity wells. Any new high capacity well application is required

to face an environmental review. The aquifer used for the high capacity wells will not be the same one used for

the existing residential and agricultural wells in the area. One potable water supply well will also be needed on

the site. The proposed plan has identified stormwater collection areas. WDNR regulates and monitors storm

water and process water through the WPDES Permits. The applicant will work with the DNR to determine the

need for a WPDES Permit. Operation of the proposed plant will necessitate the development and

implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Spill Pollution Control and Countermeasures

Plan. These plans will identify potential sources of stormwater pollution and spills of oil-related materials and

other chemical, and establish controls to minimize any potential impacts to surface waters. A Fugitive Dust Plan

will need to be developed for the facility. The submitted plan outlines various methods for dust suppression on

the site. All loaded trucks will be tarped on the site. The drying, screening and load-out process will be

equipped with a dust collection system. Pavement and recycled asphalt for high traffic areas with the use of a

watering truck or settling product. Stock piles will be watered as needed. The WDNR Bureau of Air

Management permits and monitors emissions of nonmetallic mining and processing operations. Their

jurisdiction ranges from extraction to shipment. The applicant is proposing various practices to limit the noise

onsite. Loaded trucks entering the site will unload in a continuous forward path to eliminate backup alarms. All

equipment will utilize a “hissing” backup alarm instead of a “beep.” Per MSHA regulations the backup alarms

must be louder than other ambient noise. The site will have a trackmobile which will reduce the noise from

moving the rail cars. A maintenance building and office will be built with potable water and septic system for

employees and visitors. Staff has received several concerns from nearby residents about the original proposed

facility. To date, they haven’t received anything since there isn’t a facility. The Town of Trenton recommended

approval of the original proposal on May 9, 2012 without reference to the Town Comprehensive Plan and with

the following recommendations: Extend berm on Hwy 35 and include trees on top. Lights shall be adjusted

away from residences. Noise controls shall be implemented. Berm shall be constructed along County Road K to

block view of the railroad. All rail cars shall be behind the berm on Hwy 35. Trucks shall have a drive-through

unload to avoid back-up alarms. The existing conditions are: 1) Activities shall be conducted consistent with the

submitted plan. 2) Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR,

Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies if required. 3) Applicant shall

obtain all necessary permits for structures or signs not discussed in this plan from the Zoning Office. 4)

3

Applicant agrees that any erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county. 5) WISC

shall be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LMC for silica emissions if current or future studies

suggest a significant public health threat exists from such studies. 6) Any polyacrylamide flocculants must be

used consistent with WI DNR permits. 7) The Fugitive Dust Plan shall be modified to include dust suppression

methods for any stockpiled materials, at sand transfer points, and during instances exceptional events such as

high winds. 8) The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease and desist from MSHA. 9)

This permit shall expire in two years and may be renewed administratively if no compliance issues arise. 10)

The Town of Trenton’s recommendations/comments shall be adhered to. If the Pierce County Corporation

Counsel determines that the established used has ceased for a period of more than 12 months, the use shall be

considered to have terminated and any future use must be authorized by issuance of a new conditional use

permit. Pichotta stated that staff has had numerous discussions with Corporation Counsels office regarding this

particular proposal. It was recognized that while activity had occurred on the site, the Corporation Counsel

didn’t feel that he had enough information to make a definitive determination as to whether the use had ceased

for any 12 months period of time. He suggested that the committee ask the applicant to either provide or

describe the activities that had taken place to their satisfaction. The committee could do that one of two ways: 1)

If Mr. Holst was able to describe his activities to satisfaction of the committee that he had in fact conducted

activities every 12 months or 2) The committee should defer action on this item to a future meeting to give Mr.

Holst an opportunity to provide the necessary information.

Recommendation: If the use is determined to have not ceased, staff recommends that the Land Management

Committee consider whether established conditions are adequate to protect the public interest, public health and

safety, and the character of the area and determine if any modifications are necessary. If no changes or additions

are necessary, staff recommends that the LMC renew the CUP with the following conditions: 1) Activities shall

be conducted consistent with the submitted plan. 2) Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all

necessary permits from WI DNR, Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies if

required. 3) Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for structures or signs not discussed in this plan from

the Zoning Office. 4) Applicant agrees that any erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of

the county. 5) Applicant shall be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LMC for silica emissions

if current or future studies suggest a significant public health threat exists from such studies. 6) Any

polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permits. 7) The Fugitive Dust Plan shall

include dust suppression methods for any stockpiled materials, at sand transfer points, and during instances

exceptional events such as high winds. 8) The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease

and desist from MSHA. 9) This permit shall expire in two years. A status report shall be made to the LMC in

one year. 10) The Town of Trenton’s recommendations/comments shall be adhered to. 11) Site plan approval

and any potential height exemptions shall be obtained prior to any construction. 12) Applicant shall present

proposed plans to the Town of Trenton. Concerns raised by the Town can be addressed through site plan

approval or as a modification to this permit. 13) The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Analysis, or similar

document, to the WisDOT and make any suggested road improvements. 14) Any unforeseen impacts shall be

addressed to the satisfaction of the County.

Bill Holst had his Attorney, Adam Jarchow from Bakke Norman, address the LMC. This permit was originally

issued to Wisconsin Industrial Sands, which chose as a down turn in the market, not to renew their lease earlier

this year, so Mr. Holst has been working with Total Excavating, which is a local company. They have a long

operational history in this area, as does Mr. Holst. Jarchow stated they think this permit should be renewed for a

number of reasons. In the current CUP it provides that it may be renewed administratively if no compliance

issues arise. He thinks it is important to point out that, to his knowledge, there have not been any compliance

issues in the last four years, and the Zoning Administrator mentioned there hasn’t been any complaints from

anybody in the public, of course that would make some sense because they are not operating a facility there. But

they are do significant work and have been doing significant work on the property and bringing significant

amount of material onto the property and have been for the past three or four years. Mr. Holst and Wisconsin

Industrial Sand have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars or hundreds of man hours preparing the site and

obtaining permit. That would be sort of diversion where Mr. Holst has done a lot of the site work. Jarchow

4

stated he heard the Zoning Administrator state Wisconsin Industrial Sand didn’t do any work, but Mr. Holst has

done a significant amount of work and you’ll see photos that have been taken over time, via the amount of work

that has been done. But in addition to that site work, Wisconsin Industrial Sand and Mr. Holst have spent a fair

amount of time and money obtaining permits. Mr. Dustmen is a geologist who showed over the last three years,

about 300,000 tons of fill had been brought in to that site. In 2013-300,000 tons, 2014-300,000 tons, 2015-about

300,000 tons and about the same this year, pro-rated, they are at 150,000. In 2014, as required by the CUP, a

significant berm was built along County Road K, about 10 feet in height. The fall of 2015, trees were planted at

the top of the berm at a cost of about $23,000. That is the site work that has been done and Mr. Dustmen will

walk through very specific detail. In addition to that, there has been significant amount of time and effort, not

on site, of planning work. This is acquisition work of equipment, negotiating and discussion with other parties

and working with the railroad. All of those investments come at a significant cost. There really have not been

any citizen issues. All of the conditions that are laid out in the CUP have been complied with. Specifically the

berms that were required to be built have been built and none of that is inexpensive. If you look at the Pierce

County Zoning ordinance and Wisconsin law, they see no reason why this would not be renewed. The point of

the Zoning Ordinance is to place various uses into various zones to reduce conflict, and they can’t see any better

place for an Industrial site than this site on the rail road. It is the exact location that both common sense and the

Pierce County ordinance would have this sort of operation placed. In order to comply with the CUP, and in

reliance with continuation of the CUP, a significant amount of work has been done, a significant amount of

expense has been had and they hope the board will consider this and renew the CUP. Bill Holst added that the

berm along 35 is not completely done. Some of it is done, but they have to fill it to grade before they can build

the berm or there is nothing to build the berm on. Most of the berm has been done for years, but that will be

finished as we bring it to grade. Mr. Dustmen went through the process on a computer program/projection. He

pulled up a geographic information system that showed the exact parcel. He showed pictures of the berm he

took the day before the meeting. It is a very long linear berm right on County Road K. He showed a photo that

was taken before the fall of 2013. Pichotta asked where that berm is in relation to this site to the proposed

facility. Dustman stated right to the south-west. Holst stated it was required from the township for WISC. Roy

stated the berm was required, but the trees were required as part of Mr. Holst’s mine expansion in 2014. Fetzer

asked where the rail would be placed at. Dustman displayed mapping images/drawings showing the existing rail

right-of-way, the proposed berm that is started and the proposed siding. He took some historic photos and geo-

referenced them through time. In 2012 there was open water and not a lot of fill. 2013 to 2016: about 1million

ton of material, about 700,000 yards of material. Between April and September of 2015, there was a quite a bit

of work that was done. He noted the elevation difference between the amount of material; he is working on

getting the area up to grade to the rail can be put in. In 2013 there was about 20,000 yards of crushed dolomite

prepared for the ballast and grade for the rail facility. Dustman presented a visual site tour showing the

proposed buildings and locations; wash plant, drier, elevator, over flow, silos and rail. Fetzer asked how much

longer we are waiting for oil prices to come back up before silica is going to-be again. Holst stated there is a

meeting with the railroad next week and they are bringing up four representatives from around the country. The

lead time with the rail road is a big hold up. It is about 18 months after you get them the final plan before you

get approved. They are going to continue with the site work to get it up to grade and get the bed ready. Fetzer

asked how much more fill is going to be brought in. Holst stated about one million ton. Fetzer stated he has

been busy doing that over time. Holst stated they work on it every day of the year unless it is twenty below zero

or something. They pre-screen it and take all the screened sand and put in; he never put any in there before

because WISC was going to do the building and he wanted them to have to buy the sand from him. But when

they did their other rail expansion at their other site, he knew that they were never going to build a rail on his

site, so he started then filling it in. Fetzer stated it has just been a long process. Holst stated his hands were tied,

they were just notified two months ago and he couldn’t do anything until then. Holst found it peculiar that

WISC was trying to sell those permits to another company; how could they sell something that they would say

is not in compliance, that makes no sense to him. They don’t want another competitor in the area. Barry

Barringer, Town of Trenton, asked Holst what the fill consists of. Holst stated they screen the gravel and take

the finer gravel and put that in for the fill. So it is clean granular fill. Barringer asked if it will support the rail

5

road and all of that. Holst stated and any building that they want to do. You can’t put mud or trees or anything

like that if you want to build on it. Barringer also inquired about the CUP being traded off or given to someone

else by WISC. Holst stated they were trying to sell it to another sand company, but that guy took his investment

to Texas instead of here, so that is not on the table. When that fell through, they cancelled their lease with him.

He is not trying to explain the process, which is for the board to do when someone backs out; permits go back to

the property owner. Mike Miller, Town of Trenton, commented that given the long period of time this has taken

and it appears there will be some significant changes, does the Town of Trenton gets a chance to review this

again? Pichotta stated that was addressed in condition 12 which requires the applicant to present plan to the

Town for comment. Pichotta suggested to the Chair that if Mr. Holst has demonstrated to the LMC’s

satisfaction that in fact activities did not, within the last two years, cease for any 12 months period, they move

forward with renewal with the suggested conditions. If they are not comfortable with that, he suggested they

request additional information and they defer renewal to the next meeting. Aubart stated that Mr. Holst has

demonstrated that activity on the site has been continuous and that he continues to improve it and moved

to renew the conditional use permit with conditions 1-14/Seconded by Snow. All in favor. Motion passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand

Processing Facility) located in an Industrial District for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner on property

located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

This agenda item was deferred until the next meeting.

Discuss take action on a proposed modification to the approved Site Plan for a Heavy Industrial Use

(Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant & Processing Facility) for Mathy Construction Company, owner on

property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI.

Staff Report-Ryan Bechel: On January 06, 2016 Monarch Paving Company received a conditional use permit

and site plan approval to develop a non-metallic mining wash plant and processing facility in the Town of

Trenton. The site, referred to as the “Plant 46 expansion,” receives, washes, dries, screens and stockpiles

aggregates primarily used in road construction. No mining takes place on the property. Upon receiving CUP and

site plan approval, Monarch Paving Company commenced work on site preparation activities according to the

approved site plan. This included establishing a 15’ high berm constructed of soil and overburden materials

along the east, south, and west boundaries of the processing area. Upon completion of the required berm, the

applicants felt changes to the vegetative screening plan were warranted given natural vegetative screening on

the property, communications with neighboring property owners, and consultations with their contracted

nursery (Nesbitt’s Nursery & Orchard). The mandated berms and vegetative screening are intended to mitigate

visual and noise nuisances generated on the site by plant equipment and machinery. The proposed modifications

to the vegetative screening plan are the sole changes being requested by the applicant for this site plan

modification. All other previous presented facets of the approved site plan and conditional use permit must

continue to be followed. The property is located in the Town of Trenton and is zoned Industrial. PCC § 240-75

requires site plan approval for new construction or additions to existing structures and buildings for industrial

uses. The purpose of site plan review is assure site designs which promote compatibility between land uses,

create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to street and transportation, protect

property values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. LMC site plan approval mandated the

following 2 conditions: 1) Berms and vegetative screening shall be established and maintained in accordance

with the Town of Trenton’s recommendations. 2) Two rows of trees, a minimum of six feet tall, planted 20 feet

apart with the second row staggered ten feet away. The applicant is proposing to limit the area of required

double row; six foot tall staggered trees atop the berm, to two locations identified by the applicant to pose the

largest gaps in the visual barrier. A double row of 6’ – 7’ Spruce and Colorado trees staggered every 30 feet for

approximately 270’ is proposed atop the west side of the berm along 830th

ST. Stands of existing mature trees to

the north and south of this proposed vegetative buffer would complete the visual barrier along 830th

ST. A

double row of 6’ – 7’ Spruce and Colorado trees staggered every 30 feet for approximately 240’ is proposed

6

atop the berm along State HWY 63 in the northeast corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to plant a

single row of 3’ – 4’ Spruce and Colorado trees every 30 feet for approximately 1,990’ atop the remainder of

the berm following the southern edge of the processing area. Trees and shrubs are also proposed between the

berm and the residential properties located in the southeastern corner of the property. A single row of 6’ – 7’

Spruce and Colorado trees planted every 30 feet for approximately 150’ is proposed along a northwesterly

bearing south of the berm. A single row of 3’ – 4’ Summer Wine Ninebark shrubs planted every 15’ – 20’ for

approximately 100’ is proposed along the south property line. The applicant is proposing a mixture of trees and

shrubs in this location to prevent creating a vegetative barrier that would inhibit views of the bluffs to the north,

which was a concern of residential properties owners in the area. Staff has not received any complaints

regarding this operation since issuance of the CUP and site plan approval. The Town of Trenton recommended

approval of the CUP request on December 8, 2015 with the following recommendations which are also relevant

to Site Plan Review: 15 foot or higher berms. Trees put in for buffer beyond berm. Combination of trees on

berm and south of berm. Staff contacted the Town of Trenton chair regarding the proposed site plan

modifications. The chair stated he did not have any concerns with the proposed changes.

Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the proposed site plan and

determine if any changes or modifications to the proposed plan are necessary. The LMC should consider

existing and proposed structures, architectural plans, neighboring uses, use of landscaping and open space,

parking areas, driveway location, loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and

circulation, lighting, drainage, water and sewer systems and proposed operations. The LMC may impose time

schedules for completion of buildings, parking areas, open space uses, drainage and erosion control systems and

landscaping and may require appropriate sureties to guarantee that requirements will be completed on schedule.

Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the following condition as part of this site plan

approval: 1) Berms and vegetative screening shall be established and maintained in accordance with the

submitted plan.

Candy Anderson stated they are asking to modify the tree planting plan that was approved with the original

permit. The reason behind it is they got the site built and the fifteen foot tall berm and after it was built, they

looked and there really isn’t a big screening issue to the south with the residents that have the biggest view. But

there are two areas where there is a screening issue that they need to address. They have contracted with Nesbitt

Nursery. Lee Nesbitt was present to address any specific question about the trees. They are asking for a little bit

wider spacing to allow the trees to grow a little bit better and have room to spread out; a wider spacing helps the

root ball spread out a little bit better once you get it in the berm. They went with the three to four foot tall trees

on the south edge in a single row, again because the berm does provide good screening with the height they

built it at. But they wanted to keep in with the town’s recommendations to have the trees and also with the

committee’s. They met with the Truttmann’s and their concern with putting six foot tall trees right in front of

their property was that someday those trees could block their view of the bluff. She stated they would like to put

something there so they talked to Lee who suggested maybe a five to six foot shrub, at maturity. It’s a change,

but the only change that they are proposing to anything, most of the site is built and completed and vegetated, it

is just the trees that they want to change. If it is approved, they thought they could do a fall planting. Fetzer

commended them for going and talking to the neighbors and trying to keep everyone happy because too many

people don’t do that kind of thing. Anderson stated the Truttmann’s do have the most impacted view as far as

they could see and they had stated they didn’t care if they hadn’t planted anything, but she wanted to keep in

line with the recommendations. Snow made a motion to approve the modified site plan for the Heavy

Industrial Use with the condition that the berm and vegetative screening shall be established and

maintained in accordance with the submitted plan/second by Aubart. Fetzer asked if anyone had any

concern with a time line. Holst stated that Mr. Nesbitt has always done a pretty good job of meeting what he

said he was going to, unless there was a freak act of nature that he couldn’t get them in. All in favor. Motion

passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta has two requests. First- Roy and Bechel to attend a

floodplain management workshop in St. Croix County in Hudson on August 2, an afternoon meeting. Second-

7

Lund to attend the same training being held in Eau Claire on September 7, an afternoon meeting. Holst made a

motion to approve/ seconded by Snow. All in favor. Motion passed.


Public Hearing to consider a request for a CUP for sludge disposal by Ralston/Nestle Purina on property owned

by Bill Schroeder on property in the Town of Hartland.

Discuss take action on deferred conditional use permit renewal for Muskie Proppant LLC, Sand Processing

Facility in Union.

Discuss take action on new design for Uniform Address Number signs.

Motion to adjourn at 7:44 pm by Holst/seconded by Snow. All in favor. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted by T. Wold


MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: July 20th

, August 3rd

& 17th

, all in 2016. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the June 15, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair



located in an Industrial District for William F. Holst III, owner on

property located in Sections 28, 33 and 34, all in T25N, R18W,

Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy



located in an Industrial District for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner

on property located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W,

Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

6 Discuss take action on proposed modification to the approved Site

Plan for a Heavy Industrial Use (Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant &

Processing Facility) for Mathy Construction Company, owner, on

property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N,

R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, June 15, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden

Absent: Ken Snow




Next meeting dates: July 6th

& 20th

, August 3rd

& 17th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the June 1, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Private Outdoor

Recreation for a Dual Sport Event in the Agriculture Residential, Commercial, General Rural, General

Rural Flexible and Primary Agriculture Districts, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39E, for

Valley Springs Motorcycle Club Inc, Scott Freier, agent on properties located in Section 34 of El Paso

Township, Sections 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 28, 29 & 33 of Hartland Township, Sections 4 & 5 of Isabelle

Township, Sections 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16 & 21 of Salem Township, Sections 2 & 3 of Trenton Township and

Sections 20, 21, 22, 27 & 28 of Trimbelle Township, Pierce County, WI. A map is available for viewing in

the Land Management Department. Chairperson Fetzer invited Scott Freier forward: Mr. Freier stated he

is here to answer anyone’s questions. Holst stated it would be advantageous for everyone if you would explain

what you are proposing. Mr. Freier explained the dual sport is basically what the staff report says except they

use light weight bikes that are road legal, licensed motorcycles that are licensed to ride on the road. They are not

a full-fledged motocross dirt bike or anything like that. This group likes to have a joy ride. They put together a

dual sport event where they can ride trails they have set up. They lined up a bunch of landowners and are using

the snowmobile trails. The goal is to start in one spot and have a loop for them to ride. They want anywhere

from 80 to 140 miles and we want to take up the day. They have on and off road because the on-road gets them

to and from the land. It’s a one-way direction so when they leave in the morning they are staged out so they

don’t get a flood of bikes. Not saying they can’t group up down the road. But their goal is to have a steady flow

going through so they can manage it. They will start at the Gas Lite, go through some property, on-road, off-

road and stop for lunch somewhere along the line. Right now it is proposed to be at the Roger Nelson pavilion.

They have three different locations right now that are trying to do it. They would like to get the Veterans

involved and have it down at the Maiden Rock American Legion. That is their goal because that was one of the

people that they are fundraising for, the Veterans, Food Shelf, their club and the Lion’s are going to put on their

meal for them. That’s their fundraiser. They go through the whole route and back to the Gas Lite and they serve

them lunch somewhere and serve them a meal. They pay the organization $75 to ride the route. A lot of the land

owners that have OK’d this, we have a route through their property. We sign it. We have a person at the start of

their property and at the end of their property. The goal is not to have them come out the same gate that they go

in. They start at the one end of the property and they might go through two or three other properties to get out to

another road. The route is all staged out and they have to be back by 6:00pm. They have trucks and trailers set

up if someone breaks down or there is a catastrophe on the road from one of the bikes, chain falls off or

something, they can pick them up and bring them back to the Gas Lite. When the race is over, their people at





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

each location, goes through the site and clears it for us. It’s not a race, it’s a ride. There is getting less and less

places for people to ride and do stuff off-road. Most people don’t like motocross/dirt bikes rodding around. He

wanted to get into this group. It’s getting to be a larger growing thing in the whole country. Some of their riders

are going to come from all over to ride this. They have limited the number of riders to 200 bikes. They want to

make sure everything is good. They are hoping to have a two-day event in the future so they would ride one

area one day and another area the second day. That is how they are set up all across the country. He, himself,

being a motorcycle guy, thought this would be a great way to bring people into the community. Use some of the

resources that they already have in place and do that. They are set up with all the home owners. Some are set up

and they might not get used because they are going to have a one-day event this year. It got a little larger. They

got more land than they thought they would. If they have a torrential down pour some of the places won’t be

available because it will get too slippery and it’s all in the woods. So they will reroute that day if that happens.

The event is insured with American Motorcycle Association (AMA sanctioned). If you have done any of the hill

climb events that they put on, they are all insured. They are sanctioned with the AMA. So they get a lot of

support from the American Motorcycle Association and their people there.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Valley Springs Motorcycle Club Inc is proposing to sponsor and hold a new event

called a dual sport ride. They want a mixture of public roads, paved and unpaved roads, as well as off-road trails

located on private property. The event is proposed to begin and end at the Gas-Lite. There are many connecting

points to stop for gas, snacks and restrooms. This year the ride will take place on one day (July 16th

) this year.

Commercial or club use of trails on private property triggers the need for a CUP. All property owners with off-

road trails proposed for use in this event have signed waivers authorizing Scott Freier and Valley Springs

Motorcycle Club to act as their agent through this CUP process and to allow event participants to drive off-road

through their property. Valley Springs Motorcycle Club Inc. currently hosts an annual hill climb event in the

Town of Hartland. They are sanctioned and insured by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). The

club’s mission is to positively impact Pierce County by having participants utilize local hotels, campgrounds,

gas stations, restaurants and more. If they reach full participation, registration will be donated to local non-

profits. The private property utilized for this event is located in the Town of El Paso, Hartland, Isabelle, Salem,

Trenton and Trimbelle. The properties are in the Agriculture Residential, Commercial, General Rural, General

Rural Flexible and Primary Agriculture zoning districts. The number of participants will be limited and will not

exceed 200. The event is proposed to begin and end at the Gas-Lite. The event hours are 8am to 6pm. The riders

will be released in groups of ~10 with 15 minute intervals. The route will be 100-200 miles within Pierce

County that will be provided a route map and GPS. Since a variety of road surfaces are desired, the trail route

will be on- and off-road at the proposed locations. However, the off-road sections are optional for the rider.

Applicants will not hire any employees. Everyone working at the event will be volunteers. Volunteers will be

stationed at all off-road sections to assure safety and accountability. In case a dual-sport dirt bike breaks down,

the club will have two truck and trailers available for pick-up and transportation back to the Gas Lite.

Participants will be able to use Gas Lite restrooms. No additional portable restrooms are proposed to be

provided. Participants will have the ability to stop for food at many locations along the trail. The club is also

trying to set up a lunch meeting location that is tentatively scheduled at Roger Nelson’s pavilion on County Rd

A or a location to be determined in the Village of Bay City. Participants will be able to camp on the Gas Lite

property. When camping is allowed by the owner, camping is limited to day prior and day after the event. The

Gas Lite property has dual zoning. The commercial establishment is zoned Commercial. The surrounding

property is zoned Primary Agriculture. Camping on the property zoned Primary Agriculture has occurred for

various events as part of the commercial operation dating back many years. An admission fee will be charged

$75 per participant. If they reach full participation, the club members voted to donate proceeds to these local

non-profits: Veteran’s Club, Lion’s Club and Food Shelf. Although the 2016 event is proposed to take place

within 1 day (on July 16th

), the applicants are requesting this outdoor recreational use be authorized to take

place annually over a 2-day timeframe. Applicants should contact the Department of Public Health to comply

with their regulations, licenses and/or permits regarding any temporary event food service or any special event

camping that is proposed for this event. The applicants do not plan to have any advertising signs. The off-road

trails will be marked for riders. They do have advertising on their club website. Insurance coverage is through K

3

& K Insurance Group, Inc. and continues through 12/30/2016. Each individual participating in the event will be

required to sign a “Release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk and indemnity agreement.” The sheriff’s

department and the area ambulance services will be notified and requested to be on stand-by. The Towns of

Hartland (March 8, 2016), Martell (April 4, 2016), Salem (April 19, 2016), Isabelle (April 19, 2016) and El

Paso (May 9, 2016) recommended approval of this request without any specific comments or concerns. The

Town of Trimbelle recommended approval on March 8, 2016 stating, “Event should have a positive impact on

the Town of Trimbelle.” The Town of Maiden Rock recommended approval on April 20, 2016 stating: “The

club must provide signs on route. 20th

Ave to 197th

St will be signed 1-way. Riders must follow posted speed

limit. Club must also provide personnel at beginning and end of route.” The Town of Trenton recommended

approval on May 10, 2016 citing the Town Plan Commission comment, which states “The Town of Trenton has

a copy of Insurance, contact person name and number if there is a problem and final route map is received.”


determine whether the proposed use at the proposed location(s) would be contrary to public interest, or

detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or character of the area. If found to be not contrary to the above,

staff recommends that the LMC grant this conditional use permit with the following conditions:



2. Applicant shall also comply with all relevant local and state ordinances and regulations and secure all

necessary permits and licenses (e.g. Department of Safety & Professional Services, Department of

Public Health).

3. The dual-sport event may be held annually. The event shall not exceed two (2) days in duration. Staff

shall be contacted regarding any modifications to approved plans or any change in properties to be

utilized for off road activities, to determine if a new CUP is necessary.

4. Hours of operation shall be 8am to 6pm, or as otherwise established by the LMC.

5. Emergency services (Sheriff’s Dept and EMS) shall be given adequate notice of event and route.

6. Any advertising signs shall comply with the zoning code standards and any necessary permits shall be

secured prior to sign installation on property.

7. A copy of the insurance and any changes to the insurance shall be submitted to the Land Management

Department.

8. Camping shall be limited to the Gas-Lite property, contingent on owner approval.

9. The CUP shall expire in 2 years, with a status report given to the LMC prior to any additional events.

10. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use may require modification to this

conditional use permit, or potentially, the issuance of a new conditional use permit.

11. Applicant shall notify towns and the Land Management Department of future events.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. Mark Sandstrom, Salem Township, personally, he

opposes this having had a bad experience with a motocross type event next to his property. Last year he had a

person next to his property with about 20 motocross bikes on it and scared his cattle so bad they were foaming

at the mouth and running around the pasture. They broke fences and he wants to know who takes responsibility

if something like this happens again. Last year, the person doing this did not take any responsibility. Luckily no

cattle died. Some were cut up, fences were broke and he doesn’t want to see this happen again and that was just

20 bikes. Chairperson Fetzer stated we will take all the public comments and then have Scott answer after that.

Bill Schweiger, Trimbelle Township, he wondered why any of us would be in favor of this. It’s an altruistic

thing, why would we want to put up with this. We pay property tax and you are going to ride on trails. Who is

going to make these trails? What’s the route? But you are asking people for this? Mr. Freier stated that he can

answer while we go along. The people that have signed up have already signed up for us to go on their property

and they already have trails that they already use. Some of them they haven’t used for a while and to be honest

they were kind of happy that he was going to clean the trail back up so we could use it and then they could use

it again. These people that are on this map have already agreed and signed up to be part of the CUP. Mr.

Schweiger asked if you have done this elsewhere? Do you have some examples of this being done? Mr. Freier

4

stated he personally hasn’t done it, this is his first event that he is putting on but AMA has about 40 events a

year that they do around the country. It’s really big in northern Wisconsin. They have a National’s Event and

have been having that for 15 years. Mr. Schweiger asked if they have positive feedback from this sort of

activity. Mr. Freier stated he has had an overwhelming response. He thought he would be fighting for land to

get to do this on and he has a list of people that he couldn’t get to that have found out about it and called him

and said if they want to zip through their property, go ahead. He is hoping to have this a two-day event, so they

can have one route one day and another route another day. Mr. Schweiger stated that if there is any money left

over, where does that go? So the money goes to some sort of charity or something? Mr. Freier stated they are a

nonprofit organization, the motorcycle club. What they are doing to make a long story short, the Lion’s have

lost a few of their fundraisers for the Lion’s Organization. They came to us and asked if they could be part of

this group. So we have allowed them to provide our meal in lieu of profits from the event. Our goal, when we

originally contacted them, was to know what they do in the community, if they give them funds: The Funster’s

and Lion’s do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. They wanted to be part of us because they are losing some of

their fundraising at the Cheese Curd Festival and the Polka Fest. The Club wanted to have it at the fairgrounds

but they didn’t book their date soon enough and the date was full. Their plan is to start from the fairgrounds in

the future. Todd Cipala, Trimbelle Township, he is in favor of it and the bikes are going to go through his land.

He wants to make sure everyone is aware that these bikes are street legal which means they do meet the decibel

rating that is allowable for the street which most Harley’s don’t as we all know. This is not a race, it’s a trail

ride and these are bikes that are perfectly legal to be on the street. The people that ride, average age is probably

closer to his age and older. It’s just kind of to tour the country. He thinks it’s a very good thing. It’s positive and

helps the community out. Holst stated since you changed your format, why don’t you answer Mr. Sandstrom’s

question regarding to damage to property and cattle. Mr. Freier stated our club does. It’s kind of like the

snowmobile club. Anything that happens, someone from out of state could come and go off land and the

snowmobile club is responsible to come and take care of that. Mr. Sandstrom stated they are not going to be on

my land, they are going to be next to it making noise. Mr. Freier stated you could still have an issue. He stated

he doesn’t know what happened on that other event. He’s sorry he doesn’t know where your land is. This is an

organized event and they have people at the front and the end of it for that reason. Their goal is to not get the

people off their trail. They are all sent GPS coordinates. A lot of the bikes have it mounted right on there and we

send it to them and they download it and follow that route. Even though they will have it marked in the woods,

their goal is to not get them on someone else’s property. Mr. Sandstrom asked if every single bike on this is

going to be decibel rated for street. Mr. Freier stated for AMA sanctioning they have to have the guy right there

with the decibel reader, yes. Which you probably didn’t get if the neighbor has motocross bikes, they are a total

different machine. He’s not saying that something like that couldn’t happen and if it does, he wants to know

about it. It’s important to him that this event keeps going and if they have to reroute a route from not using your

neighbor’s property or something we are wide open. That’s why we are all here to know our oppositions. Rayne

Farrell, lives in Esdaile, Hartland Township, first she wants to clarify the Lion’s Club is losing some of their

financing but not all of their fundraising from the Cheese Curd Fest. Mr. Freier stated it’s a big chunk that they

are. Ms Farrell stated yes it is. She would just like to know if individuals have to provide insurance for their

vehicles. They sign a waiver for yours but do they have to be insured on their own? Mr. Freier stated the State

of Wisconsin requires it, yes. Ms Farrell asked if they are checking to make sure they are insured? Mr. Freier

stated that is not in their scope. He asked this at the County level and they said he can’t legally do it. They can’t

unless an officer, an officer can check their stuff but he can’t. Ms Farrell asked if something happens on

someone’s property and they have signed a waiver saying they are not going to sue the person, do they have

some type of coverage that they can provide. Mr. Freier stated they are supposed to be licensed motorcycles and

legally supposed to be insured from the State but we can’t enforce an insurance policy on them. Ms Farrell

stated she knows the snowmobile trails, has that been cleared with all the snowmobile trails? Mr. Freier stated

only on the property owners lands that have signed up. Ms Farrell stated she knows the snowmobile clubs have

a big phobia. Mr. Freier stated the only trails they would be using are snowmobile trails that are on the people’s

property that have allowed us to be there. We’re not just randomly picking a chunk of snowmobile trail and

riding it. Ms Farrell asked where Town of Trenton said something about providing a copy of insurance and the

5

contact person and a name; that probably would be good for all the Townships to have. Mr. Freier stated we

provided it to the County conditional use permit and they can get it all from there. Ken Johanson representing

his family that lives in Salem Township, he asked earlier for a detailed map, is there a detailed map available

and will there be new trails created possibly, cutting trees or how does that work? Mr. Freier stated as of right

now they are going on trails that are all existing or have been existing in the past but haven’t been used in the

past ten or fifteen years. To his knowledge, right now, they are not cutting any new trails. Mr. Johanson asked if

there is a map that shows where the paths are. Mr. Freier stated the County has requested that they give them

the property description. We don’t really have to do the actual map. We will eventually because we want to

download that to the riders. Mr. Johanson asked if there are going to be designated parking locations for

spectators or people helping out. Mr. Freier stated this is not for spectators. It’s just for riders. Mr. Johanson

asked about the on-road portion, will there be riding off on Hwy 10? Will people be allowed to ride in the

ditches both to avoid traffic and because it’s more fun to ride in the ditches. Mr. Freier stated no, this will be on

the Hwy or County Road. No there won’t be any ditch riding. Mr. Johanson stated where it shows on Hwy 10, it

has to stay on the highway? Mr. Freier stated yes, where we go off are in people’s driveways, field roads or

places like that. Not like a snowmobile that will go down the ditch for three miles or so that isn’t our scope at

all. Gary Fryer, Trenton Township but owns property in El Paso, he assumes they are going to be going up Lost

Creek as part of that if you are going over to the Rod & Gun Club. Who is going to monitor the speeds of these

bikes up the side roads up Lost Creek or 450th

or around? Mr. Freier said he guess the same law that are out

there for the rest of the year. They sign their agreement saying they will follow the posted limits. We actually

have one of our County Patrolmen riding it with us. Mr. Fryer asked what is the average size of the machines;

CC’s. Mr. Freier stated probably 250 to 450. There are some adventure bikes that will come to this event and

they will be 1200 to 1400 CC’s. Those will be the ones that will bypass all of the off-road stuff. They want a

route to ride through the country but they will bypass our off-road or “hero” areas. Mr. Fryer stated his concern

on the curvy road was that they would be driving way over the speed limit. Mr. Freier stated we can’t control

any of that. Mr. Schweiger asked where these people come from, if we introduce them to the area and they will

say “hey, I know this really cool place to ride.” Mr. Freier stated they are from anywhere. Anyone that has a

licensed motorcycle can come. They can be from Canada or any other state. Chairperson Fetzer stated these

trails aren’t going to be open continuously. You can come ride on the roads anytime. Mr. Freier stated the group

of people that come to this event, they know that this is a one-day event that it’s posted and sanctioned. It’s an

AMA sponsored event. It’s kind of like the hill climb down there. Nobody gets to ride that hill or can be on that

hill any other day than a race day. That is what separates that. He did have that concern with some of their other

people, he said I don’t want these guys coming back six months later saying I get to ride here because I know

where it’s at. We are posting on some property some signage where we are going in and out to state just exactly

what you said. Todd Merkins, owns property both in Trenton and Salem, each one of these squares on the map,

are they 40 acres plotted out. Mr. Freier stated, Emily can help me out with this, if we went on their property we

mapped out anything, we might not be touching some of the property but if we are going on their property, we

mapped out that persons whole property. Mr. Merkins stated all volunteers are working it, how many will there

be at this event. Mr. Freier stated between 30 & 40. Mr. Merkins asked about the area in Salem that is close to

his renter and he wants to keep him happy. He doesn’t want to disrupt the quality & serenity of country life.

What kind of assurances could you give him that would say that there may be somebody to keep people off his

land, because his land looks like it would be great land to ride on. Mr. Freier stated if you can get ahold of my

afterward, he would like to map that out so he knows where that is or where the concern might be. Mr. Merkins

asked if some of the volunteers are going to be placed strategically throughout this route? Mr. Freier stated a lot

of the volunteers are the land owners that want to be part of it. Some of them aren’t but they will have other

people that know that route. That is why he is asking you to do that. Then they know there is a hot zone that

they need to keep tabs on. Pichotta stated he has a couple letters here, comments from folks who called in but

couldn’t be here tonight. The first is from Ronald and Kay Peterson, Town of Trenton; we received a notice

about this since our residence is in Section 2 of Trenton Township, directly across the road from off-road

property which would be used in this event. Most of our concerns have been addressed in the Staff Report;

including: Number of participants will be limited to 200.

6

Event hours are 8am to 6pm on July 16, 2016.

There will be no overnight camping on the private properties used for the off-road portion.

Concerns not addressed include: We would want to know that no alcohol will be allowed on the private

properties used in the off-road portion. This would apply to the event of 7-16-16 as well as any future events.

We request that if the permit is issued for 7-16-16 with the conditions in the staff report, that it be a one-time

permit for that event only. And that future permits being granted would be contingent on compliance, lack of

disturbances, lack of safety concerns, being proven at this initial event. And that future events would also limit

the number of participants, event hours of 8am to 6pm and no overnight camping or parking on the private

properties. We are unable to attend the hearing of 6-15-16, but request your consideration of our concerns.

Respectfully submitted, Ronald & Kay Peterson, W8026 390th

Ave, Ellsworth, WI 54011. Mr. Freier stated

there will not be overnight camping on any of the private properties. We don’t serve any alcohol until after the

meal at 6:00pm at the Gas Lite. We can’t stop them from drinking and driving. Typically this group is not that,

it’s more seeing the country and seeing what this area has to provide. The next was a phone call received

yesterday from Wayne Dodge, Trimbelle Township, he called saying he is in favor of the Dual Sport Event. He

feels it is recreational and not paid for by tax dollars. He belongs to a snowmobile club that also isn’t paid for

by tax dollars. He is not able to attend the meeting tonight but wanted it known that he is in favor of it. The next

one was an email that we received from Vernon Martin; The Valley Springs Motorcycle Club Inc has my

support for their proposed activity. This is a good and constructive activity that many of our citizens can enjoy

and being property owners it makes no unreasonable burden on residents or owners of Pierce County. Further it

will bring some economic benefit to the area as the participants spend for ancillary services. We hope you give

this a green light, Thank you, Vern and Wanda Martin. Lastly, we also heard from Paul Shingledecker, Chair of

the Town of Salem, who stated that when the applicant appeared before there Town Board only a limited

number of parcels in the Town were proposed for off-road use and now it appears that several more parcels are

included. He stated that he has no issues moving forward with approval but requested that only this event be

authorized and that the applicant be required to appear before their board prior to any further events. Mr. Freier

stated yes, there were properties that were expanded on from when they did the event and all of them are

assured that they will get this map that we have with all the properties and the routes. That was the big concern

with most of the Townships. That they knew what was going on in case something happened. They knew where

we were supposed to be. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked Mr. Freier if they present any written notice of

acceptable behavior or what is expected of these participants such as no racing or no alcohol consumption;

abide by the rules of the road. Is there anything you provide up front that is proper rules of behavior? Mr. Freier

stated that is what the AMA sanctioned event does. They have all those rules. Everything that you have said is

in those rules. That is why we go to an AMA. They have the sanctioning and when people sign up for a card

and get a certificate that they are an AMA Member, they agree to all those terms when they come to an event.

Sanden stated that with any more than one person, two people it could potentially become a race. So is it pretty

clearly stated that this is not a race, not to be competitive in this. It’s just meant to be a joy ride. Mr. Freier

stated the whole event is that and there are no prizes for getting done early or getting through an area. Sanden

stated for future reference it would be nice to have that document to see what they recommend and what you

recommend. Mr. Freier asked the AMA sanctioning? He thought he had it or Emily does. He might not have the

actual when they sign up to become an AMA member, that material. Sanden stated he assumed they would be

reinforcing this before the event begins. Mr. Freier stated “Trust me, I don’t want problems.” Most of his

people have spent many hours finding the hot spots so he can avoid them. Lund stated she has a section on this

from the news on the dual sport riding. It talks about recommendations for new riders. They do say the dual

sport ride. The dual ride sport is not a race, have fun, ride in a group, be with at least one experienced rider,

knobby tires are mandatory. Do not skip the ride, comradery, one-time event. It doesn’t talk about everything

that you are mentioning. Mr. Freier stated some of that is covered when they sign up to become an AMA

Member. They have to be an AMA Member of the organization to enter into one of these events, whether it be a

hill climb or dual sport or actually there are a lot of road riders that are AMA Members. Sanden asked if staff

has had any experience with the other 40 some odd events that have occurred around the country? Have you had

a chance to look into some of those and see if they have had any issues in the past? Sanden asked Mr. Freier,

7

you may or may not have had a lot of experience with people making claims against this particular insurance,

but the gentlemen mentioned the cattle breaking his fence because they were spooked by these bikes, it wasn’t

anything the bikes did directly. Would that be something that he could submit to that insurance company and

get compensation for? Mr. Freier stated honestly he can’t answer that. They have had things in previous events

that have been taken care of. A club member took care of something but he doesn’t think they have had

anything go to a law suit or anything. Holst suggested to move the event as far from Mr. Sandstrom’s cattle as

you can possibly get them. Work that out prior to the event rather than having trouble with your neighbor. If

you want to have this event again, you don’t want to have any trouble when you come back. You want to be as

clean as you can be. This event differs from the old trials where they used to have a stop watch and you had X

amount of time and you got over it, you got penalized, if you got under it, you got penalized. Mr. Freier’s stated

trials are a whole different event. It’s a race and it’s timed and a lot tougher riders. It’s for a lot better riders.

Our riders are typically 50 and up. Holst stated some of us guys that are 50 can get around pretty good. Mr.

Freier stated there are some good riders. There are some hill climbers that are 60 – 70 years old. Holst said if he

wanted to sound really good, not to be offensive to a hill climber but I wouldn’t compare myself to hill climbers

because their reputation is a little different. That’s probably why some of the people are here. This is probably

more like an everyday, old codger’s event to go out, ride around and have a good time and not cause trouble.

Mr. Freier stated there are a lot of us that used to race and can’t anymore and this is the next kind of thing to

still get out and ride. Holst stated that during public comment, Bill mentioned why would anyone be in favor of

this or want to do this? What he assumes this group of people will be like, it won’t be as offensive, this isn’t

going to be the second coming of the flood run. It’s a totally different group of people, a totally different

mindset, totally different everything. They have to come back here again. The last thing they want is to come

back with a couple marks against them. Sanden stated he has to preface by saying this is a legal activity. They

are doing things, riding on the road which they have every right to do. With 200 bikes going by anyone that

lives along this circuitous route, having 200 bikes go by from 8:00am to 6:00pm. I think that is a very logical

question of what is the benefit that we would see. You mention that you don’t make your money from the

spectators you make it from the actual participants. This isn’t necessarily a charity ride. A portion of it may go

to these charities but that doesn’t sound like that is the main purpose of it. You are doing a legal activity and

you are doing it on the road. That is something that he is very appreciative of but for someone that is living

along one of these routes what would you tell them. Mr. Freier stated he had a land owner down on Loss Creek,

he said 200 bikes is no big deal. He gets 200 Harley’s that go by in half an hour by his house. Most of his

opposition has been only 200. My bikes aren’t Harley’s they are actually decibel so they are going to be within

the noise restraints. Sanden stated to the audience, they are going to be coming back next year and the future

CUP’s will be dependent on how this goes. We can’t be everywhere at all times but you are kind of our eyes

and ears out there, so if you do have any issues that come up we want to know about it for next year. Mr. Freier

wants his phone number to get out so if there is anybody that has a concern he would like to know about it

before the event so that they can retrofit whatever it is to make that happen. Holst stated to Mr. Freier that you

mentioned these will be 250 – 400 CC’s, are those 2 or 4 stroke. Mr. Freier stated most are 4 stroke. Holst stated

to relate to people that a 4 stroke is a less annoying sound. Mr. Freier stated the RPM’s of a 4 stroke are lower.

A 2 stroke might rev out to 10,000 RPM’s, a 4 stroke gets their power at about 2,000 RPM’s. The bikes aren’t

high revving motorcycles at all. They are more the low end torque motorcycles. Mr. Cipala stated that you had

mentioned other areas that have had these events. He thinks it would be really easy to contact some other clubs

like Wabeno in Northern Wisconsin and get their feelings on it. Mr. Freier stated Wabeno is the big one. Sanden

stated unfortunately we have to make our vote in a few minutes. You would characterize it as being positive up

there? Mr. Cipala stated they absolutely love it up there. Sanden moved to approve the Private Outdoor

Recreation for a Dual Sport Event in the Agriculture Residential, Commercial, General Rural, General

Rural Flexible and Primary Agriculture Districts for Valley Springs Motorcycle Club Inc, Scott Freier,

agent, on properties located in El Paso, Hartland, Isabelle, Salem, Trenton and Trimbelle Townships, due

to the fact this is not contrary to public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health, public

safety or the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #11/Aubart seconded. It was asked if

this is a life-time CUP. Sanden stated this is a one-time event, it’s only for this one event. Pichotta stated the

8

way it is written up is that the CUP would expire in two years with a status report before the Land Management

Committee prior to any additional events. The committee could certainly modify it to just this single event and

then if they want to hold a future event they would have to jump through the same hoops again. Sanden stated

technically, it is good for two years and we will have another crack at it next year. We could revoke it or modify

it if need be. Pichotta stated if you want to specify that it is a one year or simply authorizes the event in July,

you certainly have the ability to do that. Holst stated and the applicant can come back in August if everything

went really well and apply for his next year’s event. Mr. Freier stated that is what he would prefer. Chairperson

Fetzer stated there is a motion on the table, Dr. Sanden would you like to rescind your motion. Sanden asked if

someone could add another condition to it. Holst moved to amend the motion and add a condition that states

that this is for this event only and the applicant can reapply after this event at no cost. Chairperson Fetzer asked

about coming in after this for a status report. Holst stated status report at the August meeting. Mr. Freier stated

he would be more than happy to do that and then asked when the August meeting is. Pichotta stated 1st & 3

rd

Wednesday’s, August 3rd

& 17th

. Mr. Freier asked what is the September dates because he thinks he is gone

both those dates in August. Hartung stated September 7th

& 21st. Sue Gerdes stated when they did their first hill

climb conditional use permit, they made the second year contingent upon favorable review of the first year. So

they did get a two-year permit with a contingency on it. Holst stated we understood what a hill climb was, this

thing we are kind of shooting in the dark. He appreciates your comments. You need to modify your schedule to

meet ours, Scott. Mr. Freier asked how about September, can we just do it then. Aubart stated it’s built in for a

status report prior to any additional events so we can limit it at that point the way it is written now. Holst

withdrew his amendment. Chairperson Fetzer stated we have a motion by Dr. Sanden and a second by Mr.

Aubart, is there any further input or comment? All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on site plan review for proposed Interstate Truck Driving School, in the Commercial

District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Daniel and Cheryl Ross, owners on p

roperty located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Chairperson Fetzer invited Cheryl Ross and Darrell Peterson forward: Mr. Peterson from Interstate Truck

Driving School introduced himself. The main office is located in South St Paul. They have been training

commercial drivers for going on 20 years now. They work with all the major carriers; 38 major companies.

They trained 750 drivers out of their South St Paul office last year. As they are training drivers to get to work,

they work with all the workforce centers throughout the State of Minnesota and Wisconsin. They wanted to

move into Wisconsin. He is working with the workforce centers in River Falls and the Baldwin area. They see a

need for training drivers in this part of the country. They have a lot of drivers from Midwestern Wisconsin that

want to become drivers and train. They work with Schneider Transportation out of Green Bay. They place a lot

of driver’s with them. The thing that they can do right now is they are looking for a place that we can remotely

send to a flat screen TV, like they did in their St Cloud location before they closed that down, so we can have

people come there and listen to a class. They are going to have one instructor there that can leave and go out

and train drivers on the road. They generally go out in two hour increments to go drive. We will have one

vehicle there to drive. The only thing that was missing from the staff report and he wants to bring it to

everybody’s attentions right now because they don’t want to hide anything; is that they want to have one area to

back behind the building. So they just have one backing truck that will be a single-axle tractor with a 30 foot

trailer just to practice straight line back, the alley dock and the offset. So offset, straight line and alley dock.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The applicant is seeking site plan approval to utilize an existing building to

provide operational space for the Interstate Truck Driving School (prospective tenant). The Interstate Truck

Driving School provides professional Tractor Trailer driving courses based out of South St Paul, MN. The

company has held a license to train in the State of Minnesota for more than 18 years. One training course is

proposed to be held at the property, which includes both classroom instruction and on the road training for

participants. The company has obtained a State of Wisconsin Educational Approval Board certificate,

authorizing their business in Wisconsin. Additionally, Wisconsin Department of Transportation licensing

approval was completed in May 2016. Pierce County Code §240-75 requires site plan review for the

establishment of a Commercial Use, the purpose of which is to assure site designs that promote compatibility

9

between land uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to streets and

transportation, protect property values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. The 19.8 acre

property is located in the Town of Martell and is zoned Commercial. Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15

Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts:

Commercial: This district is established to provide for retail shopping and personal service uses to be developed

either as a unit or in individual parcels to serve the needs of nearby residential neighborhoods as well as the

entire county. The purpose of the district is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for certain

commercial and other nonresidential uses while affording protection to surrounding properties from excessive

noise, traffic, drainage or other nuisance factors. General Retail and Services is defined in Pierce County Code

§240-88 as “establishments that proved goods and/or services to the consumer.” The property is bordered

primarily by agricultural land. A commercial establishment (The Red Barn Bar & Grill) is located directly east

of the subject property. Adjacent zoning districts include Primary Agriculture to the north, south and west;

Commercial and General Rural to the east. No new buildings are proposed. Courses will be taught within the

existing facility. The existing structure meets all applicable setbacks. The applicant anticipates 2 semi tractors

with 30’ trailers will be stationed on the site. The vehicles will be used for on-road training; an outdoor practice

course was not previously proposed but that has since changed with Darrell stating the backing up. No

additional exterior storage is proposed. Driveway access to the property is located off of State Hwy 63 on the

eastern edge of the property. Traffic generated due to the proposed operation is anticipated to be minimal. The

site is near the intersection of a state and county highway. No additional exterior lighting is proposed. The

applicant is not proposing any additional signage. An existing sign is proposed to be refaced to advertise the

proposed business. A restroom is present within the existing building. A 3000 gallon holding tank provides

sanitary facilities for the site. No solid waste is anticipated to be generated by the operation. A screening plan is

not proposed. Proposed hours of operation are 7:00am to 5:00pm weekdays, with some specially scheduled

training possible on Saturdays between 9:00am and 3:00pm. Saturday trainings would be on a per case basis as

necessary. One Interstate Truck Driving School instructor will be on site to provide the training for each course.

The applicant anticipates 3 to 5 students per session held. Pierce County Code §240-54 establishes parking

requirements and stipulates in cases where a uses parking requirements are not specifically listed, the minimum

number of parking spots shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the requirements for

similar uses. A minimum of 1 parking spot per anticipated number of class participants, plus one for each

instructor present on site at a given time shall be provided. A minimum of one parking stall shall be ADA

compliant. The site plans submitted demonstrate ample parking area to fulfill this requirement. Upon

completion of the site plan review the applicant will be required to obtain a Land Use Permit as outlined in

Pierce County Code §240-73(1)B.


and determine if any changes or modifications are necessary. The LMC should consider proposed structures,

architectural plans, neighboring uses, use of landscaping and open space, parking areas, driveway location,

loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and circulation, lighting, drainage, water and

sewer systems as well as proposed operations.

The LMC may impose time schedules for completion of buildings, parking areas, open space uses, drainage and

erosion control systems and landscaping and may require appropriate sureties to guarantee that requirements

will be completed on schedule.

Staff recommends the LMC place any condition(s) that it deems necessary, as well as the following:

1. The applicant shall obtain a Land Use Permit from the Land Management Department prior to

establishing the use.

Holst asked about having a little bit of on-site for practice backing up, where would you propose doing that?

Mr. Peterson stated what they are thinking of doing is just on the north, right behind the building. Holst stated it

would remain on Lot 1. Mr. Peterson stated yes, everything is on Lot 1.

Holst moved to approve the Site Plan Review for Interstate Truck Driving School in the Commercial

District for Daniel & Cheryl Ross with condition #1/Aubart seconded. Holst stated he feels this is a good

use of the property and something that would be advantageous to the County of Pierce to have within our

10

borders. Sanden stated he thinks it’s a good location too. Mr. Peterson stated the thing that is really gratifying to

them is since 2010, when the economy turned, it really changed a lot of people’s lives. The difference they have

made in training drivers to get them to work is incredible. He sees moving stories every single day. Where he

has people coming in that lost a house, couldn’t keep the bills paid, had been out of work for years. He can get a

guy to a $50,000/year job in about 6 – 7 weeks. The companies will reimburse their tuition, they have

healthcare benefits. The companies are more user friendly than ever. The requirements for licensing have

become so much better than what it was. The major carriers are really looking to develop relationships with new

drivers and keep them in the fold and not use them and spit them out. There is more home time. He has 14

companies right now in the metro area that have a brand new rookie driver home every night. Companies

offering $5500 sign on bonuses just for a student out of their school to show up and go to work plus tuition

reimbursement. It really does change lives. Sanden stated he understands Veterans often times get jobs. Mr.

Peterson stated he is a Veteran, himself and Bill, the owner of the company is as well. We do all the Veteran job

fairs; T it up for the Truckers, T it up for the Troops, Yellow Ribbon Programs, they have about 25 Vets they

are training right now, post 911, two are starting on Monday. The big thing that is going on in Wisconsin is that

they can do third party testing in Wisconsin. They are looking forward to training more people here too. They

can do road tests in Hudson on Saturdays. A truck may be leaving the location to go to the Hudson site on a

Saturday to road test. They have a third party tester that can do that. That can’t happen in Minnesota. They are

doing 4 – 5 road tests every single day in Minnesota and that’s not enough. He is fighting with the State Capital

to get more road tests sponsors. It’s been a big problem. Sanden stated we are fortunate to have you here. All in

favor. Passed.

7:19pm Holst moved to convene into closed session pursuant to WI §19.85(1)(c) considering employment,

promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the

governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility; to-wit; performance evaluation of Land

Management Director/Aubart seconded. Roll call vote. Holst – yes, Aubart – yes, Fetzer – yes, Sanden –

yes.

7:38pm Holst moved to reconvene into open session and take action on closed session item/Aubart

seconded. Roll call vote, Holst – yes, Aubart – yes, Fetzer – yes, Sanden – yes.

Aubart moved to grant a favorable performance evaluation for Land Management Director, Andy

Pichotta and give a step increase if eligible/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has no travel/training requests for



Discuss take action on conditional use permit renewal for William Holst for a Sand Processing Facility in

Trenton.

Discuss take action on conditional use permit renewal for Muskie Proppant LLC Sand Processing Facility in

Union.

Potential for Mathy Construction Site Plan Modification.

Motion to adjourn at 7:42pm by Sanden/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, June 15, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: July 6th

& 20th

, August 3rd

& 17th


3 Approve minutes of the June 1, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for Private Outdoor Recreation for a Dual

Sport Event in the Agriculture Residential, Commercial, General

Rural, General Rural Flexible and Primary Agriculture Districts,

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39E, for Valley

Springs Motorcycle Club Inc, Scott Freier, agent on properties

located in Section 34 of El Paso Township, Sections 9, 10, 14, 15,

16, 21, 28, 29 & 33 of Hartland Township, Sections 4 & 5 of

Isabelle Township, Sections 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16 & 21 of Salem

Township, Sections 2 & 3 of Trenton Township and Sections 20,

21, 22, 27 & 28 of Trimbelle Township, Pierce County, WI. A map

is available for viewing in the Land Management Department.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on site plan review for proposed Interstate

Truck Driving School, in the Commercial District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Daniel and Cheryl Ross,

owners on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12,

T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

6 Committee to convene into closed session pursuant to WI

§19.85(1)(c) considering employment, promotion, compensation or

performance evaluation data of any public employee over which

the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility;

to-wit; performance evaluation of Land Management Director.

Chair

7 Committee to reconvene into open session and take action on

closed session item, if required.

Chair







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, June 1, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow




Next meeting dates: June 15th

, July 6th

& 20th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Holst moved to approve the May 4, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed with Eric Sanden and Ken Snow abstaining from voting

because of absence at the last meeting.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for an Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

67A(2), for Anthony and Trudy Huppert, owners, by Eric Huppert, agent on property located in the NE

¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 6, T27N, R16W, Town of Gilman, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer

invited Tony Huppert forward: Mr. Huppert stated his wife has had two knee surgeries and two shoulder

surgeries and he has had two heart attacks and she wants this garage.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicant’s property is a corner lot at the intersection of 890th

Ave and 450th

St. Lot access is from 890th

Ave. The applicants are requesting to expand their existing garage. The existing

garage is a nonconforming structure located 27.5ft from the center line of 890th

Ave and is partially located

within the Town Road right-of-way. The applicants propose to expand to the east of the existing garage by

adding 24ft x 32ft. The applicants intend to maintain the 33 ft setback from the centerline of 890th

Avenue so

the expansion area is out of the road right-of-way. This 0.58 acres is located in Section 6, Town of Gilman. The

property is zoned General Rural. Pierce County Code (PCC)§240-27C states, “Town highways. Except as

provided in Subsection E, the required setback for all structures fronting on all town highways shall be 75 feet

from the center line of the road or 42 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater.” PCC §240-

67A(2) stated, “Additions to or extensions of nonconforming structures are permitted, provided that such

additions or extensions comply with all the provisions of this chapter or a conditional use permit is granted as

provided in §240-76.” PCC §240-76A states “Applicability. A conditional use permit shall be required for the

establishment of each use permitted as a conditional use and for an addition to or expansion of a nonconforming

structure, or expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use.” Permit renewal is not required for this

request. The existing topography is level throughout the property. The Town of Gilman recommended approval

of this request on May 11, 2016 with the suggested condition that they remove the access to the existing garage.

The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan, so it is assumed that the plan is silent on this request. The

Town recommendation is attached.


determine whether the proposed expansion would be contrary to public interest, or detrimental or injurious to

public health, safety or character of the area. If found to be not contrary to the above, staff recommends that the

LMC grant this conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall maintain the 33 ft setback from the centerline of 890th

Avenue so the garage

expansion is located out of the road right-of-way.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

2. The existing garage driveway shall be removed, per the Town of Gilman’s recommendation.

3. The applicants shall follow Pierce County Solid Waste code Ch. 201 and Wisconsin Administrative

Code NR 447 for disposal of used and unusable building materials.



moved to approve the Expansion of the Nonconforming Structure for Anthony & Trudy Huppert, due to

the fact that it is not contrary to the public interest, not detrimental or injurious to public health, public

safety or the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #4/Snow seconded. All in favor.

Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Light Industrial

Uses for a transfer station in the Commercial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

37.1A, for Redeye Express LLC, Bruce Williams and Debi Johnson, owners by David Daleiden, agent on

property located in Lot 2, Certified Survey Map (CSM), V14, P28, in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35,

T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Bruce Williams forward: Mr. Williams stated he just received a call from David Daleiden and he should be here soon.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Redeye Express LLC, a freight shipping company, has submitted a proposal to

construct a transfer station in the Town of Trenton. They would use flatbed trailers to pick up and deliver

products (e.g. electrical poles) from Thomas & Betts. The proposed development includes a truck transfer

station that has an office, storage area, enclosed truck wash, bathroom and outside parking lot. If the CUP is

approved, the transfer station will require the Land Management Committee site plan review per PCC §240-75.

An agenda item for the site plan review for this facility follows this item, in anticipation that the CUP is

approved by the LMC. The property is located in Section 35, Town of Trenton. The 3.004 acres is zoned

Commercial. PCC §240-88 defines Light Industry as “non-nuisance, low-impact industrial uses compatible with

surrounding commercial, residential or public uses which have a minimal impact on traffic, conducted indoors

and without significant noise, odor, dust and glare which do not contribute to the degradation of the land, water

and air.” Pierce County Code Table of Uses allows Light Industrial Uses in the Commercial zoning district with

the issuance of a CUP and provisions in §240-37.1A:

(1) All operations take place within buildings.

(2) Screening with natural vegetation or fencing shall be provided along property lines bordering

agricultural, rural or residential districts.

Surrounding Zoning Districts include Industrial to the east and Commercial to the south, west and north.

Surrounding land uses include agriculture to the north, east and south and commercial uses to the southwest and

west. A 56ft x 89ft building that is 19ft 4in tall is proposed to be constructed on-site and would be used for

storage and as a wash area. That building is proposed to have an attached entry that would be 30ft x 18ft and be

9ft 4in tall and would be used as an office, break room, kitchenette, restrooms and mechanical room. The

building would have a concrete walkway to access the entrance area and concrete apron by the truck entrance

and exits. A covered porch that is 10ft x 24ft x 9.75ft tall is proposed to be constructed over the outside utility

door. The applicants do not intend for customers or for the general public to visit or utilize the facility. Days of

operation are proposed to be Monday through Saturday, with hours as needed. Hours of operation are estimated

to be approximately 32 hours/week. Applicants anticipate 9 employees with 8 semi-truck drivers and 1 office

manager utilizing this facility. Access to the site is north of 170th

Avenue through a shared driveway easement.

Applicants received their Uniform Address Number (W7852 170th

Ave) on 10-15-2015. The truck wash will be

collected by a Holding Tank below the floor of the building. The bathrooms will have a separate conventional

septic system that was permitted on 4-26-2016 with sanitary permit #471102016. The Town of Trenton

recommended approval of this request on 5-10-2016 with the suggested conditions that the applicants return to

the Town Plan Commission in 2 years for renewal and that the Town be provided with a certificate for proof of

insurance for the wash water holding tank in case it would run over. The Town indicated that the use fits their

Comprehensive Plan. The Town recommendation is attached for your information. Land Management staff, as a

matter of routine, contacts the Town Chair when determining whether CUP renewal will be conducted

3

administratively or by the LMC. If concerns regarding a conditionally permitted use are identified by the Town

the renewal is by the LMC. It would be unprecedented for an applicant to be required to appear before a Town

Planning Commission and/or Town Board for renewal when no outstanding issues or concerns are present. The

LMC should consider whether a condition requiring the applicant to again appear before the Town is

appropriate.



health, public safety or character of the surrounding area. If found to not be contrary to the above, staff

recommends the LMC approve the proposed light industrial use with the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall follow all conditions and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR, Dept of Safety

and Professional Services and other agencies as required.



3. The days of operation shall be Monday through Saturday.

4. The applicant shall provide proof of insurance (dec page).

5. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require modification to this

permit or potentially, issuance of a new conditional use permit.

6. This CUP is valid for two years and may be renewed administratively unless compliance issues exist.

The owner/operator is responsible for requesting renewal.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed.

Holst stated that this is a conditionally permitted use in a correct district, why would we want to send it back to

the town. If they (the applicants) screw up, we pull the permit. Pichotta noted that when a Town makes a

recommendation regarding a conditionally permitted use. We don’t want to, as staff, simply discount their

suggestions as far as their recommended conditions. That is why we present whatever is recommended to you.

He noted that it would be unprecedented for the LMC to require a renewal be considered by a town board or

planning commission. We have never had a CUP where we sent somebody back to the Town unless there were

outstanding issues with that Town that required the Town’s input. He suggests that the LMC not place that

condition but given the fact that the Town recommended the addition of that condition, staff felt it appropriate

to present it to you. Sanden asked if the area is adjacent to an Industrial zone to the south. Lund stated yes, it’s a

Light Industrial Use in a Commercial District next to an Industrial District. Holst stated he is quite familiar with

the area, it’s not a high impact use and across the street they have another trucking company. There are similar

uses right there. Sanden moved to approve the conditional use permit for Light Industrial Uses, a

Transfer Station for Redeye Express LLC, due to the fact this is not contrary to the public interest, nor

detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area, with

conditions #1 - #6/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on Site Plan Review for a proposed Light Industrial Use, a transfer station, in the

Commercial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Redeye Express LLC, Bruce

Williams and Debi Johnson, owners, by David Daleiden, agent, on property located in Lot 2, Certified

Survey Map (CSM) V14, P28, in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton,

Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The prior CUP was approved so Pierce County Code §240-75 states that the

purpose of site plan review is to assure site designs which promote compatibility between land uses, create safe

and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to streets and transportation, protect property

values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. The property is located in Section 35 in the Town

of Trenton and is zoned Commercial. Pierce County Zoning Code §240-15 Purpose and Intent of Zoning

Districts: Commercial: This district is established to provide for retail shopping and personal service uses to be

developed either as a unit or in individual parcels to serve the needs of nearby residential neighborhoods as well

as the entire county. The purpose of the district is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for certain

commercial and other nonresidential uses while affording protection to surrounding properties from excessive

4

noise, traffic, drainage or other nuisance factors. The surrounding zoning districts, uses and the building size

were previously mentioned. The applicants received Dept of Safety & Professional Services (DSPS) building

plan approval on 4-21-16 with Transaction ID#2686531. The applicants shall work with the Town or State

Inspector to ensure compliance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Information on access to the site

and the holding tank were previously stated. The remaining portion of the lot, besides the building area, will

have recycled asphalt for parking and a grassed area. PCC does not identify a maximum percentage of

impervious surface area for this zoning district. Pierce County Code §240-54 establishes parking requirements

and stipulates that in cases where parking requirements for a use are not specifically listed, the minimum

number of parking spots shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the requirements for

similar uses. A minimum of 1 parking spot per employee present on site at a given time shall be provided. A

minimum of one parking stall shall be ADA compliant. The plans submitted demonstrate ample parking area to

fulfill this requirement. The applicants will have several parking areas. PCC §240-23 Minimum Requirements.

Developments shall meet the minimum requirements for the applicable district shown in the Table of

Dimensional Requirements. PCC 240 Attachment 2, Table of Dimensional Requirements states. Side yard (feet)

and rear yard (feet) setback in commercial zones is 10ft; 40ft from residential districts. Proposed building plans

conform to required setbacks. The applicants have security and office lighting planned for this building. It has

already been stated that they do not intend for customers or the general public to visit the facility and the hours

of operation. Applicants anticipate 9 employees with 8 semi-truck drivers and 1 office manager utilizing this

facility. No advertising or wall signs are proposed at this time. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit prior

to construction if they choose to have advertising signs in the future. The applicant proposes to begin

construction immediately after the plans are approved and permitted. They anticipate construction of the

building shell to be completed in June 2016, with the interior electrical and plumbing to be completed in July

2016 and the business to be operational by August 2016.


and determine, if any changes or modifications are necessary. The LMC should consider proposed structures,



sewer systems, as well as proposed operations.



will be completed on schedule. Staff recommends the LMC approve the proposed light industrial use in the

commercial zoning district with the following conditions:

1. Applicants shall follow all conditions and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR, Department of

Safety and Professional Services and other agencies as required.



3. Lighting shall conform to the Lighting Standards contained in the Departmental Policy regarding

Minimum Landscaping Requirements.

4. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit for any future advertising signs.

Aubart moved to approve the Site Plan Review for Light Industrial Use for a Transfer Station

construction for Redeye Express LLC with conditions #1 - #4/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on site plan review for proposed Interstate Truck Driving School, in the Commercial

District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Daniel and Cheryl Ross, owners on

property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County,

WI. Chairperson Fetzer asked if applicant is present. Applicant is not present. Holst moved to defer action

until applicant is present/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed Town of River Falls zoning code changes. Staff Report – Pichotta: The

Town of River Falls has been authorized by the County Board to exercise zoning authority within its borders.

5

Any amendment to the Town’s Zoning Ordinance requires approval by the County Board of Supervisors to be

valid. The Town has amended their ordinance primarily to conform with changes to State Statutes relating to

Farmland Preservation zoning and to cell phone transmission tower regulation. Numerous formatting changes

and multiple name changes are also proposed (e.g. special exception to conditional use). Other changes that

were previously approved by the County are presented in the proposed ordinance in a manner that makes them

appear new. This includes language outlining the “right to farm” in the Town. The Town’s Farmland

Preservation Zoning Ordinance was certified by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

(DATCP) on February 19, 2016. Certification by DATCP confirms that the zoning ordinance complies with

minimum standards established by the State for participation in the Farmland Preservation Program and is

effective for a 10 year period. The Town has historically limited the construction of new residential structures

on Class I, II or III soils, as identified on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Maps

for the Town. The Town has now adopted a process through which a landowner can submit additional

information generated by a Certified Soil Scientist to establish the presence of Class IV soils and thus qualify

for a building site. This new process has been established in the Farmland Preservation Zoning District (A-1) as

well as the Agriculture Residential District (A-2). Additional amendments are proposed to bring the Town’s

Ordinance into compliance with recent legislation which greatly limited a municipality’s ability to regulate cell

phone towers. The language proposed is modeled after Pierce County’s Ordinance and is the result of concerns

raised by the Corporation Counsel’s Office regarding language that was previously submitted. The section of

the Code dealing with Erosion Control (17.12) has been deleted and moved to another chapter (Storm Water

Management). Staff also noted that the portion of the Code dealing with Sign Regulations (17.13) appears to be

content based which does not meet current legal standards. The Town is encouraged to review and amend this

section to conform to current legal precedents. It is his thought that they would do that at a future time and that

we not slow this down. Rather than attach the entire text of Chapter 17, which is 87 pages, staff has attached the

pages which comprise the bulk of the substantive changes proposed. If a full copy of the ordinance text is

desired, staff can provide the document in paper or digital format.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC review the proposed amendments and forward a

recommendation to the Pierce County Board of Supervisors regarding proposed changes to the Town of River

Falls Zoning Ordinance.

Jerome Rodewald stated the item on the signs came as a surprise because it’s something that they use so

seldom. It’s not a big issue. As Mr. Pichotta suggested that we model after the County’s Ordinance on Signs and

we will automatically do that. His request would be that the Land Management Committee approve and pass on

to the County Board with the requirements that the Town confer with Mr. Pichotta to make the necessary

changes to 17.13 Signs.

Holst moved to approve the proposed amendments to the Town or River Falls Zoning Code and forward

to the County Board of Supervisors for consideration/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.




We will probably have Interstate Truck Driving School back.

Public hearing request for a conditional use permit for Private Outdoor Recreational Use, Dual Sports Event

which is going to occur at a bunch of different locations across the County. Holst asked if this was the race.

Lund stated it’s not a race but an on/off road trail ride.

Pichotta’s Performance Evaluation.

Motion to adjourn at 6:35pm by Snow/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: June 15th

, July 6th

& 20th


3 Approve minutes of the May 4, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for an Expansion of a Nonconforming

Structure in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for Anthony and Trudy Huppert,

owners, by Eric Huppert, agent on property located in the NE ¼ of

the NE ¼ of Section 6, T27N, R16W, Town of Gilman, Pierce

County, WI.

Lund


conditional use permit for Light Industrial Uses for a transfer

station in the Commercial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-37.1A, for Redeye Express LLC, Bruce Williams and

Debi Johnson, owners, by David Daleiden, agent on property

located in Lot 2, Certified Survey Map (CSM), V14, P28, in the

SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton,

Pierce County, WI.

Lund

6 Discuss take action on site plan review for a proposed Light

Industrial Use, a transfer station, in the Commercial District,

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Redeye

Express LLC, Bruce Williams and Debi Johnson, owners, by David

Daleiden, agent on property located in Lot 2, Certified Survey Map

(CSM), V14, P28, in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35, T25N,

R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

7 Discuss take action on site plan review for proposed Interstate

Truck Driving School, in the Commercial District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for Daniel and Cheryl Ross,

owners on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12,

T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

8 Discuss take action on proposed Town of River Falls zoning code

changes.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES-Pierce County Land Management Meeting, Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer and Jeff Holst Others: Ryan Bechel, Emily Lund, Andy Pichotta and Tracie Wold Absent: Eric Sanden and Ken Snow Chairperson Fetzer called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm in the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Set next meeting dates: May 18th, June 1st & 15th, July 6th & 20th all in 2016. Approved Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the April 20, 2016 Land Management Committee minutes/Fetzer seconded. All in favor with Holst recusing himself because of absence at the last meeting. Passed. Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for the Expansion of a Dog Kennel in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36I, for Kevin and Valerie Anderson, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 1, T27N, R16W, Town of Gilman, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report-Emily Lund: Conditional use permit for the expansion of a dog kennel. On 5-3-2006, the applicants obtained a CUP for a Farm & Home Business for a Dog Training Facility from the LMC that was renewed on 5-1-2008. The business is called “Overdale Kennel, LLC.” Training activities included agility, obedience, house manners, and dog socialization. Training classes are held indoors and agility classes are conducted in an outdoor fenced area. They built a 42’ x 64’ training facility. On 5-20-2009, the applicants received a CUP for a dog kennel and to expand the business to include dog, cat, and small animal boarding, grooming, and daycare. A small retail store was also approved for selling dog food, toys, and grooming product. Their approval included building a 32’ x 48’ boarding facility. Since there were no compliance issues, the permit was renewed administratively in January 2012, 2014, and 2016. The applicants now propose to expand their operation by building an addition for increased boarding, more outside dog runs, and hire additional staff. The property is located in Section 1, Town of Gilman. The applicants own 195.83-acres in the General Rural zoning district. Pierce County Code (PCC) § 240-88 defines ‘Kennel’ as, “any establishment wherein or whereon eight or more dogs over the age of five months are kept.” PCC Table of Uses allows ‘kennels’ in the General Rural zoning district with the issuance of a CUP and provisions that are listed 1-4. PCC § 240-36 D addresses Farm & Home Based Businesses that are listed 1-4. The applicants propose to build a 30’ x 80’ addition for boarding plus an 8’ x 24’ lean-to. The proposed addition to the boarding facility is proposed to be located 265’ from Co Rd B and over 200’ from side and rear yards. Some kennels have an outside run that can be closed at night or at times when dogs are barking. They currently have 16 existing runs that hold up to 2 dogs per run. They propose to expand up to 40 total runs. There are other outdoor fenced areas where the dogs can be exercised while under supervision. Boarding, grooming, and daycare are open for customers from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. In 2010, a mound septic system was installed to collect wastewater from washing dogs, facility clean-up, and a public bathroom that is available to all customers. Driveway access is off of County Road B. Pierce County Code § 240-54 does not specify parking requirements for this type of

PIERCE COUNTY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF LAND MANAGEMENT & RECORDS

Pierce County Courthouse

P.O. Box 647, 414 W. Main St, Ellsworth, WI 54011

Planning Office 715-273-6746

Zoning Office 715-273-6747

Fax 715-273-6864

2

operation. There are several off-street parking spaces available. They employ 3 people and plan to hire additional help. The Gilman Town Board recommended approval of this request on 4-13-2016 without identifying any specific conditions. The existing conditions for the Farm & Home Business & Kennel are listed 1-8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Land Management Committee determine whether the proposed use at the proposed location would be contrary to the public interest and whether it would be detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety, or the character of the surrounding area. If found to be not contrary to the above, staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for an expansion of a dog kennel with the following conditions:

1. Any buildings or advertising signs shall comply with the zoning code standards and obtain any necessary permits.

2. One off street parking space shall be provided per dog that is being trained each session. 3. This conditional use permit shall be renewed again in 2 years. Permit may be renewed administratively

if no compliance issues exist. 4. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require modification to this

conditional use permit. 5. Classes shall be conducted during the hours of 5 PM – 9 PM Monday through Friday, 8 AM – 9 PM

Saturdays, Noon – 9 PM Sundays. Boarding, grooming, daycare, and sales shall be open to customers from 6 AM – 9 PM, seven days a week.

6. There shall be no more than 8 employees who do not reside onsite. 7. There shall be no more than 2 dogs per enclosure unit. 8) All dogs shall be housed indoors during the

hours 9 PM to 6 AM. Chairperson Fetzer asked Ms Anderson for any comments. Valerie Anderson stated she just hopes the committee approves it. She feels it is pretty comprehensive. Things are going well. She noted that neighbor, Marie Cabulla, came over to the Andersons’ and stated that she could not make the meeting but wanted the committee to know she has no problem with it and they have been good neighbors. They work really hard at keeping the dogs quiet. Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Holst stated that is probably the most comprehensive drawing of any CUP application they have ever had that hasn’t come from an engineer. Fetzer stated he has housed his dog with them a few times and he feels they keep a very nice place and clean. He has housed his dog other places and she comes home very happy from here. She is happy when she arrives there, not so much at the other places. So obviously you guys do a nice job. Finding that this request is not detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area, Holst moves to approve the request with conditions 1-8/Aubart Second. All in favor. Passed. Discuss take action on proposed survey/questionnaire for use in comprehensive planning process. Staff Report-Ryan Bechel: The public Participation Plan for the Comprehensive plan update was discussed at the April 1, 2015 Land Management Committee meeting. The LMC directed staff to develop an online survey instrument accessed by a link on the County web site, with the details of the survey to be brought before the committee for discussion and approval prior to launch. Staff has commenced development of the survey. The goal is to gather as much information as possible to develop an understanding of how community attitudes have changed since the initial plan’s adoption. This survey is designed to capture a snapshot of community attitudes concerning planning, development, and citizen-government interactions. Additionally, staff hopes survey data will help to identify and prioritize implementation strategies to be used in the final element of the comprehensive plan update. For the plan update, staff is proposing an efficient, economical, user-targeted questionnaire delivered via an online format versus a mailed paper survey. Information Services (IS) has an online survey instrument that can be used on the website. Staff is proposing to implement a “targeted”

3

survey format that divides participants into 3 main cohorts (Residents, Non-resident Landowners, and Small Business Owners). This method allows survey questions to be tailored to each specific cohort, in addition to a general question set that would be provided to all participants. The attached “Survey Matrix” provides an illustration of the proposed survey format. Survey responses will be electronically catalogued according to each cohort. Completed surveys will be submitted to the online database anonymously. No personal data (name, address, etc.) will be requested within the questionnaire. Participants will be asked approximately 12-16 questions depending on their selected cohort, with an estimated 5 to 10 minutes required to complete the survey. Questions for elected officials will be developed to gain insight on process concerns and relationships between the County and Towns. Staff is anticipating a lower survey response rate in comparison with the extensive survey conducted in 2009. Public access to the survey will be available through a website address. The web address will also be provided as a link on the Pierce County Land Management’s main web page. Notice of the survey will be provided in the Pierce County Herald and on the Pierce County Land Management web page. Notices will also be mailed to towns and municipalities with instructions for accessing and completing the survey. The survey is proposed to be active for a period of 6 weeks to allow ample time for public participation. Staff does not want the survey to be used as a forum on land use issues where respondents can inundate the survey with specific land use issues that concern them. Another option for dissemination is for a more targeted survey. Postcards could be sent to a certain number of residents in each town or census tract with information which would provide the individuals access to the online survey. This option would require additional time and costs but may provide a better result. Staff has had discussions with Information Services about this option. They are looking into it to determine its feasibility. Pichotta stated that the committee has a draft of the survey questions in their folders. Some of them are a replication of questions that were asked in the original community attitude survey that was done in 2006-2007, but a few of them are not. The ones that are redundant, we probably don’t need to go through a lot of discussion but, we will work our way through them and if you have any thoughts or comments, please just speak up. Bechel read through each question. Q: What is their most prominent roll; it either being resident, non-resident land owner or small business owner? Pichotta stated depending on how you answer that, it will kick you into different questions. Not everybody will get the same exact questions. If you identify as a resident and not an elected official, you won’t get some of the questions that you would have gotten if you were an official whether it be County Board, Town Board, etc. Bechel stated the second question is asking you whether you are an elected official. Your answer there will prompt you into a set of questions for elected officials at the end as well. The common question set is what everybody, regardless of what role in the community they play, will see. The first one is looking at where your residence is located. The next two ask about how you would rate the current efforts by the Town or Pierce County as it relates to regulation and guidance for development. Q: What type of additional land use regulations would you support? They can choose from a list. Q: What is your opinion of expanding developing additional areas for commercial, industrial and retail use? That is also replication from the 2009 survey. Q: Do you feel there is need for more types of listed establishments? Q: Have you interacted with Pierce County Land Management Department in the last two years? Q: Which of the following would you feel would most improve your experience with Pierce County Land Management? They have a couple of different options; things they feel that may or may not improve their experience with the Department. Q: The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan is a long term (20 year) guidance document designed to capture the vision for the future held by the Pierce County community. Q: Which of the following statements do you feel share your vision for Pierce Counties future? There are a couple different options that are based off of the current county wide vision that has been gone over earlier for the Comprehensive Plan. Q: Looking at broadening the regulations in the Ag. district concerning agri-business, agri-tourism and nature based operations and whether they should be relaxed further. They are currently adequate or they should be reeled in a bit, so to speak. The next section would look at Residents and Residents/Public Officials. The question set is just asking what they think is most desirable about Pierce County and what is least desirable.

4

The next section is the question set for Non-resident Landowners & Non-Resident Public Officials asking what the principle use of their land is currently followed by what their long term intentions are for that land. The next question set is for Small Business owners asking them what their business is categorized as and looking at what their opinion is of the current business climate in Pierce County. Whether they think it is favorable or unfavorable or otherwise. Q: What do you think of the permitting fees, time lines, inspections proceeds in comparison with maybe state or federal or town/municipality procedures and whether you think they are more burdensome, less burdensome or about the same. Q: Pierce County has sought in both towns in conditionally permitted uses by requiring conditional use permit applicants to solicit a Town Recommendation concerning a proposed use. In your experience, how has this requirement shaped your view of the conditional use permitting process? We are hoping to get a feel from their responses there whether or not they find that process to be helpful, hindrance or maybe no effect. Q: What do you find most and least desirable about having a business in Pierce County. Elected Official General Question set: Q: Are you familiar with the County Comprehensive Plan and your Town’s Comprehensive Plan, if they have one. Q: Through the Comprehensive Plan, Pierce County has established a process through which a town can further the goals and objectives of their adoptive comprehensive plan. When considering the establishment of conditionally permitted uses, how would you characterize your understanding of how this mechanism functions? There are a range of options detailing their understanding of the legal concept associated with that mechanism. Q: As a town elected official, how often do they consult their comprehensive plan when looking at conditional use permits and rezones. Q: Has your town adopted a subdivision ordinances, mining ordinances, animal control ordinances, etc.? The final question is just a write in response opportunity looking for ideas about future intergovernmental cooperation opportunities. Fetzer asked if this was just kind of a re-do? Pichotta stated in a sense yes, some of the questions are redundant in that they were asked almost a decade ago. We will see if there has been a change in those and tell folks what they would like to see as far as business and other opportunities in the county. The other goal is to hopefully gain some insight into allow us to better identify implementation steps for the next five years of the comp. plan. We have tweaked the rules and regulations relating to entrepreneurial activates out in the agricultural districts. Do we need to do more? We hope to get a sense of that. Also, questions about comp. plans, we are trying to figure out if we need to do some focused educational opportunities with some of these towns, because the reality is no body has really used that mechanism as of yet, and he is not sure that many folks understand it. So if we find that most of the elected officials don’t quite understand that, that will make it quite clear that we need to do something. Fetzer asked how much use has this gotten on there before/how many people will go in and actually fill out this whole thing. Pichotta stated that will remain to be seen. The last time they did a survey where basically every household in the unincorporated area of the County got a copy of it - had a response of 43%. Rudd and Associates, who we worked with on the comp plan, said the previous survey was the highest response rate he had seen for a survey that he had been involved in. We have no illusions, this isn’t going to be a statistically valid sort of a thing, we are just hoping to get a sense of where folks are at now and what we can do better or what changes we should be pursing in the next five years. Aubart asked how we are going to advertise/promote it. Pichotta stated we are going to do a press release and put it in the Herald and we will also send out post cards or something to the Towns to encourage them and their members to fill it out. It will also be on the website. There will be something prominent out there so if someone just happens upon it, they can fill it out. If the committee is comfortable with the approach, that is what we will do. We will use these questions; they may get tweaked a little bit more, but probably not much. If you are comfortable with what is proposed, we will move ahead with it. Aubart made a motion to approve and move ahead with the Comprehensive Plan update process/survey/Holst second. All in favor. Passed. Discuss take action on Travel/Training requests. Pichotta stated he has no travel/training requests for consideration tonight.

5

Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items: Pichotta stated there are no CUP renewals and no pending applications. Given this we will not have a May 18, 2016 meeting.

Motion to adjourn at 6:27pm by Holst/Aubart second. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: May 18th

, June 1st & 15

th, July 6

th & 20

th, all in

2016.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the April 20, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for the Expansion of a Dog Kennel in the

General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter

240-36I, for Kevin and Valerie Anderson, owners on property

located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 1, T27N, R16W,

Town of Gilman, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on proposed survey/questionnaire for use in

comprehensive planning process.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, April 20, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jon Aubart, Eric Sanden and Ken Snow

Absent: Jeff Holst

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung



Chairperson Fetzer stated the first order of business is to elect a Temporary Chair: Aubart nominated Joe

Fetzer for Temporary Chair, Chairperson Fetzer asked for any other nominations. Snow moved to close

nominations and cast a unanimous ballot/Chairperson Fetzer stated so moved.

Temporary Chairperson Fetzer opened the floor for nominations for election of Committee Chairperson. Aubart nominated Joe Fetzer. Temporary Chairperson Fetzer asked for any other nominations. Aubart moved to

close nominations and cast a unanimous ballot/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the floor for nominations for election of Committee Vice Chairperson. Aubart

nominated Jeff Holst for Vice Chairperson. Chairperson Fetzer asked for any other nominations. Aubart moved

to close nominations and cast a unanimous ballot/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Next meeting dates: May 4th

& 18th

, June 1st & 15

th, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the April 6, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed with Ken Snow abstaining from voting because of absence

at the last meeting.

Discuss take action on a status report for a conditional use permit for a Utility Facility>1000 Square Feet

(Load-Out Facility) in the Industrial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-41F for

William F Holst III, owner on property located in most of the NE ¼ of Section 33 and part of the NW ¼

of Section 34 and part of the SE ¼ of Section 28, all in T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited William Holst forward: William Holst stated he didn’t have anything to add

at this time.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: In 2013, the applicant received a Conditional Use Permit for a Load-out Facility in

the Town of Trenton. The proposed facility may potentially be used to load such materials as sand, gravel, corn

and oil and may eventually require structural improvements. A rail spur is intended to be constructed and

connect with the BNSF railroad. No finalized plans have been presented to staff. The CUP was issued for a

conceptual plan and allows for nonstructural use of the rail spur and the adjacent 150’. Any future construction,

structural uses, or use of additional land area will require the issuance of a new Conditional Use Permit. A

status report for this permit was presented to the LMC in April 2014 and it was determined that the applicant

had commenced action on the project within 12 months as required by code. The CUP was renewed in April,

2015. This site currently has a 130 acre sand and gravel mining operation as well as a small Ready-Mix plant. A

CUP was also issued to Wisconsin Industrial Sand for a Sand Processing and Rail Load-out Facility. All the

property is zoned Industrial. In 2014 the applicant purchased an adjoining 25 acres from the Pierce County

Highway Dept that was necessary for the development of a load-out facility. The applicant submitted a new

nonmetallic mining reclamation plan detailing that the future use of the site will be industrial uses. Within the

last year site work has begun including the removal of topsoil, filling and grading for the rail line, tree removal





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

and construction of a new road. Anticipated work includes stockpile removal, continued filling and grading and

continuing work with the BNSF railroad. Pursuant to 240-76I Demonstrable progress must continue to be made

to establish the authorized use. If these actions cease for 12 months the permit shall terminate. The applicant is

encouraged to document efforts and to provide details annually to the Zoning Office. The existing conditions

are:

1. The applicant is authorized to utilize an area adjacent to the proposed rail spur (150’ on each side) for

nonstructural use as a load out facility. Any substantial change to the alignment of the rail spur shall

require LMC review and approval. Any expansion of the use or the site shall be subject to issuance of a


2. This CUP shall expire in 2 years with a 1 year status report to the LMC.

3. Applicant shall secure all necessary permits and approval from other agencies such as the WDNR,

WisDOT, etc.

4. Prior to any nonstructural use of the site as a load-out facility, applicant shall submit for LMC review

and approval information relating to type quantity of materials to be shipped, frequency and type of

traffic, a traffic impact analysis, a site plan and any other information deemed necessary by the Zoning

Administrator.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the information and

determine if any modification will be necessary at a future meeting.

Mr. Holst explained they put a lot of fill back in the area that was low. They bought 28 acres from the County.

Also, one of the conditions was to build that berm on the other highway. We spent about $80,000 building that

berm and then we spent another $30,000 putting trees in down there. Pichotta stated it was actually a condition

of a different CUP. Mr. Holst, it was all brought up at the same time but that has been done. There has been

some overgrowth of small trees. They have taken them out and piled for burning after they dry. They are

currently filling and packing areas there. They have had probably six meetings with BNSF but they move really

slow. Pichotta noted that we have a couple of representatives from the Town of Trenton here. Perhaps they

would like to comment. Brian Berg, Trenton Town Chairperson, stated he thought a conditional use permit

renewal would have to come before the Township. Pichotta noted that this isn’t a CUP renewal. The agenda

item is a status report. With a status report the applicant comes in front of the committee describes the activities

that have taken place to establish this use. This is basically for a conceptual use. CUP renewals don’t come

through your Planning Commission and your Town Board as they do when a CUP is actually considered for

issuance where a Town recommendation is requested and required at the time of application. For renewal the

Town Chair is contacted and asked if there are any issues or concerns that the Town has. That is how we solicit

input. It doesn’t require that it go through the process that was required to establish the CUP in the first place.

Barry Barringer, asked on a conditional use permit what period of time is it issued for. Pichotta stated condition

#2 states that this CUP shall expire in two years with a one year status report to the LMC. Mr. Barringer asked

from this day forward? Roy stated expiration is in one year, this is the one year status report. Pichotta noted that

the previous Town Chairperson was contacted regarding the CUP and the renewal took place in early April and

that Mr. Berg had taken office in late April. Mr. Berg stated he understands and just wanted some clarification.

Sanden asked if this requires a motion. Pichotta stated it’s a status report so doesn’t require formal approval.

Discuss take action on Site Plan Review for proposed addition to an existing building in the Industrial

District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-75 for William F Holst III, (River City Metal),

owner, by Tom Geistfeld, Sunnyside Erecting, agent, on property located in Lot 1, Certified Survey Map

(CSM) V12, P118, being a part of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 2, T25N, R19W, Town of Diamond

Bluff, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct an addition to an existing

building to be utilized for industrial use. River City Metal is a salvage yard that has operated at its current

location since 1965. Site operations include the purchase and sale of equipment, auto parts, vehicles and all

types of used metal and recycled appliances as well as crushing, baling and smelting of recycled materials

associated with the scrap and recycling business. The proposed building addition is requested to provide space

3

for the applicant to locate their on-site smelting equipment indoors to improve operational efficiency. On

November 5th

, 2008, a conditional use permit (CUP) was obtained to allow for the expansion of this preexisting

non-conforming use. The CUP stipulated that future building expansions receive site plan approval by the

Pierce County Land Management Committee. Pierce County Code 240-75 requires site plan review for

industrial structures, the purpose of which is to assure site designs that promote compatibility between land

uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to streets and transportation,

protect property values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. The “proposed” addition discussed

in this staff report has already been constructed without benefit of a Land Use Permit or Site Plan Review. The

Land Management Department’s Fee Schedule establishes a penalty of 4 times the original permit fee for the

issuance of after-the-fact permits. Staff will apply this penalty when issuing the Land Use Permit. The 14.5 acre

property consists of two parcels located in the Town of Diamond Bluff. The entire property is in an Industrial

Zoning District. Pierce County Code §240-15 Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts: Industrial: This district is

established for the purpose of allowing those industrial uses that are more intensive than those allowed in the

Light Industrial District. The purpose of the district is to accommodate a heavy volume of traffic, the potential

need for rail access to parcels and the presence of noise and other factors which could pose a nuisance in other

districts. The intensity and use of land as permitted in this district is intended to facilitate the total range of

industrial uses.

Salvage Yard is defined in Pierce County Code §240-88 as “any land where waste or scrap materials, including,

but not limited to scrap iron and other metals, paper, rags, glass and inoperable vehicles or appliances, are either

bought, sold, exchanged, baled, packed, disassembled or hauled for compensation.”

The property is bordered primarily by agricultural land. Two residences exist nearby to the east and south of the

property. Adjacent zoning districts include Industrial to the north and west; Agriculture Residential to the east

and south. The applicant has proposed to construct a 15’ x 60’ addition to the west end of an existing 60’ x 80’

building utilized for parts storage. The proposed addition measures 20’5” in height. The existing 60’ x 80’

structure received LMC site plan approval on April 21, 2010. The addition will have concrete floors, steel

siding and finishings that mirror those of the existing structure. Overhead doors will be located on each of the 3

exterior sides of the addition to provide access. Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS)

approval is required for this structure. The Land Management Department has not yet received approval

documentation from DSPS for this addition. The proposed addition will adhere to all applicable setbacks

including; setback to State Highway 35 (110 feet), existing buildings (10 feet), front/rear yard line (10 feet),

septic tank (5 feet) and well (8 feet). Driveway access to the property is located off of State Hwy 35 on the

eastern edge of the property. No additional exterior lighting is proposed for the addition as it is anticipated that

existing exterior lighting will be sufficient. The applicant is not proposing any additional signage. No additional

traffic is anticipated as a result of this building addition. No additional water or sewer provisions have been

proposed. No additional solid waste is anticipated to be generated with this addition. A screening plan was

approved for the site as a condition of the CUP approval in 2008. The proposed addition is in the rear of the lot

behind existing buildings; therefore, visual impacts to the surrounding properties are anticipated to be minimal.

River City Metal employs approximately 25 full-time employees year-round. Pierce County Code §240-54

requires a minimum of one parking space per employee plus one handicap space and two customer spaces for a

minimum of 28 parking spaces required for the facility. The plans submitted demonstrate a parking area which

fulfills this requirement. Upon completion of the site plan review the applicant will obtain a Land Use Permit as

outlined in Pierce County Code §240-73(1)A. Given that the structure was constructed prior to a Land Use

Permit being issued, the after-the-fact permit fee will be imposed.


and determine if any changes or modifications are necessary. The LMC should consider proposed structures,



sewer systems, as well as proposed operations.

4




1. The applicant shall obtain DSPS approval for the addition and provide documentation to the Land

Management Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a land use permit.

2. The applicant shall obtain a land use permit from the Land Management Department. The after-the-fact

fee shall apply.

Sanden asked about the recommendation, the first line of the second paragraph. Is that a standard consideration?

Completion of buildings, parking areas, open space uses, drainage and so on, as far as he can tell that has all

been done. Pichotta stated that is standard language for site plan review. Chairperson Fetzer asked Bill if he will

have any more employees. Mr. Holst stated no. Tom Geistfeld, Sunnyside Erecting, stated he was the contractor

involved with this project. When they first got it designed by their engineer and stamped, there was a

communication gap there that anything over 25,000 cubic feet had to be sent down to Dept of Commerce for

review. Because this was not over 25,000 cubic feet, we only had these engineered plans drawn up. He came to

the County to pick up the land use permit for that building and also an agriculture building that is on another

piece of property, at the same time. When he was there to pick up the permits he was told that the ruling is you

take the initial cubic footage of the original building and factor that in to the extension of the 800 square foot

building. Therefore it had to get sent down to the Department of Commerce. He called his engineers at that time

and had it sent down there and it is set for review on May 8th

. May 8th

they will be receiving a letter back. He is

taking full responsibility for this. His son’s crew started working on the wrong building, they thought they had

the permit for the River City Metal and not the ag building which he had pulled a permit for. By the time they

realized it, the building isn’t completely done. So he apologizes for this and he doesn’t normally put buildings

up without permits. They are looking to get the CUP tonight, contingent upon the letter from the State and they

will hold off completely finishing the building until that time. Mr. Holst stated he thought they had a permit.

The cement slab was already there. He had a 53 foot trailer sitting on it so they took the trailer out and was

going to put a roof on over it to make it look better. Didn’t realize it was such a big deal as it’s turning out to be.

Sanden asked what would be the timeline for completion once you get that. Mr. Geistfeld stated May 8th

, he

doesn’t want to pursue finishing the building until they get the letter on May 8th

. At that time Bill Holst will get

a letter, he will get a letter and they will also send one to the zoning administration that it has been approved by

the Department of Commerce. Sanden asked how much long it will take before the building is completed. Mr.

Geistfeld stated three, four days, maybe a week. Sanden moved to approve the site plan review for a

proposed addition to an existing building in the Industrial District for William F. Holst III (River City

Metal) with conditions #1 - #2/Aubart seconded. Sanden asked if the after the fact fee was mandatory.

Pichotta stated the committee could waive it if you were so inclined. Mr. Holst explained they weren’t trying to

pull anything over on anybody. Sanden stated he can’t recall them ever not getting proper permitting in the past.

Is this the first time you can recall this being an issue? Pichotta stated that this was the first time it has been an

issue. Sanden moved to waive the extra fee/Snow seconded. Aubart asked if we are amending the original

motion? Chairperson Fetzer asked if we should throw that in with the original motion. Aubart stated we have

two motions on the floor otherwise. Pichotta suggested amending the original motion. Sanden restated his

original motion; Sanden moved to approve the Site Plan Review for William F Holst III (River City

Metal) with conditions #1 - #2, waiving the after-the-fact fee/Snow seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed amendments to the Shoreland Zoning Code, NR115. Staff Report –

Emily Lund: In 1968, Wisconsin lawmakers created minimum shoreland standards that required counties to

regulate the use of property within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage and 300 feet of a stream or river. In

2010, the rule was amended allowing counties to be more restrictive than state standards regarding impervious

surface standards, vegetation removal and nonconforming structure maintenance and improvements. In 2013,

Act 170 was passed because the 2010 changes were said to be overly restrictive, different from County to

County and created hardships for new development. In 2015, Wisconsin lawmakers passed Act 55 making

shoreland rules uniform throughout the state and mandated all counties to have the minimum standards adopted

5

by 10-1-2016. Lawmakers continue to make more changes to the shoreland rules. The State recently adopted

Act 167 on 2-29-16. Assembly Bill 582 has been enrolled for adoption (i.e. sent to the Governor but not signed

yet). With the rule being in a constant state of change since 2010, the counties adoption deadline of 10-1-2016

did not change. Department staff is trying to stay ahead of the rule changes, so we do not make multiple trips

before the County Board. But with the continued modifications, there may not be any other option. Shoreland

standards still apply to the use of property within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond flowage and 300 feet of a stream or

river. Shoreland zoning ordinances do not apply to lands adjacent to artificially constructed drainage ditches,

ponds or stormwater retention basins that are not hydrologically connected to a natural navigable water body.

DNR may not issue an opinion on whether or not a variance should be granted or denied without the request of

the Board of Adjustment (by letter or spoken in the minutes). The DNR also cannot appeal a BOA shoreland

decision.

Mandates:

The required shoreland regulation include the following categories:

□ General Provisions / Areas Regulated.

□ Shoreland-Wetland District.

□ Land Division Review & Sanitary Regulation.

□ Minimum Lot Size

□ Building Setbacks

□ Vegetation

□ Filling, Grading, Lagooning, Dredging, Ditching & Excavating

□ Impervious Surfaces

□ Height

□ Nonconforming Uses & Structures

□ Mitigation

□ Administrative Provisions

□ Definitions

The mandated changes include the following:

□ Counties are prevented from adopting more restrictive regulations than state standards.

□ Counties are prohibited from requiring previously developed land to establish a vegetative buffer or

expansion of an existing vegetative buffer.

□ Counties are required to allow viewing access corridors 35’ for every 100’ and allowed to run

contiguously rather than separated by a certain distance.

□ Counties are required to implement Impervious Surfaces standards. The standard for Pierce County is,

“Construction, reconstruction, expansion, replacement, relocation of any impervious surface on parcels

located entirely within 300 ft of OHWM; 0-15% allowed; 15-30% allowed with Mitigation; >30% not

allowed.”

□ Impervious surface standards shall take into consideration systems or discharges that allow infiltration

into the soil.

□ Counties are required to develop mitigation standards for certain types of new development.

□ Provide a reduced setback requirement for principal structures by setback averaging.

□ Cannot prohibit or regulate outdoor lighting.

□ Cannot prohibit or regulate, or impose fees for maintenance, repair, or replacement of nonconforming

structures that do not increase the size of the footprint.

□ Cannot prohibit lateral expansions up to 200 square feet of nonconforming principal structures that are

at least 35’ from the OHWM, over the lifetime of the structure.

□ Cannot prohibit or regulate, or impose fees for vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, unless

vertical expansion is above 35 feet above grade.

6

□ Cannot prohibit the relocation of nonconforming principal structures if certain standards are met.

□ Cannot require inspections or improvements at the time of selling a property.

Provide a rezoning process for lands inaccurately mapped as a wetland in the Shoreland-Wetland

District.

Wisconsin DNR drafted a model ordinance that contains the minimum regulations that the County may adopt.

Staff is reviewing that document and its consistency with NR 115. Staffs goal is to create a document that meets

the minimum standards of NR 115 but is practical for shoreland property owners in Pierce County. Pierce

County does not have lakes with highly developed shorelines. The shoreland area is limited to 300’ from

navigable streams and rivers. Typical lot sizes and densities of properties in the shoreland area within Pierce

County do not create the potential for impacts on water resources that other counties generally may have. The

WI DNR has provided some policy options not restricted by NR 115 that counties can choose to adopt and

implement. For example the DNR provided additional regulation options for vegetation, filling & grading,

impervious surfaces and mitigation. Staff believes that the requirements of NR 115, in most cases provide

suitable regulations for Pierce County.

Options for the LMC consideration

□ Vegetation. Vegetation removal is restricted within the first 35’ from the OHWM. NR 115 does not limit

vegetation removal beyond this initial 35’. The DNR has provided an option for Counties to require standards

for vegetation removal beyond the initial 35’. Should staff pursue this option?

□ Filling & Grading. Currently, Filling and Grading in the Shoreland Area may require a CUP based on slopes

and the amount of disturbance.

Staff believes that it would be beneficial to maintain the permit requirements currently utilized but suggests that

approval through issuance of a Land Use Permit versus a Conditional Use Permit may be more appropriate

given that the feasibility of a proposed activity would typically be determined through a review of detailed

plans. Staff would utilize the Land Conservation Department to aid in the review. Additional language will be

included to guide staff and the property owner as to what is expected in the application and review process, and

when it is required. Staff is also proposing to exempt Land Conservation Department projects that were

approved by the WI DNR (e.g. rip-rap projects, swales, detention ponds, etc.) from permitting requirements.

This approach is different from the options presented by the DNR, but staff believes it would comply with NR

115 and would like to further explore the option.

Pichotta suggested that the committee tackle a couple of these issues before we get to the end of the document.

As far as vegetation, we are going to have regulations regarding that 35 feet from the edge of the water. The

DNR has given us the option to regulate clearing beyond that 35 feet which is something that we don’t currently

do. It is staff’s assessment that we probably want to limit our prevue to that 35 feet buffer strip along the

shoreland. Does the committee agree with that perspective or do you think there would be some benefit to

regulating vegetation and vegetation removal in that area beyond 35 feet from the edge of the water. Sanden

said it seems like there is limited area 300 feet that would be affected by that. Can you give me the nature of

what the terrain of that 300 feet; are we talking about very steep areas that go directly into the water or is it

relatively flat? Pichotta stated it’s going to vary. Some of our navigable water is creeks running through coulees

where it’s very steep and you can’t get anywhere close to the water. We have some situations even along the

Trimbelle or the Rush where there are some flat areas and some houses in proximity to those and in other cases

we’ve got the backwaters of the Mississippi River where the development pattern is a little different there. We

don’t really have, when folks think of shoreland areas, you think of some of the lakes country where you’ve got

very small lots with cabins but we don’t really have that. Historically, the way this committee has thought about

things, is probably limit our review and our regulation of that area, basically the strip that provides protection to

the navigable water. Sanden asked what Andy’s professional opinion if we were to grant ourselves extended

jurisdiction beyond that 35 feet, discipline ourselves to only use it in times where we have extreme coulee

situations. Would you be comfortable with that or do you think that would be too onerous or the land owner

wouldn’t know if you were going to apply it or not. Pichotta stated in cases where you disturb steep slopes,

arguably we already have some regulations that kick in when you are in excess of 20% slopes. Sanden asked if

he could describe the mechanisms. Pichotta deferred to Brad Roy. Roy stated this is looking at the vegetation

7

removal. If someone were to construct on steep slopes there are many mechanisms in place to work with that. If

someone were trying to extend their yard down a steep slope, he didn’t know what we would have but you

would also have common sense. If it’s really steep, no one is going to be clearing too much and trying to get

grass to grow. Pichotta stated the vegetation removal requirement is largely when you think of folks trying to

create view sheds for themselves so they can see to the water. In most cases, we see this kind of thing along the

St Croix River where folks want to increase their ability to see the river because that’s actually worth money. In

a shoreland setting, folks have cabins and there is a strip of woods between them and the water. In some cases,

someone will purchase a cabin and decide they want to have a much better view and they will seek to clear that

out and that’s what this vegetation removal requirement has mostly to do with. Sanden asked if the County or

the DNR have any after-the-fact mechanism whereas if something does go wrong and excessive erosion is

determined where we can go in after-the-fact and say now you have to put in some kind of control device

because it’s causing degradation of the water. Pichotta said we are kind of delving in on filling and grading now

too because those are the situations that are going to be more likely to create erosion issues. When we’re talking

vegetation removal, typically you are talking tree cutting, often Buckthorn, that sort of thing. Snow asked about

the situation of pasture land. A lot of streams are running right through pastures and you have all of that

vegetation is removed. Let’s say a farmer wants to create a pasture on his property where the Rush River runs

through. Roy stated there would be the vegetation removal within the 35 if we want to do more, he isn’t aware

of any exemption that a farmer would have for that. Snow stated what little he knows about this, he believes the

35 feet is sufficient. It’s primarily for erosion and wild fish habitat basically. Lund stated being a farmer, you

probably own more than 100 feet of land. If it has to be right along the river, you can have it going

contiguously. If you own 200 feet, you can have 70 feet together if you want that access to the water. Snow

stated he knows currently there are a lot of farms in Pierce County where the river runs right through their

pasture. Lund stated we are talking about vegetation removal, viewing corridor and access along the rivers and

streams. Before we had 30 feet to 100 feet and now they have opened it up to 35 feet view corridor for every

100 feet. Sanden asked what that means, up to 35 feet for every 100 feet they can remove the vegetation. Lund

stated yes, perpendicular to the shoreline. Pichotta stated it used to be that you had to do 35 feet then leave

some, now you can do 35 feet, 35 feet and then leave it, creating a 70 foot viewing corridor. Sanden asked if

we’ve had any experience with 35 foot buffers not being adequate? Pichotta said when you see that it’s typically

because there is no buffer at all. Usually a 35 foot buffer is plenty adequate. Lund stated the good thing in

Pierce County is that we don’t have a lot of lakes so we don’t have to worry about that 1,000 foot but then our

rivers are more protected with the Floodplain. If you picture the way our code is set up, the zoning code is the

base, then the shoreland is an overlay and so is floodplain. Floodplain is more restrictive and there is less you

can do in the floodplain so you are kind of being pushed back a bit. Right now we are just talking about if you

have property within 300 feet of that stream, can you cut some trees down to see it or walk down to the river.

That is what this one is about and then building on slopes that are access, that is kind of under the filling and

grading like Andy mentioned. Sanden stated so there are other mechanisms. Pichotta noted that the committee

will get a couple kicks at this. What we are seeking right now is some general guidance on how we should

approach it. He thinks what he is hearing is 35 feet is probably adequate. Snow stated we don’t have any

developed lakes in our County and rivers are a whole new set of rules with the floodplain. Sanden stated the one

lake, Nugget Lake, has a park around it. Snow stated but it is fully undeveloped. That would be the lake where

you talk about coming straight down. Lund stated we are just asking for guidelines on the options because the

DNR wrote the minimum and said here, if you want to add more options like increasing from 35 to 300 feet.

Sanden stated he would want to if it were an extreme situation but not as a general rule. He doesn’t know if we

can put that kind of nuance in there and discipline ourselves in the future not to try to use the full 300 feet

buffer. Pichotta stated a lot of this isn’t going to be committee action in most cases so the standard will apply to

all. Chairperson Fetzer said he is good on the 35 foot and if you are getting into the rivers and the floodplain

everything pushing out, we should have that covered. Sanden agreed. Pichotta stated it seems as if the

committee wants to move forward with the 35 feet and also keep in mind Dr. Sanden’s concerns. Then as far as

filling and grading, there were a couple of pieces to this. Currently when someone conducts filling and grading

in the shoreland area, it requires a CUP by you folks. The reality is conditional use permits are issued for uses

8

that are unique enough where the impacts of them can’t really be gauged because they are site specific and

because of that it requires consideration by the committee as to what specific conditions are necessary to

mitigate potential negative impacts to adjoining properties. The issuance of a CUP for filling and grading gives

the committee the ability to require something additional or modify plans but typically when we present

requests for filling and grading to the committee it’s an engineered plan and it’s done with best management

practices and typically if someone is going to sign and stamp it, there’s not really a lot of need to second guess.

What we are proposing is to pursue allowing those sorts of activities through a land use permit given that the

review is largely technical versus a judgment call by the part of the committee as to what sorts of conditions are

necessary to address concerns from neighboring property owners. In most cases there aren’t those sorts of

concerns. So it seems more reasonable to permit those sorts of things than over-the-counter land use permit and

solicit input from the Land Conservation Department to ensure that what is being proposed is appropriate. Snow

stated that, belonging to all the sportsman’s clubs that he does, they are always stream rehab projects going on

where they are riprapping banks, they are putting in fish structures. Is that going to be something that we would

have to come to the County and get a conditional use permit? Pichotta stated if it’s below the OHWM it’s

already out of our jurisdiction. In cases where riprap extends above the OHWM, technically that is supposed to

get a conditional use permit. That is the current regulations and what we are proposing is to not require a CUP,

to make it an administrative function. Snow stated as long as there is DNR approval, engineered plans. Pichotta

stated exactly and then for projects that are being done under the tutelage of Land Conservation folks, we

proposing to not require a permit at all. Sanden stated definitely less work for us. Will it be more work for the

Land Conservation Department? Pichotta explained it will be the same but what we will be doing is relying on

their expertise, if they are comfortable with it, then we’re comfortable with it. Snow said they are the experts.

Lund stated usually the DNR checks their work too so it’s another layer on it. Snow asked if the DNR has the

enforcement power over that if there was a violation. If somebody goes and ripraps a public stream, isn’t that a

DNR issue. Pichotta stated typically, below the OHWM for sure. Snow stated he remembers years ago down at

Everett’s Resort there was someone who pushed sand out into the river, making some new land. He thinks he

was taken away in handcuffs. Pichotta explained on the last piece that our proposals are a bit different than the

options presented by the DNR, but we think it would comply with NR 115 and we would like to pursue that

approach with filling and grading that is to allow it through a land use permit and to exempt certain things that

Land Conservation is involved in. Sanden stated it makes sense to him.

□ Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces were runoff is collected and appropriately discharged are exempted

from the impervious surface standards. The DNR has provided an option to qualify for an exemption which

would require the land owner to calculate runoff, document treatment and require maintenance of the treatment

(discharge) system. This policy option also calls for the document to be recorded with the Register of Deeds.

Staff sees value in the burden being placed on the homeowner to calculate runoff and document the treatment

system to demonstrate their qualifying for the exemption. Should staff pursue any of these potential options?

Pichotta asked Brad to explain this. Roy stated we have impervious surface thresholds. Say somebody has 12%

of their property is impervious surface and they want to put an addition on their house and it will go over the

15% that is allowed. That would require some additional mitigation which we will get to on next bullet point.

But say they had a little rain garden off to the side of the house and they say even though we had 12%, this rain

garden is collecting this much water so even with our addition we should be under the 15% because that rain

garden is doing more than typical. What we are proposing here is the property owner that is going to make that

claim would be responsible for providing documentation. We will say you need to show us how much rain that

garden is collecting and how much of that percentage should be removed. It takes the burden off of us as staff.

What he can see is someone will say they have a rain garden that is collecting all this water and we look at it

and say its pretty small, not collecting that much and then it’s just going to turn into an argument. We want the

land owner to put it on paper, figure it out and give us the numbers. If that is the case, absolutely we will

exempt it. The other approach would be for staff to do all that. If someone isn’t happy with our numbers, we

would have to build in some sort of appeals process for that, and it would probably have to come to the

committee. What we are looking for is how is this process going to play out? We do have to exempt those areas,

now it’s just a matter of who figures it out. Pichotta stated it’s not that we would not give them assistance, we

9

would help walk them through the process but it would put the onus on them to demonstrate versus us to prove

it. Sanden stated the spirit is great but could you put together a flyer or brochure that spells out how to calculate

because the average home owner probably doesn’t and you don’t want to make them hire a consultant. Pichotta

stated we would certainly create some guidance documents. Does the committee agree with this approach?

Committee consensus to pursue this approach.

□ Mitigation is required for the impervious surface standards, when exempted structures are added to the site,

and for nonconforming structure modifications. Mitigation is a flexible policy option. The mitigation plan shall

be enforceable obligations of the property owner that are adequate to offset the impacts of the permitted

expansion. The mitigation measures shall be proportional to the amount and impacts of the development.

After researching what other counties are pursuing for mitigation requirements, it appears that having a point

system that is proportional to the impervious surface created is the most common method. With the point

system, certain activities are given points based on likely impacts. Total project points are applied against

mitigation options which also are assigned pints based on effectiveness. A project which has impacts resulting

in a 5 point score would require mitigation activities which total 5 points.

Other approaches are available, but this seems to be practical and transparent.

Sanden asked if it has ever been tested in court as to whether that would hold up. Lund stated yes, there was this

issue going from 2010 going from more restrictive to less restrictive and this seems to be an OK option. It

hasn’t been negatively challenged and the engineering of say you are going to put in a French drain of 500 sq ft

in dispersal area and then you are going to put in 500 sq ft shed, they cancel each other out. You are going to

put that runoff from the shed into the ground and there is no runoff so that is a mitigation strategy. So far there

hasn’t been any. Pichotta stated the reason they liked the point system is because certain activities will be

assigned points based on square footage. Then if you are going to do activities that result in a certain number of

points, then you have to go over to the mitigation options side and choose options that result in the same

number of points. If we don’t do the point type system, what we end up with is where staff essentially has to

make judgment call as to what is proportional. So if we can create a system where someone can look at the

ordinance or look at a brochure and say here’s what I was thinking about doing to my property, then just be able

to correlate that to some mitigation options versus having to have somebody come out. It would give them a

much better ability to understand what sorts of mitigation they might be required to do for whatever they are

thinking about doing. We are thinking this is the most straight forward and reasonable way for folks to have a

realistic expectation of what is going to be required. Roy stated there should be no surprises with the point

system. Sanden stated the fact that other counties are doing it, gives it some validity too. Roy stated it is new, so

he’s not sure it has been formally tested.

□ Staff is proposing to create a separate shoreland zoning chapter and remove all language regarding shoreland

from Chapter 240 – Zoning.

The shoreland code will continue apply to all unincorporated area, including the Town of River Falls. Having

a standalone ordinance will be clearer when working in a town that has its own zoning ordinance. Also

regulations of certain structures (decks) are different in the new shoreland regulations than in Chapter 240.

Lund stated staff wanted to get the committees input, if it was alright with you. Sanden stated it seems cleaner.

Pichotta stated he thinks it will be a lot cleaner. Right now our shoreland provisions are scattered throughout

Chapter 240 and it’s almost difficult to understand that there is a coherent shoreland regulation when it is

separated like that. Sanden stated especially since NR 115 may again change. Pichotta stated he was hoping that

whatever they got in front of the committee and then in front of the County Board by October, we would be

done with it but his hunch is we will probably be tweaking it within a few months. Aubart stated it will be a lot

easier to do it within its own code. Pichotta agreed.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Land Management Committee review the above

information and provide staff with direction regarding the proposed amendments to the Shoreland Zoning Code.

If the committee is comfortable with what we have discussed, we don’t need a motion, we just needed some

guidance and if the approach seems sound that is what we will do. Aubart asked if staff would be bringing this

all back in its own ordinance. Pichotta stated yes. We are working off the DNR’s model and we are going to

insert these concepts that we have discussed tonight. The DNR may or may not agree with the CUP to land use

10

permit and exempting Land Conservation projects, those sorts of things. So we will get those things built into

the ordinance and send it to the DNR for comment. Then when we get their comments back we will bring it

back to the committee. We are pursuing a little bit of an accelerated schedule on this thing given the fact we’ve

got until October 1st. Even if we had it completely done, it still takes two and a half months to get it approved

by the County Board. Committee consensus on moving forward consistent with staff suggestions.

Discuss take action on bids received for half ton, extended cab, 4 wheel drive pick-up truck to be utilized

by the Land Management Department. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: As your recall, the 2016 budget

included $30,000 for the purchase of a new half ton pick-up truck to replace the 2002 Ford. We sent out bid

specs to Cernohous Chevrolet, Ellsworth Ford, Quinn Motors, Hudson Chrysler and Ewald Motors. We only

received one reply back, despite Mr. Bechel’s repeated attempts, he stopped into places that were close enough

and repeated phone calls to those that weren’t. Snow asked if staff touched base with River Valley Ford. Bechel

stated no, we did not. Snow stated to remember those guys in the future for vehicles. Pichotta asked where they

are out of. Snow stated Baldwin. Pichotta stated we did get one dealer that submitted a bid for two different

vehicles. Ellsworth Ford submitted a bid on the Supercab XL and a Supercab XLT. There is a little bit of a price

differential but both are under the budgeted amount. Bidding documents specified the power seats, only the

XLT meets that particular specification. Both vehicles have a 36,000 mile/36 month bumper to bumper

warranty and a 60,000 mile/60 month powertrain warranty.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee select the lowest responsive and

responsible bid and authorize the Land Management Department to purchase that vehicle from said bidder. We

did ask for power seats in the bid specs. We got one option that has it, one option that doesn’t. They are about

two grand different. Sanden asked what was the need for the power seats. Was there a practical reason for it?

Pichotta stated ease of use and the reality is that if we hang on to this one as long as we hung on to the last one,

we will be replacing it in 2030, which sounds like a really long time. Bechel stated that option was also in the

surveyor’s truck when we bid that one out. That was in 2014 since they changed that. Ford has moved that out

of their base package and into the upper level packages. Chairperson Fetzer asked what else comes with the

package? Bechel stated power pedals, heated mirrors, several other luxury options that they lump all in now.

Sanden stated I would have gone for the seat warmer rather than the power seats. Is that including tax and title?

Pichotta stated he believed it did and that would be the total price. Both of them would come in under our

budgeted amount. Aubart moved to approve the purchase of the 2016 For F150 Supercab XLT for $29,

172/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.




Public hearing request for a conditional use permit for expansion of a Dog Kennel in the Town of Gilman for

Kevin & Valerie Anderson

Proposed survey/instrument on the website for implementation strategies for the next five years for comp plan

concepts.

It’s possible there may be some CUP renewals.

Motion to adjourn at 7:07pm by Snow/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING REVISED AGENDA

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Elect Temporary Chairperson Acting Chair

3 Elect Committee Chairperson Acting Chair

4 Elect Committee Vice-Chairperson Chair

5 Next meeting dates: May 4th

& 18th

, June 1st & 15

th, all in 2016. Chair

6 Approve minutes of the April 6, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

7 Discuss take action on a status report for a conditional use permit

for a Utility Facility>1000 Square Feet (Load-Out Facility) in the

Industrial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

41F, for William F. Holst III, owner on property located in most of

the NE ¼ of Section 33 and part of the NW ¼ of Section 34 and

part of the SE ¼ of Section 28, All in T25N, R18W, Town of

Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

8 Discuss take action on Site Plan Review for proposed addition to an

existing building in the Industrial District, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-75 for William F. Holst III, (River City

Metal), owner, by Tom Geistfeld, Sunnyside Erecting, agent, on

property located in Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V12, P118,

being a part of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 2, T25N, R19W,

Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

9 Discuss take action on proposed amendments to the Shoreland

Zoning Code, NR115.

Lund

10 Discuss take action on bids received for a half ton, extended

cab, 4 wheel drive pick-up truck to be utilized by the Land

Management Department.

Pichotta







Revised April 12, 2016 @ 11:26am.

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, April 6, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jon Aubart, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden

Absent: Jeff Holst

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: April 20th

, May 4th

& 18th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Ross moved to approve the March 16, 2016 Land Management Committee


Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Retreat Center

in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36M, for John T. Huffaker

and Charlene M. Torchia, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ and the NW ¼ of the

NW ¼ of Section 34, T27N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Mr.

Huffaker and Ms Torchia forward: John Huffaker explained that they are requesting to run a Retreat. They

were a Bed & Breakfast and are changing it over to a Retreat. Sanden asked how much of an increase in

occupancy will there be between the Bed & Breakfast and a Retreat. Mr. Huffaker stated there won’t be a

change. They have been running it as a B & B but they also have a cottage rental on the property which was a

separate rental. Nothing will change as far as the accommodation part of the business. Ms Torchia stated one of

the changes is that one of the guest rooms that they have they want to convert into a gift shop. Sanden stated if

anything it could go down. Ms Torchia stated the occupancy could. Very rarely were they completely full, every

single room, all the time.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: John & Charlene obtained a CUP for a Bed & Breakfast from the LMC on 5-7-

2003. The Bed & Breakfast, named the “Journey Inn”, began full operation in 2006 and has been active ever

since. Staff has completed administrative renewals given there has not been any complaints. The applicants are

now seeking a new CUP to convert the use to a Retreat Center. The applicants propose an eco-retreat called

“EarthSky BodyMind Center” for participants to find new perspectives, renewal and healing. They propose to

offer massage therapy, energy therapy, life direction coaching, and other themed retreats as listed. The property

is located in Section 34, Town of Salem. The applicants own 66 acres in the General Rural zoning district. PCC

240-88 defines Retreat Center as a facility or facilities used for professional, educational, organizational or

religious meetings, conferences or seminars and which may provide meals, housing and recreation for

participants and may include multiple related uses managed as one operation. PCC Table of Uses allows Retreat

Centers in the General Rural zoning district with the issuance of a CUP and provisions in 240-36M:

(1) Facilities may not be utilized by the nonparticipating public for meals or overnight accommodations.

(2) Housing may be in lodges, cabins or dormitories and other residential structures.

(3) Each housing structure may have one cooking facility.

(4) Minimum lot size for the parcel shall be 2-acres.

(5) There shall be one off-street parking space provided for each sleeping room provided.

(6) Retail activities outside the commercial district shall be limited to those specifically identified in the

CUP.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

(7) Adequate, code-compliant, on-site wastewater facilities shall be provided.

The applicants propose to utilize 3 bedrooms and 1 gift shop located in the “Journey Inn” building and a 2

bedroom “Cottage” for the Retreat Center. The gift shop would be primarily available to guests and is proposed

to sell body care products, books, sheets, candles, local art and yoga supplies. The rooms at Journey Inn are

typically available on the weekends and the Cottage is available seven days per week. However, the applicants

are flexible to accommodate guest needs. The applicants do have a facility on-site to provide meals for

participants when needed in the “Journey Inn” building. There are 7 marked off-street parking spaces available

for guests and applicants. The Inn and Cottage have a shared conventional septic system sized for 5 bedrooms

that was replaced and inspected in 2004. Licenses have been obtained and verified with the Pierce County Dept

of Health. The Salem Town Board of Supervisors recommended approval of this request on 2-9-2016. The

Town Board justified their approval on the attached Town Recommendation Form.


use at the proposed location is contrary to the public interest and whether it would be detrimental or injurious to

public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area. If found to be not contrary to the above,

staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for a retreat center

with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall work with the Town of Salem Building Inspector, Todd Dolan, to determine whether

a permit from the Town or State is needed and to ensure compliance with the Uniform Commercial

Code (UCC) requirements.

2. The use shall be established within 12 months.

3. Sale of retail items shall be limited to body care products, books, sheets, candles, local art and yoga

supplies.

4. The permit shall expire in 2 years. Renewals shall be completed administratively if no compliance issues

arise.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment Chairperson Fetzer closed the

public hearing.

Sanden moved to approve the conditional use permit for a Retreat Center for John Huffaker and

Charlene Torchia with conditions #1 - #4, due to the fact this is not found to be contrary to public

interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding

area/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Nonmetallic Mining

Operation in the General Rural Flexible 8, Agriculture Residential and Industrial Districts, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company, agent for William

McCusker, MOAP LLC, Troll King LLC, WTW Properties, Helen Holst Revocable Living Trust,

William F Holst III and William F Holst IV, owners on property located in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and

12, all in T25N, R19W, Town of Diamond Bluff and agent for Big Acres Inc, William F Holst III, Nancy J

Beeler and Leon W and Donna L Nesbitt, owners on property located in Sections 25, 33, 34, 35 and 36, all

in T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Jeff Himes and

Scott Passe forward: Jeff Himes asked if they could go right to the staff report.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: In 2012 WISC obtained a CUP for a new underground mining operation in the

Town of Diamond Bluff. On May 21, 2014, a conditional use permit was obtained to expand the mine into the

Town of Oak Grove. The mining process will be consistent to those at Maiden Rock and Bay City. The mined

materials will be screened, trucked and conveyed in the tunnels. The sand will either be washed at a new

proposed plant at the mine entrance in Diamond Bluff or in the proposed plant expansion at the existing Hager

City processing plant. The washed sand will be dried and further processed in Hager City. The mining permit

encompasses 59 parcels totaling 1,867 acres in Diamond Bluff and 27 parcels totaling approximately 985 acres

in Oak Grove. Activities on the site will include blasting and screening underground as well as stockpiling and

loading on the surface. The LMC, at the required 1 year status report on August 7, 2013 by WISC found that

“action” had commenced at the Diamond Bluff site within 12 months and that the “use” had been established.

3

Access to the mine entrance site is off of 1005th

ST, WisDOT recommends that the intersection be upgraded to

the B1 class. 1005th

St will need significant upgrades. A road agreement was reached with the Town of

Diamond Bluff. The Wind River runs through the mine entrance site and the eastern edge of the site is in the

General Floodplain District. A CUP for Filling and Grading in the Shoreland area was received on May 21,

2014. This permit has expired and a new permit will need to be obtained. The entire mining process takes place

underground using room and pillar mining. The sandstone will be mined in parallel tunnels approximately 30-

feet wide separated by 70-foot wide sandstone pillars. The mining is accomplished by drilling and blasting. The

applicant is proposing to operate the facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week with up to 22 employees.

WDNR regulates and monitors discharge water through the WPDES Permits. The WPDES permit ensures that

water samples are collected and analyzed to demonstrate that water is not discharged that could negatively

impact surface water. The mining operation is required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan and a Spill Pollution Control and Countermeasures Plan. Waste materials will be placed back in

the mining tunnels. The WDNR Bureau of Air Management permits and monitors emissions of nonmetallic

mining and processing operations. Their jurisdiction ranges from extraction to shipment. Wisconsin Department

of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) establish uniform limits on permissible levels of blasting to

reasonable annoyance to persons or property outside any controlled blasting site area. A Fugitive Dust Plan has

been developed for the operation. The plan details the measures to be taken to reduce roadway dust from

stockpiles and roadways during periods of dry or windy conditions. There has been limited activity on the site

since the expansion permit was received. The applicants submitted their activities and they are listed in the staff

report. The Mine Development and Operation Plan has been completed. High Capacity Well Application and

permit was filed. Exploratory pits were dug on the slope of the mine, they did some logging on-site. There was

the Road Agreement with the Town, there is engineering and design that is on-going and a Damage Response

Plan has been completed. The existing conditions are listed in the staff report#1 - #30. Condition #11 is missing

the word “production”, it should state: A formal road agreement for 1005th

St with the Town of Diamond Bluff

shall be established and provided to the Zoning Office prior to any site disturbance. Road agreements shall be

established with the appropriate municipality prior to any “production” use of the Town or County roads. A one

year status report was not presented last year, which was required by condition #24. Staff has noted that it has

become increasingly common for the timeframe associated with the actual establishment and operation of

conditionally permitted uses to extend beyond the typical initial CUP approval timeframe (2 years). While it is

recognized that complex uses requiring a variety of approvals from a number of different agencies will often

necessitate longer timeframes, staff is of the position that reasonable benchmarks and timeframes should be

considered as part of the established conditions. These benchmarks and timeframes would not be intended to

create hurdles to the establishment of a given use but to ensure that CUPs that the permit activities that are no

longer viable or were part of a prior business/development plan that is no longer being implemented, do not

remain active indefinitely. Staff suggests that one or more of the bench marks identified in the WISC’s

development plan be mutually agreed upon and a timeframe for their completion established in the conditions.

This benchmark would be intended to demonstrate WISC’s commitment to the project and their intention to

move forward in a reasonable time frame. Staff suggested benchmarks and timeframes are included in the

Recommendation.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether any other

additions or modifications to the established conditions are necessary to help mitigate impacts on public health,

safety, the public interest and character of the area and renew the permit with the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall submit verification of lease agreements before mining is conducted.

2. Comprehensive water testing will be conducted annually for residential wells located within the

boundaries of the mined area. Testing of the wells on properties within 1000’ of mining activity shall be

comprehensively tested, including for suspended solids, nitrates and dissolved solids and chlorides, two

times each year. Test results and the base line data tests shall be provided to the Department of Land

Management.

4

3. A 100-foot buffer shall be maintained form the active mining to the boundaries of non-leased properties.

Mining under a leased property shall be a minimum of 100’ from any well. A 200-foot buffer shall be

maintained around structures.

4. Any intensification of use or change in approved plans will require the issuance of an amended


5. A map of mining activity and areas of future expansion shall be provided to the Zoning Office annually.

6. Applicant agrees that any erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county.

7. Verification of an agreement with the Wisconsin DOT shall be submitted before mining extends under

Hwy 35.

8. WISC shall develop a plan to respond to damage claims to wells or structures by surrounding land

owners. WISC shall offer pre-blasting surveys to residents or owners of dwellings or other structures

within 1500 feet (or as established by the applicable Town) and shall respond to claims of

impacts/damage.

9. A ground water response plan, including accurate determinations of the ground water level and which

details resources to be used to protect the quality of groundwater beneath and adjacent to the extraction

operation, and a proposed response to encountering groundwater, shall be provided. Groundwater

elevation shall be monitored annually and the results submitted to the Zoning Office.

10. Engineering analysis shall be conducted to demonstrate slope stability for the reclamation of the mine

entrance area. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans and shall be completed within one year

of ceasing mining operations.

11. A formal road agreement for 1005th

St with the Town of Diamond Bluff shall be established and

provided to the Zoning Office prior to any site disturbance. Road agreements shall be established with

the appropriate municipality prior to any production use of Town or County roads.

12. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the proposed development within the Floodplain and

Shoreland area.

13. Applicant shall pay the Nonmetallic Mining fee to the Zoning Office prior to site disturbance.

14. The financial assurance for reclamation shall be reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel before

mining commences.

15. WISC will be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LMC for silica emissions if current or

future studies suggest a significant public health threat exists from such emissions.

16. The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease and desist from MSHA.

17. All loaded trucks shall be tarped in a manner acceptable with the Town of Diamond Bluff.

18. Applicant shall submit to the Zoning Office a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan if these plans are required by other agencies. If they

are not required, applicants shall submit verification from those agencies stating that the plans are not

required.

19. Applicant shall implement Fugitive Dust Plan as presented. Modifications to the Fugitive Dust Plan may

be required by the LMC if warranted.

20. Applicant shall identify blasting frequency and all blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed

blaster. Notification to all surrounding landowners within 1500 feet shall be given notice of the blasting

schedule. Blasting shall be restricted to six days a week.


Department of Safety and Professional Services, WisDOT, MSHA and other agencies if required.

22. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for structures or signs not discussed in this plan from the

Zoning Office.

23. An annual audit, detailing mining activities to date and demonstrating adherence to approved conditions

shall be submitted to Pierce County Land Management Department by January 31st.

24. This permit shall expire in one year.

25. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans and shall be completed within one year of ceasing

mining operations.

5

26. Any polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permit requirements.

27. Prior to beginning any mining activity within the Town of Oak Grove the applicant shall request to be

placed on the agenda of the Oak Grove Town Board to review uses occurring in proximity to parcels

authorized for mining. Concerns raised by the Town shall be presented to LMC for review and potential

CUP modification.

28. No ventilation shafts shall be developed until after such time as the proposed location is reviewed by the

applicable Town and approved by the LMC.

29. Any secondary access portal shall require issuance of a conditional use permit for an expansion of this

use.

30. Mining shall not occur on/under property zoned Light Industrial.

31. STH 35/1005th

Street Improvements shall be completed.

32. Clearing and benching of portal sites shall be completed. Mr. Himes introduced Scott Passe as the Bay City Mine Manager. He apologized for not completing the status

report, they missed that. In terms of the renewal and the request for a one year renewal and the benchmarks for

construction, he would like to cover a little bit of the history and discuss why they are at the stage that they are

at with this project. In 2012 they applied for a conditional use permit for the mine in Diamond Bluff and Oak

Grove. The original CUP for Diamond Bluff was issued in 2012. But Oak Grove put a moratorium on mining

and began a two year debate on nonmetallic mining ordinance. That delayed the issuance of the combined

project until 2014. Oak Grove Township sued the County and that was not settled until 2015. All these things

created uncertainty for their project. They didn’t have a clean total project CUP until just about a year ago. Even

though they have been at this for a while, things have been delayed until 2015. The market for frac sand has

dropped dramatically since 2014. We are in a severe downturn in our market at this time. Fairmont did begin

working on the project in 2012. They did permitting, engineering, geologic study and environmental surveys

and permitting work. This project is connected to their expansion at Hager City and the wash plant. We view

that as entirely one project. They are all tied together. That work has cost over $943,000.00, which is a

significant investment. But this is the basis you have to establish for a mining project. You have to go through

the permitting process, you have to go through the reviews, you have to go through the analysis before you can

begin. They have two high cap well permits that are pending. They have been applied for over a year ago and

the DNR has not approved those permits. They have an air permit for the Hager facility which has been out for

over a year. This is the timeframe they are looking at for permit approvals and no construction can start at

Hager City until that air permit is approved. They can’t put a foundation in or dig a hole in the ground until that

is done. These activities were what they used to establish the use in 2013. They have continued these activities

and this use since then with no 12 month period of inactivity. They started all that process in 2012 despite the

uncertainty. They believe for this project, which is a complex project, this is an appropriate level of activity and

it is the basis and foundation for starting up a mining operation. Based on that, they request that the permit be

renewed for two years. Addressing the suggestion that they should begin construction on 1005th

and the

earthwork for the portals and the wash plant, given the economic situation that they are in, in the downturn,

their company is in a mode of conserving cash and they are not going to be able to spend money on a capital

project that doesn’t deliver revenue in return in short order. They believe the use is established and once the

market responds and returns this project is likely to move forward. Construction would begin within that

timeline. They would like a renewal in two years and Mr. Himes doesn’t feel the construction benchmarks are

appropriate for them at this time. Sanden asked staff about the 12 month abandonment and what that means;

would that be an automatic revocation of the CUP? Would that be at the committee’s discretion, if the twelve

month inactivity was due to external issues not of their own making such as legal and economic issues? Pichotta

stated basically what the code says is that the use permitted as a conditionally permitted use is abandoned for a

year that that use shall extinguish and any new activity shall require a new conditional use permit. We did have

substantial discussion with our legal counsel regarding the information that was submitted and whether it

constituted a use of the property. It was suggested by our legal counsel that while there wasn’t much activity it

did suffice as far as activity to keep the conditional use permit in place. So he doesn’t think we have an issue

with abandonment. Our suggestion as far as benchmarks was to ensure that this CUP is in place indefinitely

6

with minimal activity taking place which could create uncertainty for adjoining neighbors. We would like

WISC to demonstrate their commitment to the project so that we understand if this project is moving forward or

it’s not. What additional hardship would there be on WISC if they were to have to start with a new CUP versus

a renewal? Is that something that is going to be more time consuming, more costly? Pichotta stated it would

basically be they would have to start back at the beginning and go back to the Town’s and start that process

again. Sanden stated that could delay the operations until all those pieces were back in place. That is the real

significance if we didn’t renew and they had to start over. Ross asked if staff could walk through one more time

the reason for recommending that the permit to expire in one year. Pichotta stated again we are looking for

some sort of signal from WISC that this is a project that is going to move forward and what we don’t want to be

is in a position where in several years, we are at the same place and that is minimal activity on the site and are

asked to renew it based on their continuing to pursue permits. Our recommendation as far as a one-year

timeframe is simply staff’s suggestion. Certainly the committee could go two years, or could split the

difference, a year and a half. As far as the benchmarks, that is something we would like to see. Neighboring

property owners would perhaps also to know if this is going to move forward or if it’s not. This is not unique to

this particular project. We have some similar language in the next CUP also. You can anticipate seeing similar

language in relation to other uses as they come down the pipe too. Occasionally we will see CUP’s where there

is not much activity and there is uncertainty as to whether that use is going to be established. Sanden asked by

not having dates associated with the benchmarks, it is implied that it would be at the end of the year. So if we

were to extend it to two years and leave the language the way it was that would then imply that they would have

to have the benchmarks done in two years. Pichotta stated yes, it would and it is required by our code that all

nonmetallic mining operations be renewed every two years in front of the committee. Aubart asked how we

decided on the benchmarks. What were the criteria to decide that? Pichotta stated that was staff’s suggestion as

far as benchmarks. Aubart asked what we used to make that decision, was it just an arbitrary decision or was

there something specific indicating that we want to see the street improvements completed. Pichotta stated if

you note right before the recommendation staff suggested benchmarks be mutually agreed upon and so the

expectation was not that we would just unilaterally declare. The reason for the road, it seems the road is one of

the first things that needs to be done in order for them to begin to work the site so it is suitable. As far as

prepping site for the portals or the adits would also be something that seems to make sense and not too onerous.

It’s not build a wash plant in a year, that sort of thing. We brought them up as the beginnings of a discussion. It

wasn’t anticipated that the committee would just blindly accept those, we thought there would be some dialogue

with WISC as to what an appropriate bench mark would be if they felt that those weren’t appropriate. Aubart

asked Mr. Himes about the benchmarks. Mr. Himes explained it is appropriate for them to continue to work on

the project and continue the permitting and the prep work. It would be appropriate for them to report that to the

LMC. This level of construction would be several million dollars as an investment. That is a problem for them

because of the timeline. Spending that kind of money without the market turning and without knowing when

they are going to see that. Their view of this, as the projects ongoing use is established it would be similar to

any other business in a downturn where activity slowed but activity didn’t go away. May he suggest that they

look at the continued process of getting permits in place, getting assessments done; that is real work,

$900,000.00 it is substantial. Get a level of permitting in place so once the market does turn they are ready to

go. Once the market turns and this project turns on, the earthwork, construction and establishing the portals will

happen relatively quickly. Development of the mine overall, to get it to a productive level is a two year project

but activity could start very quickly once the market turns. We have no control or forecast on when the market

is going to turn. Chairperson Fetzer asked if they have any idea of timeframe for air quality and high capacity

well permits. Mr. Himes stated the DNR, specifically to the Diamond Bluff well, the DNR came back and said

they had to make a modification to their plan and had to put more casing. They believe that permit should be

approved shortly. They didn’t anticipate that it would be over a year for the initial review and approval to

commence. Chairperson Fetzer stated you applied back in 2014 and it took that long. Mr. Himes stated a high

cap well permit right now is over a year. Sanden stated he assumes they have put in the additional casing. Mr.

Himes stated yes, they committed to the additional casing. Sanden asked any other types of physical types of

activities preferably construction oriented that would also be doable in these uncertain times over the next year

7

or two that would establish benchmarks. Getting permits and assessments as you stated is a very expensive

proposition so you are doing things but just in light of the two that were suggested it seems they are a bit more

physical on the ground construction related activities. Is there anything along those lines that you would

naturally do over the course of the next year or two. Mr. Himes stated they discussed that and it wouldn’t take a

major investment to take a bulldozer on top of the hill and flatten out an area on top of the hill but that would

create an erosion opportunity and an environmental liability. We felt it’s better to leave that ground stable until

they are ready to go and they can build the settling ponds and start that whole process. They are right on the

edge of the Wind River. Really before they disturb anything there they need to have that catchment there that

will prevent any kind of erosion from getting into the river. It’s almost in for a penny in for a pound once you

start moving dirt. Pichotta asked what their timeframe is for seeking a new Filling and Grading permit. Mr.

Himes stated they would do that immediately preceding the activity. Then they would have the final plan. Right

now the plan they have is for the wash plant located on that site. There is a question on that. It will come up in

the next review. The decision on whether the wash plant goes to Diamond Bluff or to Hager City will be

evaluated based on capital expenditure, operating costs and how the market is coming back up. We will look at

which location makes the most sense. Right now it’s leaning toward it being at Diamond Bluff. Once they know

that, then they know what the Filling and Grading Plan needs to be to support that. Then they would submit the

Filling and Grading application based on that plan. Pichotta noted that process itself will take at least a month or

two. Mr. Himes stated they do have that plan completed for that scenario. That is actually what the original

Filling and Grading Plan was based on. At this stage, there was no point in bringing it forward until we are

absolutely certain that is the Filling and Grading Plan that we are going with. We could have done something

relatively cosmetic which would have created a reduction in the anxiety but it would have created the erosion

and the liability problems. The major expense on this Filling and Grading Plan is the ponds to catch anything

between the site and the river. Sanden asked in addition to the monies already spent in permitting, over the next

year or two, what additional monies do you anticipate outlaying for permits and assessments. He asks that only

as a measure of your commitment to carry through with this. Mr. Himes stated in 2015 they spent $125,000.

The air permit alone was $40,000. The permits that are coming at them, he would suspect would be in the order

of tens of thousands of dollars, not that level of spending but there would be some spending. The big chunk of

the spending was the work that they have done already; $125,000 of it in the last 14 months. Pichotta asked

what they anticipate doing in the next year or two. Mr. Himes stated they have to do the SPCC Plan, they have

to get the construction site Stormwater Runoff permit, Erosion Control permit, WPDES Stormwater permit,

Water Resources application, the Archeological Survey, the Wetland Survey, Wetland/Shoreland permit,

Wetland Mitigation permit, and the Chapter 30 permit construction on your floodplain. Then we get to the

building permits. It is just permitting but it’s a lot of work and expense. That would be before construction,

before operation there is another list. Sanden asked what the comfort level from staff if permitting and

assessment would be, in your eyes, activity. Pichotta stated from a technical perspective, it is activity. That

would suffice but it’s not doing much on site. It has less to do with our comfort level than your comfort level.

Sanden stated that is what he was asking originally about the 12 month abandonment and the parameters around

that. If they were held up because of legal issues and couldn’t get out there and move some earth around, was

that considered abandonment? There are some gray areas there. Ross stated a lot of the CUP’s and items that the

committee looks at, the permitting process outside the scope of what we do here and in this office is much

grander with the mine and more expensive. I am comfortable with the two year versus one year. If it was

something more simple and we talk about market changes and different things. The one advantage he has

always relied on in this committee is that just because we issue a two year permit doesn’t mean we don’t get to

talk to them before two years. If there are issues or things that come up, they can come back in here and take a

seat. We have proven that with County and others. All he can think of on his side is if he was in that position

and someone was asking him to make, from a business perspective, major road changes or certain things like

that and going to large expense - when you are in a downturn on the economic cycle and there is an enormous

amount of uncertainty in the industry, as a whole, he is uncomfortable asking companies to lay out additional

cash when the market uncertainty is there. If there was a safety issue right now on that roadway, if they were

coming and going, it would be a no-brainer regarding fixing it. Once activity begins they would have to get

8

these things done. What would be that criteria, if the minute you know you are putting up that wash plant, if that

is it, that’s when that road gets fixed. Investing capital in a down market, it’s a hard thing to do. Pichotta stated

he has an analogy; we were presented with a similar situation relating to market conditions awhile back. If you

recall, we reacted to a concept and preliminary plat for a land division called Whispering Pines down in the

Town of Trenton. It was a joint project between a number of different folks, they sought and received concept

approval as well as preliminary plat approval but given the market, the housing market had fallen out, they

didn’t want to construct the roads and actually finish the project. They appeared before the committee a number

of times and we gave them extensions. We gave them multiple years on more than one occasion. Part of our

discussion at that point was, how long is it appropriate to keep kicking that can down the road especially since

we first approved concept and prelim, the Town of Trenton had not only adopted Comprehensive Plan, they had

adopted a Subdivision Ordinance, none of which had been applied to that particular situation. He thinks it

makes sense to be sympathetic to market conditions but it can’t be the determining factor because there are

other forces at play. It’s not really apples to apples but it’s kind of a similar situation where you try to

accommodate but it can’t just be based on market conditions. If it was, we would still be kicking that can down

the road and at the last time that we reacted to that we said two more years and that is it. Mr. Himes stated we

are not saying it’s just market conditions. Because of all the activity related to Oak Grove’s moratorium and the

ordinance, we didn’t get a clean permit until last year. It’s been a year that we have had a clean permit and we

have invested close to $950,000 in this project. Doing the things that they are, they are material to the project

going forward. That is a significant amount of money. If the permit were to terminate, that would be a loss of

some cost for them. It would be spending that they incurred that the benefit they would no longer have access

to. The activity they have done, establish the use and they continue the activity and continue the use, they would

all like to see this project further along. They would all have liked to have a mine operating there already. Due

to conditions beyond their control, that weren’t market related, they were delayed. Now they find themselves

having the established project, the project is underway now and they are seeing a dip just as you see with any

other business that was established. Ross stated to clarify, his concern is as a business when you do have to lay

out cash in a downturn it is a difficult situation and being mindful of that is prudent as well. Chairperson Fetzer

stated coming from a business that deals with markets all the time, right now the farming industry is in a very

tight time, it’s a tighten your belt kind of situation. He understands all that. There is business that always goes

on, and WISC is working with permits and working through things so you are ready when everything comes

back on-line too. It’s not like everything has been hung on the rack and set aside here. If things turn around,

himself, the way he looks at it, the number one thing that would need to be done is that street. If you are going

to be in and out of there, it’s a safety deal. He doesn’t have any problem with a two year extension on this and

hopefully everything turns around and we can go from there. Sanden asked if staff is wanting to keep condition

#31 & #32 but push back the due date to two years instead of one year or would you be more comfortable with

putting those as before operations began and then putting in something like applicable permits and assessments

will continue to be pursued during this time period. Aubart stated he personally doesn’t care for the

benchmarks. He thinks the road is covered under condition #11 because we talk about the formal agreement

with Diamond Bluff established prior to any production use of the Town Road. That is going to happen.

Pichotta stated that has actually already happened. They have reached an agreement with the Town and we have

been provided a copy of that agreement. Aubart stated at the time of production or before it can go in that road

needs to be upgraded to that standard or whatever that agreement is. Pichotta suggested if the committee is

comfortable with a two-year renewal timeframe and removal of the benchmarks that is fine from staff’s

perspective. If you are going with 24, you can say the permit will expire in two years and he would also like to

see a one year status report so they can come in and tell us what they have been up too. Aubart asked about the

status report; why wasn’t that caught. Mr. Himes stated they missed it. Aubart asked if we typically watch those

things from the staff standpoint. Pichotta stated we do, but typically the onus is on the applicant. Aubart stated

it’s their responsibility because it’s their CUP but he didn’t know what the standard procedure was. Pichotta

stated had we realized it was coming up, we would probably have called and reminded them. Roy stated our

system for tracking is based on expiration. We know when the permits are going to expire. Sanden stated we

have had extensive dealings with WISC and he personally has been satisfied with the majority of the

9

associations and they have been sitting here understanding our anxiousness about it so you are aware that we

aren’t going to make this a “Whispering Pines” issue and kick it down the road many times. But we are

sensitive to the issues, economic and otherwise at this time but there is a limited patience. Sarah Palodichuk,

Town of Oak Grove, she is only speaking for herself, not for her board. They didn’t know this was coming up

before their last board meeting so they have not spoken about it as a board. She thanked Andy and Brad for

looking at this thoroughly. She knows they don’t always agree on how this is handled. She does appreciate them

looking at the important aspects because it wasn’t a light decision for the Town to challenge the last ruling,

administratively. She appreciates that they showed an effort about what some of their concerns were. Not

particularly Oak Grove but just generally how it is handled. The challenge that Oak Grove brought was based

on action wasn’t going to commence within a year in the Town of Oak Grove, but in reality, it’s a general

concern about having a reasonable expectation about what is going to be happening. Even though the 2014

decision and the following court decision in 2015, did affect Oak Grove, it did not affect their activities in

Diamond Bluff whatsoever. Two-thirds of the land is in the Town of Diamond Bluff and their rate of mining

over this number is from two years ago, that they have been showing about 20 acres per year, which means that

they had 80 years, 90 years worth of potential mining in the Town of Diamond Bluff. So as far as action not

commencing, because of the law suit, she thinks it’s worthwhile to look at they have had a CUP in the Town of

Diamond Bluff since 2012 that action hasn’t been taken on. It’s a little bit disturbing to see action in quotes and

use in quotes in the first section because she thinks it’s really important that the Land Management Committee

for the sake of protecting the Town’s that you are acting in place of the Town’s here in the zoning decisions.

That you consider their legal standing as well because saying they have had activity, they have certainly had

activity, they are applying for permits and whatnot. But to say that the use has been established, is a serious

legal concept that they aren’t using it. They aren’t doing production right now. They can’t even drill a hole.

There are certain things that can’t be taken yet because it’s not permitted. By that, she would argue that the use

hasn’t necessarily been established. Although she doesn’t have a lawyer saying that, she would have to talk to

their Town lawyer about that. Hearing Jeff say that this project, after these things happen, this project is likely

to move forward, hearing that a little bit disconcerting. Andy mentioned neighbors and people want to know

what is going on. Just like the market is bad for WISC right now and it’s reasonable that things have slowed

down right now, the neighbors, who have homes, their market is slowed down until WISC decides what they

are doing too. She appreciated the recommendation of having the permit expire in one year. They had asked for

that last time. Really, the one year requirement is built into their comprehensive plan and it shows up a lot of

places because you should be able to have some sort of planning. They have put a ton of money into it and have

shown activity. There is no dispute about that whatsoever. As far as the actual use goes, from her perspective it

looks like they have very carefully and brilliantly set up the legal structure to be able to secure that land without

doing anything. That is a hard place to sit on a Town Board. Back in 2013 to say that use has been established

from that time, well that is going to show up in every lawsuit we ever have with them but in reality they’re

saying we couldn’t do anything in 2013. We couldn’t do anything until this got resolved in 2015. She would

like it if the committee would consider that part of it moving forward. She feels the conditional use permit

should expire because they are not working on it right now. But if you choose to renew it, renewing it for one

year is a much more reasonable. It creates a better idea for the Town to be able to come in every year. She

would like it in the future too, if they would know about it more than a week ahead of time. For the Town it

would be nice so all the board members would be able to have some input. Ross asked Sarah if she thought the

working relationship between this company and Oak Grove would improve dramatically with a one year versus

two year CUP. Do you think the debate and the dialog would improve based on that? Ms Palodichuk stated

from what she has heard from home owners in the area, even today someone called her and stated it would be

nice to know what’s going on, that’s where the one year situation would be beneficial for us. That people do

care about having a heads up. As far as the relationship with them, she thinks she has gotten along quite

cordially. She doesn’t think she has talked to Jeff in the past year. She thinks they have gotten along and they

know where they differ and that’s not a huge issue. She also thinks that the Town Board in Oak Grove has

become much better at handling more serious and complex issues in a more efficient manner. She thinks they

might not all agree but they have learned how to get on the same page and utilize their lawyer better. Sanden

10

asked Sarah if a one year status report would keep them informed on what’s going on? Ms Palodichuk stated in

the Town of Oak Grove, everyone assumes that since there wasn’t a status report they aren’t doing anything.

The CUP is just going to disappear. She knows better than things just disappearing. But that was the gut feeling

amongst people that had concerns about it was that because they weren’t following through with their status

report and weren’t showing activity that activity had ceased. Sanden stated to his point if the main issue is

uncertainty and not knowing what they are up to on the piece of property, would a one year status report be

sufficient to answer that part of it? Ms Palodichuk stated she does not think it would be because if the one year

status report is, hey the market still sucks, then she thinks the appropriate response is that the permit would

expire due to inactivity. Chairperson Fetzer stated he has gone through a high cap well permitting and it is

substantial and long. Just going through some of these processes doesn’t mean nothing is happening. It doesn’t

mean that you aren’t going through processes to get where you want to be. Ms Palodichuk stated she can

completely agree with that and that can be seen as activity. You can make that part of your benchmark.

Chairperson Fetzer stated the issue is they want to see something going out there. Ms Palodichuk said if you are

giving them a permit under the premise that use has been established, then she thinks there needs to be a legal

opinion that use has indeed been established. Not simply that there has been activity, because if they established

use back in 2013 that means they could drill a hole. That means they could have their stuff. Chairperson Fetzer

stated you have to have permits before you can do any of this stuff. Ms Palodichuk doesn’t disagree, she is just

saying at the 2013 status report, the committee said they established use. Now you are saying they can’t use it.

Ross stated we established use. We see it as use. Mr. Himes stated absolutely the activity of Oak Grove created

uncertainty for Fairmont. He doesn’t know where her calculations are coming from. The action created

uncertainty to the point where Fairmont looked elsewhere for investment and they bought the operation in

Minnesota. They bought the operation in Texas and Missouri. They made the investment in places where it was

more sure. It did prompt a change and a move in capital. This did create uncertainty to the point where we

aren’t going to start the project until we had the full project under permit and that didn’t get established until

2015. County Counsel and Eric McLeod have both said that the activity we have done is recognized as use in

2013 and continues to be recognized as use. We are glad to do a one year update. That is entirely appropriate.

He thinks the way they covered the information prior is fairly accurate. Ms Palodichuk stated if she can clarify

where the 90 year number came from, it came from a discussion that she and Mr. Himes had with Eric and Joe

about the mines in Maiden Rock and Bay City and over the time since you had acquired those two mines that

your production there was about 20 acres per year. So she took that number and figured out the 90 year from

that. That’s why she was saying if you have an increase in production from that amount then certainly it would

be less. If you were doing 60 acres a year there, like Rich said, then that would be 30 years. She can understand

that. Based on what you had been doing in Bay City and Maiden Rock, that’s what it came down to. Mr.

Budinger stated that its 40 acres per year and not all the acres in a permit are minable. There is the bluff and the

percentage that isn’t minable. Ms Palodichuk says that makes perfect sense. Mr. Budinger continued, It’s a 30

year mine plan is what it amounted to; two thirds in Diamond Bluff and one third in Oak Grove. Tom Breen

congratulated Debbie on her re-election to the board in Oak Grove. He also wanted to say Thank You to Mr.

Ross to the service he has provided. He has a kinship with small business entrepreneur and grocery business.

You may know that we have registered our hesitancy about this onslaught of mining in the area. His only

request of one of the committee would be a token nay vote on one of these or both of these permit renewals so

they can at least have the group of the population that is opposed to this registered in the official record even

though we assume a renewal by unanimous vote is forthcoming. Just having that on the record would be

appreciated. Sanden moved to approve the renewal for a conditional use permit for a Nonmetallic Mining

Operation for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company with conditions as presented but amending condition

#11 to read Road agreements shall be established with the appropriate municipality prior to any

production use of Town or County roads. Amend condition #24, This permit shall expire in two years

with a one year status report. Amend condition #31 to read, Street improvements shall be completed

before operations begin. Amend condition #32, Clearing and benching of portal sites shall be completed

before operations begin. And adding condition #33, Applicable permits and assessments must continue to

be pursued/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.

11

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Heavy Industrial Use for a

proposed wash plant in the Industrial District pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37E for

Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company, owner on property located in the West 10 acres of the SE ¼ of the

NW ¼ of Section 12, T25N, R19W, Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: In 2012, WISC obtained a conditional use permit for a new underground mining

operation in the Town of Diamond Bluff. The mining application stated that no washing would be done on site.

In 2014, the applicant modified the plan and obtained a CUP to construct a wash plant to wash the sand from

the mine. The washed sand will be trucked to the WISC dry plant in Hager City. The proposal included the

construction of a wash plant building, conveyors and a new load out tank building. The application also stated

that a temporary wash plant may be constructed for use during the construction of the permanent wash plant or

the material may be trucked offsite and brought back for processing after the plant is operational. The mining

application detailed the conversion of the existing residence into an office and construction of a maintenance

building. The proposed hours of operation of the plant are 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Front end

loaders, trucks, mining equipment and conveyors will be routinely operated outside of the mine. The site plan

for the plant was approved by the LMC on June 18, 2014. The Wind River runs through the mine entrance site

and the eastern edge of the site is in the General Floodplain District. A CUP for Filling and Grading in the

Shoreland area was received on May 21, 2014. This permit has expired and a new permit will need to be

obtained. On January 7, 2015, the LMC approved an expansion of the existing WISC processing facility in

Hager City, which, it was stated at that time, would remove the need for the proposed wash plant in Diamond

Bluff. The LMC may want to request further explanation regarding WISC’s future plans as there are currently

multiple permits issued to fulfill what would appear to be the same processing need. Ideally, conditional use

permits that will not be utilized within a reasonable timeframe would be rescinded and reconsidered should the

need again arise. The property is in the Industrial District. The Intent of the Industrial District is stated in the

staff report. The mined sand will be conveyed to a scalp screen to remove coarse sand and water will be added

creating slurry. The material will then be pumped to the wash plant through a slurry pipe. The wash plant will

remove clays and fine material from the sand. Flocculants will be used to remove the clays and fines and will

remain in the material which will be placed in the tunnels. The wash sand is conveyed to storage bins. Trucks

will be loaded inside a new load out tank building. The process, when fully implemented, has been designed so

that the sand will not be exposed to the open-air. There will be two high capacity wells. A Fugitive Dust Plan

has been developed for the operation. Same with the permits and the plans that are required from the previous

staff report. The existing conditions #1 - #13 are listed in the staff report. Staff has the same concerns about the

permits that may not be in current plans for the company. Staff suggests that one or more of the benchmarks

identified in the WISC’s development plan be mutually agreed upon and a timeframe for their completion

established in the conditions. This benchmark would be intended to demonstrate WISC’s commitment to the

project and their intention to move forward in a reasonable timeframe. Staff suggested benchmarks and

timeframes are included in the Recommendation.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether or not the

established conditions are adequate to protect the public interest, public health and safety and the character of

the area. If no additions or modifications are deemed necessary, staff recommends that Land Management

Committee to renew this CUP with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted consistent with the submitted plan, unless modified by another condition of

this CUP.


Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies as required.

3. Any unforeseen dust, erosion and/or stormwater issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of

the county.

4. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for construction and signage for the site.

5. WISC shall be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LMC for silica emissions if current or

future studies suggest a significant public health threat exists from such studies.

12

6. The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease and desist from MSHA.

7. The Fugitive Dust Plan shall be adhered to.

8. All polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permit requirements.

9. The applicant shall complete the WisDOT recommended upgrades to STH 35 and receive all necessary

permits and approvals.

10. Applicant understands that any expansion or intensification of this use will require CUP modification or

potentially issuance of a new Conditional Use Permit.

11. This permit shall expire in one year.

12. Appropriate permits to enable work within the Shoreland area shall be secured.

13. Wash plant site preparation and grading shall be completed.

14. STH 35/1005th

Street Improvements shall be completed. Pichotta stated he has a suggestion based on the committee’s prior decision, he would suggest that condition

#11 be amended to read: This permit shall expire in two years with a one year status report. And conditions #12,

#13 & #14 be struck. Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Heavy

Industrial Use for a wash plant for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company with conditions #1 - #11,

modifying condition #11 to read, This permit shall expire in two years with a one year status report.

Eliminating conditions #12, #13 & #14/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.




Election of Officers

Status report on a Utility Facility, the loadout facility that Bill Holst has proposed in the Town of Trenton in the

Industrial Area.

Site Plan for an Industrial structure for River City Metals.

Discuss take action on required changes to our Shoreland Code.

Chairperson Fetzer thanked Jim Ross for being on the committee. He believes we have had one of the strongest

committees of the LMC since Joe has been on it. It’s a great committee and he appreciates Jim being on it. He

likes Jim’s input for talking to the public, very good rapport and put it in good perspective for people. Ross

stated out of his eight years on the board, he doesn’t remember how many years on LMC, at least four, he sat on

just about every committee on the county, barring some exceptions of course, but he has learned the most from

this one. One of the things he has always appreciated about LMC is that it requires the most out of us as

committee members than all the committees that he has sat on. Mostly because of the legal aspect, the amount

of thought and concern and public hearings where you have a lot of in depth discussion and we are more prone

to lawsuits on this committee than any of the others that he has sat on. But above all, the staff here is

phenomenal. This committee is amazingly intellectual. We really had a nice bond. A lot of times, you come in,

get it done and off you go. This required us to really dive deep and he certainly appreciates all the committee

members very much.

Motion to adjourn at 7:19pm by Ross/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: April 20th

, May 4th

& 18th


3 Approve minutes of the March 16, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for a Retreat Center in the General Rural

District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36M, for

John T. Huffaker & Charlene M. Torchia, owners on property

located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ and the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of

Section 34, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI.

Lund


permit for a Nonmetallic Mining Operation in the General Rural

Flexible 8, Agriculture Residential and Industrial Districts,

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A for Wisconsin

Industrial Sand Company, agent for William McCusker, MOAP

LLC, Troll King LLC, WTW Properties, Helen Holst Revocable

Living Trust, William F. Holst III and William Holst IV, owners on

property located in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12, all in T25N,

R19W, Town of Diamond Bluff and agent for Big Acres Inc,

William F. Holst III, Nancy J. Beeler and Leon W. & Donna L.

Nesbitt, owners on property located in Sections 25, 33, 34, 35 and

36, all in T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


permit for Heavy Industrial Use for a proposed wash plant in the

Industrial District pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

37E, for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company, owner on property

located on the West 10 acres of the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section

12, T25N, R19W, Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI.

Roy







1

MINUTES-Pierce County Land Management Meeting, Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Jeff Holst, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden Others: Ryan Bechel, Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, and Tracie Wold Chairperson Fetzer called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:00 pm in the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Set next meeting dates: April 6th & 20th, May 4th & 18th, all in 2016. Approved Minutes: Ross moved to approved the March 2, 2016 Land Management Committee minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor with Aubart abstaining because of absence at the last meeting. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for CMC-Spring Valley, LLC (County Materials) owner on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 9 and the NE ¼ and the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, all in T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI. Jim Small from County Materials gave a quick summary of events of the last two years. A year and a half ago they had an issue at the end of the season where there was some dust; it was frozen so they weren’t running the water. They got a call from a neighbor who also called Land Management. Jim was in the bottom of the pit when the neighbor called him so he shut the operation down and they were done for the season. That situation was taken care of and handled right away. They did then haul out most of that last winter. In the late winter/early spring they moved the dry end of the plant down in the floor of the quarry like they promised they would. The wash plant is still up top, but the ag lime, the finer materials, are all down at the bottom of the pit. Jim thinks that has helped tremendously for noise and dust. This past summer they hired Ted Peterson. He is the Western Region Aggregate Supervisor. He will be right on site most of the time during production season. Jim is starting to transition out and hand things over to Ted. Last May Jim stopped and saw the Town of Spring Lake and he knows Ted has met with them also, and they want to keep that up at least twice a year (to stop in and see them). Staff Report – Brad Roy: County Materials received a Conditional Use Permit for Nonmetallic Mining in April, 2007. Mining operations began in 2008. The Conditional Use Permit covers approximately 200 acres; County Materials intends to mine approximately 130 of those acres. The original application presented a plan in which the entire operation would be conducted below grade within the extraction area. The operation has remained mostly on the surface which has contributed to issues of noise, dust and appearance. The applicants still intend to move the operation to the quarry floor below the surface elevation. Timing of the move is dependent on product demand. A status report conducted in November, 2013 modified the CUP to allow nonproduction hours from 6pm to 8pm Monday through Friday for maintenance and preparation. At that time Condition #4 was also modified to require County Materials to work with the Land Conservation Department to ensure that the site is internally drained. When crushing equipment is placed onsite it is located within the quarry, below grade. The wash plant and other operational structures are located above the quarry. This makes the operation more noticeable visually and audibly. County Materials intentions are to place the structures within the quarry, as space allows, limiting the impacts to the surrounding areas. The dry screening plant has been moved to the quarry floor. The original operation plan states that excavation would

PIERCE COUNTY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF LAND MANAGEMENT & RECORDS

Pierce County Courthouse

P.O. Box 647, 414 W. Main St, Ellsworth, WI 54011

Planning Office 715-273-6746

Zoning Office 715-273-6747

Fax 715-273-6864

2

create a floor elevation of 1050’, where all activity would be conducted. The average current floor elevation is 1100’ and the processing area has an approximate elevation of 1160’. The average floor elevation of the quarry is 1100’. County Materials has begun to lower the floor to 1070’. There are 40 unreclaimed acres on the site. A Fugitive Dust Plan was developed and approved by the Town of Spring and the LMC in June of 2012. Condition #4 states, Stormwater measures shall be reviewed and internal drainage verified by the Pierce County Land Conservation Department as soon as practical. If determined to not be internally drained, engineered plans shall be submitted for Land Conservation review within 90 days. Failure will result in this issue being placed on the next available LMC agenda for potential suspension of the CUP. The Land Conservation Department inspected the site soon after the previous renewal. It was determined that the mining area is internally drained. A small portion of the processing area (~ 2,500 square feet west of the scale) drains to the north and not into the quarry. The water runs to small sediment basin. Land Conservation believed that the measures in place are adequate with proper maintenance of the basin and limiting the contributing area. Staff recently inspected the area. The west edge of the basin needs to be reinforced from erosion along the overburden stockpile. County Materials is aware of the issue and has plans for the area which they will discuss at the meeting. This operation has received numerous complaints when it began operation about noise, dust and appearance. Staff has not received any complaints since the last renewal. Staff spoke with the Town of Spring Lake Chairperson, Richard Johnson, regarding the renewal of this conditional use permit. He stated that he was not aware of any issues and that he would be present at the meeting and could provide further comments if needed. The existing conditions are listed 1-28. Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether any other additions or modifications to the established conditions are necessary to mitigate any impact on the public health, safety, the public interest and character of the area and renew this conditional use permit for a nonmetallic mining operation with the following conditions listed 1-28. The only change is to #4 which now states, “Stormwater measures shall be implemented and maintained consistent with Land Conservation Department recommendations.” Mike Jacobson stated he does not have any concerns. Jim has been there from the get-go. Pete Krautkramer did a great job mitigating that transition and Ted has come in and done the same. At this point, they have been a good neighbor. Fetzer stated that’s what they like to hear. He knows they had issues early on and when Pete came in, he really straightened things out. It’s great for the Committee, land owners and the community and the Committee appreciates that. Holst commends Richard Johnson & Tim Anderson for their interest in governing their township. Holst moved to amend condition #4 to read, “Stormwater measures shall be implemented and maintained consistent with Land Conservation Department recommendations.” Along with conditions 1-28/Aubart seconded. Ross asked about the complaint with the dust, was it a neighbor from very nearby? Jim stated it was a year and a half ago; it was a gusty day when a front was moving through so he didn’t ask where the neighbor lived and didn’t want to know. He just happened to be right on the site telling the guys that they need to shut down for the year. Holst stated the process that they went through with this conditional use permit shows why conditional use permits work when both sides are willing to negotiate and work on it and why townships can live within the conditional use permit process because they can achieve the goals that are needed. Sanden added that it’s no small part to Jim’s attention, report with the neighbors, etc. This was one of the more complicated ones that he has certainly seen. He stated Jim is passing the baton onto Ted and he has big shoes to fill because Jim did a really good job in settling a lot of these issues and again the personal connection he has with the neighbors made all the different. Jim stated he is still around. Ted is going to be on site pretty much every day as he is a manager. Now he can shut everyone down if they need to. It’s not like they run until they hear a complaint or something like that. So it’s going to be a big improvement having Ted there. Mike Jacobson thanked Brad Roy for being on top of it and it’s good to have him here in Ellsworth. Richard Johnson added that was a big change made in the community. Jeff knows that Richard used to work for a contractor and they would haul hundreds of thousands of tons of lime out of the Elmwood quarry, and never was a truck ever covered. They blasted right

3

in part of the city limits, but they are so used to it since it has been there for 75 years. The proposal for the Town of Spring Lake was to start a new quarry on this nice farm land. There were a lot of complaints that he felt were very trivial. If you’re going to have a quarry, you’re going to have noise; if you’re going to raise pigs, you’re going to have a stink. There was a lot of stuff that went on that should not have, but everyone has a right to their opinion and they handled it with help from the County and Jim Small. It’s been going good and he hasn’t had a call at all. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a “revised” North West Pierce County Agriculture Enterprise Area (AEA) to be located in portions of the Towns of Clifton, River Falls and Martell. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: The Working Lands Initiative, which was signed into law in 2009, established Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEAs). An AEA is an area of contiguous land primarily in agricultural use that has been designated by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) in response to a locally developed petition. An AEA must be located on lands identified in a DATCP approved Farmland Preservation Plan as being “suitable for preservation”. Each town within Pierce County created such a map in conjunction with the development of the County’s Farmland Preservation Plan. These maps were incorporated into the County’s Plan as “Farmland Preservation Maps.” An amended map of land within the Town of River Falls that is “suitable for preservation” was adopted in 2015. The Towns of Clifton, River Falls, and Martell have each passed a resolution supporting the establishment of an AEA within their borders. These resolutions are attached for your information. A similar resolution is now necessary at the County level. The Land Conservation Committee (LCC) took action to support the establishment of the AEA at their January 28, 2016 meeting. Pierce County’s adopted Farmland Preservation Plan states: Goal #1: Identify and preserve areas suitable for agriculture. Objective #1: Assist town in preserving productive farmland within their borders consistent with town policies and plans. Policy # 1: Support the creation of Agricultural Enterprise Areas when supported by the impacted towns. There are three resolutions that were passed by the towns as well as a couple of maps. Pichotta noted that the attached map states that there are 11,142 acres owned by petition signers, but stated that he has been told that some of the acreage located in the Town of Clifton was likely double counted, apparently because they used attribute tables provided by assessors but it looks like it’s more along the lines of 10,500 acres. Staff recommends the Land Management Committee support the creation of the North West Pierce County AEA and direct staff to work with the Corporation Counsel’s Office to draft a resolution for Finance and Personnel Committee and County Board consideration. Sanden moved to support the creation of the North West Pierce County AEA and direct staff to work with the Corporation Counsel office to draft a resolution for Finance and Personnel Committee and County Board consideration/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the County Wide Policies, Goals Overview and the Context section of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: Some of the policies governing both the planning and management of “growth and change” within the county are not specific to individual management areas listed in the “Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies” element. To refrain from repeating the broad county-wide policies that intersect each subsection of the “Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies,” those overarching policies have been grouped together here. Planning Policies: Encourage that residential development be accommodated within the urbanized communities, contiguous growth areas, rural communities, and high accessibility corridors so that pressures for the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses is limited. Support the construction of dwelling units that meet the needs of every economic segment of the market in appropriate locations throughout the county. Especially within urbanized communities and contiguous growth areas of the county by providing for a range of densities and building types. Protect flood plains and natural

4

drainage ways from development or development practices that reduce the capacity to store water or increase the potential flooding of other property. Support the location of public facilities that maximize the practicality of non-automotive modes of transportation, including walking and the use of bicycles and buses. Encourage commercial development within existing central business districts. Discourage unplanned large scale commercial activity outside existing municipalities. Encourage the growth of the tourism industry by reinforcing the viability of the county’s historic, open space, and recreation resources. Encourage the preservation and enhancement of places of county-wide cultural or historic significance in historic or cultural preservation districts or sites, whether within municipal boundaries or in unincorporated lands. Encourage energy efficiency and the use of alternative/renewable energy systems. Management Policies: The county planning staff will work with municipalities and towns, when appropriate, to adopt joint or compatible comprehensive plans. The county will, when appropriate, assist in the mediation of problems and disputes between municipalities and towns regarding boundaries and land use development. The county will encourage land use regulations that allow for the widest possible mixture of housing types, with particular attention paid to providing housing opportunities that meet the needs of the elderly, the low and moderate income households, and the handicapped. The county will seek to minimize direct residential access to county roads and require the use of shared access where practical. The county will direct, and encourage municipalities and towns to also direct, special attention to the siting and development of new uses in proximity to historic or cultural sites, to increase the attractiveness of those areas for recreation and tourism purposes. The county will provide, when appropriate, support to municipalities and towns in their application to, or communications with, other agencies or governments when said applications or communications further overall county goals. Ross suggested we change the word “handicapped” to “physically challenged”. Goals Overview: IN THE YEAR 2035, Pierce County will continue to offer an exceptional quality of life through thoughtfully planned and designed development, a transportation system emphasizing roadway system maintenance, vigorous business and job growth, and preservation of treasured natural resources. Existing communities will be preserved and new investment and redevelopment will continue to ensure that these communities remain both functional and desirable. Most new homes in the cities and villages will be within walking or biking distance of parks, shops, and schools. Neighborhoods will contain a mix of housing types to reflect the needs of a diverse population. Scattered rural non-farm development will be moderated as efforts to preserve agricultural lands and the county’s rural character are successful. Nevertheless, new rural housing will remain available to ensure that a full range of housing choices is available in the county. Future investments in the transportation system will emphasize the maintenance and improvement of existing roadway facilities over expansion of the roadway system. Even though auto travel will become more costly, it will remain the preferred mode of travel for many residents. Thus, roadway improvements that correspond with careful, planned growth will continue to be necessary. Economic development will occur mainly in business centers along major transportation corridors. Additional businesses will be promoted in cities and villages to facilitate a “jobs-housing balance” in those communities. River Falls will continue to maintain its vitality as the county’s dominant civic, cultural, educational, and employment center. Pierce County’s high quality of life will continue to be a principal factor in the retention and attraction of new business development. The quality of Pierce County’s many streams, rivers, natural areas, and environmental corridors will be preserved and improved. The county’s farmlands will continue to produce food for both nearby and faraway markets. Preservation of these resources will remain an overriding consideration as the county continues to grow. Pichotta stated the vision statement is fair game also; do you feel that is still a reasonable vision for the county, are there any portions of that should be tweaked? Holst asked if River Falls is the Counties dominant cultural, educational and employment center? Holst stated it gives us enough grey area that things can be switched without being tied down. For the Goals Overview, there are three main planning goals that are driving the comprehensive plan. 1) Encourage growth in areas near villages and cities supported by adequate infrastructure. 2) Retain rural character and ensure the continuation of traditional rural activities.

5

3) Promote stewardship of land and water resources. The goals and objectives for management are aimed at implementing the following management concept: Encourage a development pattern that is compact and efficient while maintaining the rural and agricultural character of the county. This development pattern should have a close, functional relationship to infrastructure and transportation, individual town comprehensive plans, and a concern for environmental quality and natural processes. Additionally, it is recognized that certain development does not require municipal utility infrastructure and is not incompatible with the rural character of Pierce County. Andy Pichotta: Effective January 1, 2010 many land use decisions made by a Town, Village, City, or County must be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. The following information is intended to help define Pierce County’s approach to land use and to provide guidance as to how this plan frames interaction with the units of government located within it. Goal, Objective, and Policy Language: Throughout the comprehensive plan the terms “encourage” and “discourage” are utilized frequently. The meaning will vary depending upon context. The County will consider goal, objective and policy statements that “discourage” a given condition or use – as not prohibiting the specific action - but as a statement that the condition or use is not the preferred outcome, except when relating to rezones (map amendments). In cases of rezones (map amendments), language discouraging the establishment of a use (or type of use) at a given location shall be interpreted as not supporting the establishment of that district at that location – if the town in which the rezone is proposed does not have a comprehensive plan. In cases where a town does have a comprehensive plan, the appropriateness of a proposed rezone shall be determined based on its consistency with that town’s plan. The county will, when appropriate, seek to create processes and a fee structure that provides incentives to produce the activities or outcomes that the County wants to “encourage” and disincentives for activities or outcomes that the County wants to “discourage.” If you recall some time ago we had a discussion about potentially utilizing some of the concepts in a retooling of the fee structure. It was determined that, at that point in time, there probably wasn’t a lot of support for doing anything too creative with our fee structure given that simply doing that might discourage development activity; the things we want to encourage. To elaborate, in cases where the county plan “discourages” an activity - that activity should not be viewed as prohibited, but recognized as something that Pierce County wants to discourage county wide and for which a strategy to discourage that activity may be pursued. For example, the objective; “Discourage residential subdivision development on productive agriculture land” doesn’t mean that residential subdivision development is prohibited on productive agriculture land – but that Pierce County will, when appropriate, consider strategies intended to discourage the subdivision of productive agriculture land throughout the county through the establishment of a process and/or fee intended to make initiating that activity less attractive (i.e. fee could reflect full cost of service). Conversely, an activity that is to be “encouraged” might be subject to a simplified process with lesser fees. It is Pichotta stated that it was his sense that they may not do anything with this section in the foreseeable future, however, if they were to see some sort of activity like they saw in 2004-2006, this would give us the basis for investigating those sorts of strategies and for the support for implementing those at that point and wouldn’t require an amendment to the comp. plan, it could be something that was just brought forth. Sanden asked if there was any opening for litigation. Pichotta stated that the concept had been reviewed by legal counsel. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Relating to Cities and Villages: Pierce County generally has no jurisdiction over land use decisions within Villages and Cities. In theory, if a Village or City does not adopt a comprehensive plan the document guiding land use decisions would be, by default, the County Plan. It is for this reason that “urban” goals, objectives, and policies are identified. The county acknowledges that the primary responsibility for achieving plan objectives within urbanized communities remains with the municipalities. The county further acknowledges that it shares responsibility with the municipalities for achieving the plan objectives within the one and one-half to three mile area of shared jurisdiction (ETZ or platting and subdivision review boundaries.) Role of Town Plans in Pierce County Zoning Decisions: Pichotta stated this section is largely tempered by our experience with the

6

Town of Oak Grove. We’re not necessarily changing the relationship between the County and the Towns under county zoning; but he is proposing to amend it to give a clearer picture of how it actually works and has to work. Most of the towns in Pierce County (16 out of 17) have adopted comprehensive plans. The following text describes how town plans will provide guidance to land use decisions occurring within that towns borders. Ensure that towns subject to county zoning understand the role of town plans and ordinances in county land use processes, including implications of statutory authority and land use case law (i.e. responsibility for decisions regarding conditional use permits, lack of town plan authority over permitted uses, etc.) (Intergovernmental Cooperation). Zoning decisions involving Towns that HAVE NOT adopted a comprehensive plan: This is only one town, Town of Union. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the county will continue to solicit a town recommendation regarding the proposed use. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved only when consistent with the Pierce County Plan (encouraged vs. discouraged). In such cases, Pierce County will solicit a town recommendation regarding the proposed rezone. They still do want to know what the town thinks and in fact they may choose to cite in their recommendation a portion of the county’s comprehensive plan that perhaps they may not have considered so it still gives them the ability to steer-their-own-ship but they have to do it using our plan. The County will consider goal, objective and policy statements that “discourage” a given condition or use – as not prohibiting the specific action - but as a statement that the condition or use is not the preferred outcome, except when relating to rezones (map amendments). (Management Policies for the Entire County). The relationship between towns without a comprehensive plan and Pierce County will remain much the same as it has been in the past. The main difference being that these towns will, after January 1, 2010, no longer have veto authority over rezones within their borders and a determination of the appropriateness of a proposed rezone will be based on consistency with the Pierce County Plan. The submission of a Town Recommendation regarding a proposed rezone or conditional use permit will continue to be required at the time of application. The Town Recommendations will be advisory. Zoning decisions involving Towns that HAVE adopted a comprehensive plan: The County acknowledges that the responsibility for accomplishing planning objectives set forth in plans developed by towns subject to county zoning lies jointly with the Town and Pierce County. The county further acknowledges that it will seek to further each Town’s planning goals and objectives when considering the establishment of conditionally permitted uses. The county will approve re-zonings or map amendments only when the proposed change is consistent with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. Pierce County will consider adherence to the goals and objectives, of an adopted or amended comprehensive plan to be consistent with the “public interest” for decisions relating to that governmental unit or municipality. Conditional Use Permits: A Town Recommendation regarding a proposed conditional use permit will continue to be required at the time of application. If a proposed conditionally permitted use is determined to be not consistent with a given Town’s comprehensive plan, the code/plan provision with which it is incompatible must be specifically referenced. Pierce County will not approve conditionally permitted uses that are demonstrably inconsistent with an adopted town plan. It should be noted that consistency with a town plan does not guarantee Pierce County approval of a proposed conditional use if the Land Management Committee determines that the proposed use at the proposed location will be detrimental or injurious to the public health or to public safety. In cases where a Town’s comprehensive plan does not provide guidance regarding a proposed use, the recommendation shall continue to be advisory. When a town cites goals, objectives, and/or policies in their recommendation regarding a proposed conditionally permitted use, the Land Management Committee will seek to ensure that any decision made, or condition placed, will not be contrary to the long term or intermediate end that the goal and/or objective cited is intended to accomplish. A policy, if one is cited, will be viewed as the town’s recommendation as to how that particular goal or objective could or should be accomplished. It may be that a variety of strategies or required conditions could be employed to accomplish the cited goal or objective and it is the Land Management Committee’s responsibility to ensure that any condition placed is reasonable and meets a legitimate regulatory purpose. It must be noted

7

that the Land Management Committee is ultimately responsible for decisions regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit and said decisions are appealable by any aggrieved party. Pierce County, in creating a mechanism though which a town is able to further the goals and objectives of their comprehensive plan, did not relinquish its authority or responsibility in making discretionary decisions regarding the issuance of conditional use permits. Pichotta stated when they had the proposed expansion of the WISC mine into the Town of Oak Grove; he did a memo to the Committee that talked about the public interest. This is some of the pieces of the memo that he thought were pertinent that kind of flesh out the concept of “public interest.” Rezones: Applications for rezones will not be approved by Pierce County unless the request is consistent with that town’s comprehensive plan. The submission of a Town Recommendation regarding a proposed rezone will continue to be required at the time of application. Reference to the pertinent section of the Town’s plan supporting the proposed rezone or text amendment must be provided to demonstrate consistency with the Town’s plan. It should be noted that permitted uses, uses which are allowable by right in a given district by the Pierce County Zoning Code (Chapter 240), are not impacted or restricted by a Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Pichotta stated a town can’t outlaw uses in their comp. plan, they can just provide direction. Sanden asked who the ultimate determiner of consistency is if the town says, “Well this is consistent with our comp. plan” and the committee says, “Well no it isn’t”. Pichotta stated the committee would have the final word. The Land Management committee would make that decision and then it would be if the town wanted to challenge that they would request a certiorari review by circuit court and then the court would decide. That’s essentially what they did with Oak Grove. Pichotta thinks this describes much better the relationship than it had previously. We simply can’t be tied to town plans because the County is responsible for those decisions and if we tie ourselves to something that is arguably arbitrary and capricious we are going to expose ourselves to liability and we certainly don’t want to do that. In some cases, town boards are just made up of a couple of folks and it just takes one strong personality to push a particular perspective through. Pichotta stated those are the proposed changes and if the committee is comfortable with what staff has proposed tonight, they will move forward with that. In the next steps the committee will get a break from this for a while and the office is going to put together a survey instrument that will be placed on the website and folks will be encourages to fill it out. It will be a link on the website. We are looking for input on the plan itself as well as some specific input from the towns that are under county zoning, if there are things they would like to see us focus on. He would like to glean some guidance from them and, though it may be difficult, we will try. So once we come up with a survey instrument we will bring it for the committee’s consideration and then we’ll take another break, we’ll come back, and using the input that we gleaned from the survey, we will propose an implementation plan which will basically be a series of tasks for staff to complete over the course of the next 5 years, until we do this again. Holst asked if the survey will be weighted. Pichotta stated no, it would be difficult to do it in a statistically valid sort of way. So this will just be an opportunity for folks and elected officials to provide input into how the Land Management Department conducts business. To do a county wide survey like they have before, its cost was about $35,000 and Pichotta doesn’t think there is a need to do that. Holst stated that if we have a hand full of people that are quite zealous over land use issues and they keep pumping the survey all the time, they would still be able to look at it and say, “In the committees mind this is valid or this isn’t” and move on from there. Pichotta sees his point and stated you could have some folks who are of an interest group of some sort and make sure all their likeminded friends submit surveys often and repeatedly and in a sense, skew it. Pichotta thinks we will be able to gauge that and any time you do a survey like this, unless you do it kind of like last time, you’re not going to have confidence within three or four percentage points that that is how your populous feels. This is going to be comments from a hand full of folks. Sanden added this seems to be a generally valuable thing about this whole planning processes, it does give us a chance to connect with the people. We tend to get in our own bubble and think that we know what is best for them, and hopefully we do, but it is always good to kind of check ourselves, “is that what they really feel” rather than what I feel they feel. Pichotta stated that in a month or so we will have a survey instrument for the committee’s consideration.

8

Sanden feels this piece was very well done. It was kept at the general level but you also got specific enough by using these examples to really clarify all the steps, so it was very well done. Committee consensus to approve proposed text as presented and to move forward.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training requests. Pichotta stated he has no travel/training requests for consideration tonight.

Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items: There are three items on the April 6th agenda. Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a retreat center in the Town of Salem. There will be a request for renewal of CUP for mining by Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company in the Towns of Oak Grove and Diamond Bluff. The last item is a request for renewal of CUP for the wash plant that is permitted in the Town of Diamond Bluff.

Motion to adjourn at 6:50pm by Holst/Sanden second. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING REVISED AGENDA

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: April 6th

& 20th

, May 4th

& 18th


3 Approve minutes of the March 2, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


permit for CMC-Spring Valley LLC (County Materials) owner on

property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 9 and the NE

¼ and the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, all in T27N, R15W,

Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

5 Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives

and Policies of the County Wide Policies, Goals Overview and the

Context section of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Bechel

6 Discuss take action on the “revised” North West Pierce County

Agricultural Enterprise Area (AEA) to be located in portions of

the Towns of Clifton, River Falls and Martell.

Pichotta







Revised March 8, 2016 at 2:08pm.

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, March 2, 2016

Present: Joe Fetzer, Jeff Holst, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden

Absent: Jon Aubart




Next meeting dates: March 16th

, April 6th

& 20th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Ross moved to approve the February 17, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for

Expansion/Intensification of Belle Vinez Winery, a conditionally permitted use, in the General Rural

Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-76A, for Shannon and Angel

Zimmerman, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3, T27N, R19W, Town of

Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited Shannon Zimmerman forward: Shannon

Zimmerman explained that they have a fairly simple request. The original request was based on a business plan

that they thought aligned with market demand. That being the market demand for a winery and type of business

they have would align probably more for the warmer months. As they would later learn, and this is a great

problem to have, that demand was greater than that. There is demand for the months of January, February and

the winter months. Demand is lower. He would not expect it to be the same but these are, for example,

corporate events or belated holiday party and they want to come out and they want to do a wine tasting and have

some brick-oven pizza or something along those lines. There is also an economic element that motivated them

to come before the committee and request this modification. The second thing they didn’t take into

consideration when they opened the business and he didn’t take it into consideration until he was on one of his

township visits on his way here tonight that they have seven UWRF students working at the winery. One of the

young ladies talked about the fact that for every 90 days she works there, she can pay a semester of college off.

He thought that was fantastic. If they can be open in the winter months, they are anticipating that it is going to

be special events or just Friday and Saturday. For them, no change to the conditions previously approved. No

change to how they operate, days they operate, times during the day that they operate, just a request for a

calendar expansion. So rather than mid-May to the 31st, it would be at their leisure, year round. Sanden asked in

the time of operation, have there been any complaints to the Township or the County. Mr. Zimmerman stated he

wasn’t made aware of it to the township, however, LeRoy Peterson said no “valid” complaints. He has never

been notified from the township that there were any complaints at all. Sanden asked if the Sheriff’s Department

has ever been called. Mr. Zimmerman stated they have never been called.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: The applicants received a Condition Use Permit (CUP) to establish the “Belle

Vinez” winery with incidental food service in August 2013. Off-sale wine along with various craft and wine

related products are also sold on site. The winery is currently permitted to be open mid-May to December 31st.

The applicants are requesting to expand/intensify the use by enabling year-round operation. The Land

Management Committee approved the Site Plan for the operation on January 15, 2014 and a Food and Wine

Plan detailing how the food operations will be incidental and subordinate to winery operations was approved on





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

March 5, 2014. The conditional use permit was renewed on July 15, 2015 and the Food and Wine Plan was

amended on October 21, 2015 to allow desserts to be served at special events. Condition #11 states, “Winery

may be open from mid-May to December 31st. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm. Condition #12 states,

“Full menu food service (pizza and appetizers) may be provided from mid-May to December 31st, Thursday

through Sunday. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm with lights out by 10pm. Limited menu food service

(appetizers only) may be provided in the Tasting Room during regular hours of operation.” The term “lights

out” has been frequently used in permits for similar operations. The term was discussed in detail at the renewal

on July 15, 2015. Condition #12 has been interpreted to mean that commercial service must cease by 9pm and

that customers are to have vacated the facility by 10pm. This condition has not been interpreted to mean that

lighting cannot be utilized past 10pm. The applicants have, on several occasions, notified staff prior to their own

personal use of the facility outside of the terms established in the conditional use permit. The applicants’ private

use of the facility has resulted in concerns about compliance with established conditions being raised by

neighboring landowners. Staff is of the position that the issuance of a CUP authorizing commercial use of a

property or facility does not impact the owner’s ability to utilize or access that property outside of established

commercial hours. However, all commercial activity authorized by the CUP must comply with established

conditions and hours. There have been no compliance issues with the operations since it opened. The Town of

Clifton recommended approval of this request on February 2, 2016 stating, “Recommendation for Belle Vinez

Winery to operate with the same conditions presently approved, except expand the days of annual operation to

year-round.” The existing conditions are listed #1 - #26 in the staff report.


use at the proposed location would be contrary to the public interest or would be detrimental or injurious to

public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area. If found to not be contrary to the above,

staff recommends the LMC approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions (staff suggested

changes from the current conditions are bolded with strike through which indicate deletion).

1. Activities shall be conducted consistent with the application unless modified by another condition of this

approval.

2. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for any future structures or signs not presented in this plan

from the Zoning Office.

3. The winery shall produce “wine” as defined by the State of Wisconsin.

4. Applicant shall develop and implement a Waste Stream Management Plan which is compliant with DNR

and DSPS regulations.

5. The applicant shall obtain necessary licenses from the Town of Clifton.

6. Applicant shall obtain all other necessary permits from state and municipal agencies.

7. The parking lot shall have at least 71 parking spaces. There shall be no on-street parking.

8. Seating capacity for the pavilion and plaza shall not exceed 120.

9. Applicant shall install signs detailing the need for reservations and no parking on the street.

10. Finalized plans of the structures shall be presented to the LMC for review and approval.

11. Winery may be open from mid-May to December 31st. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm.

12. Full menu food service (pizza and appetizers) may be provided from mid-May to December 31st,

Thursday through Sunday. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm with lights out by 10pm. Limited

menu food service (appetizers only) may be provided in the Tasting Room during regular hours of

operation.

13. No beer or liquor shall be served in the tasting room.

14. Lighting shall comply with the Land Management Department policy.

15. Sound system shall only be within the structures.

16. No audio bird repellant shall be used onsite.

17. Weddings and special events may not exceed established business hours and must be conducted

consistent with the other conditions of this permit.

18. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire in 2 years and a status report shall be presented to the LMC in

one year.

3

19. Applicant understands that any intensification or expansion of this use will require the issuance of a new


20. Berm shall be established on the east perimeter of the property with adequate vegetative cover.

21. Adequate vegetative cover shall be established to visually screen the parking lot from the road.

22. Applicant shall adhere to the approved Food and Wine Plan and shall ensure that food operations remain

incidental/subordinate to winery operations.

23. Sound shall be limited to no more than 80 decibels at the property line.

24. Food service shall remain incidental/subordinate to the primary use as a winery.

25. Promoted access route shall be along County Road M.

26. Arrangements shall be made to establish a visual screen along the southern property boundary.

Roy stated that the only changes being to condition #11 now stating: Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm.

Other changes to condition #12 to state: Full menu food service (pizza and appetizers) may be provided

Thursday through Sunday. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm with lights out by 10pm. Limited menu

food service (appetizers only) may be provided in the Tasting Room during regular hours of operation.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. Pichotta stated you should have two items of

correspondence, you were sent a letter from Gary and Marcia Borgstadt which outlined a number of concerns

that they have regarding this operation. Rather than read the letter, he will characterize it to get it in the record.

One concern was they believe this facility is not in compliance with the Town of Clifton’s Comprehensive Plan.

They believe that the Zimmerman’s are operating outside the requirements of their Class B Liquor License.

They feel that the LMC has been allowing the Zimmerman’s to operate outside of the CUP. They believe the

LMC has been allowing them to hold private parties also outside of the parameters of the CUP. They raise

issues relating to property values. They ask that you deny the request and they advise the Zimmerman’s to stop

violating the State Liquor laws. You also received some additional correspondence, that is in your folders, from

Carol Schoenthaler, another neighbor; to characterize that one; she wants to see the winery within the

neighborhood and not taking over the neighborhood. She feels that it is a commercial establishment that is

changing the neighborhood. We also did get a third item of correspondence from Greg and Kristin Johnson who

are also neighbors, they are in support of the winery and it’s expansion. Pichotta stated that he would like to

touch on a couple items. He could do it in the public comment part or we could close the public hearing if that is

appropriate. Chairperson Fetzer stated we will get through the public comment, close that and then go from

there. Any further public comment? Chairperson Fetzer closed the public hearing. Pichotta, it has been

suggested that the applicants are operating outside of their Class B Liquor license for a winery. The Borgstadt’s

reference in their letter a discussion that they had with Tyler Quam and/or Mario Altuzar with the Department

of Revenue. Pichotta indicated that he had talked to Tyler Quam and it is fairly clear that some of the rules and

regulations relating to Class B Liquor Licenses specifically for wineries aren’t exactly clear. Mr. Quam had

noted that he is seeking a legal opinion regarding some of these issues from the State AG Office. Mr. Quam is a

special agent in charge for the Department of Revenue. He alluded to the fact that there are five or six wineries

where issues have been raised and they are seeking clarification. It would seem appropriate that decisions

relating to compliance with a Class B Liquor license need to be made by the Department of Revenue versus an

interpretation by the LMC. Pichotta suggested that this is almost akin to if we issue a CUP for someone to sell

used cars. The State has to give them a permit or a license if they are going to sell more than five cars in a year.

The license that is given by the State is of course, different than the CUP. In order for them to operate under that

CUP they have to have the license. He would see this as similar to that and, depending on what type of liquor

license that the Zimmerman’s had, if they had a Class B beer license they could actually be open until 2:00am

and concerns about when the doors are actually closed wouldn’t be an issue. If there are issues with the Class B

Liquor License, he would suggest that it’s not within our purview to pursue them because what we are mainly

concerned with is compliance with our own conditions. Sanden asked Andy if our conditions were in conflict

with the liquor license, of course the liquor license would supersede our CUP. Pichotta stated it may be that the

parameters associated with the CUP are broader than they can actually use, depending on the type of liquor

license that they have. That would fall upon the applicant to ensure that he doesn’t lose his liquor license.

Sanden asked with respect to one of the arguments brought up by Mr. Borgstadt, this did come up in another

4

winery issue. If they are having a private party, how does this committee know or how does Brad know whether

or not they are charging and therefore it’s not a private party. How do we know what’s commercial and what’s

private unless we are actually there to see if any money is changing hands. Pichotta stated that when we have

been notified on the handful of times that it has occurred, his understanding is that one of them was, rather than

watch the Super Bowl in his living room the applicant opted to watch it at the winery. To a certain degree we

have to take him at his word at that. He doesn’t think that we want to be out there policing it in that sense. Holst

stated he believes every applicant is different and he believes this applicant calls in advance and warns us when

he is going to do things. He thinks every one of these has to be judged on its own merit. Pichotta stated he also

had a discussion regarding the personal use of a facility like this with Mr. Quam and the long and short of it is,

in each of these instances it would have to be judged on its own merits. Pichotta noted that Mr. Quam had said

such a situation would be alright if it were employees or, for example, the applicants wife and child. Pichotta

noted that he had asked what if those in attendance were more children and potentially some in-laws, is that ok?

Quam stated probably but that each situation would need to be judged on its own merits. Holst stated what we

need to take into consideration is there have been no compliance issues with the operations. He believes these

people that have issues need to follow the correct procedure and that isn’t to write us a letter as individuals but

to notify the department when they believe there are compliance issues. Sanden stated so they can be

documented. Ross stated at that time. Holst stated that is right. Pichotta stated a lot of their concerns stem from

a different interpretation than this committee has about condition #12 about what lights out means. Sanden

asked according to the letter, the Clifton Town Plan Commission denied it but the Clifton Town Board

approved it. Pichotta stated the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the full board that the full

board utilizes to help make their determinations. Holst stated that the planning commission makes a non-

binding recommendation to the Town Board. Pichotta stated that is correct. Holst moved to approve the

conditional use permit for expansion/intensification for Belle Vinez Winery with conditions #1 - #26 as

stated, due to the fact this is not found to be contrary to public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to

public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area/Sanden seconded. All in favor.

Passed.

Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Management

Chapter, relating to Planning and Regulatory Techniques of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: This is part two of what we started at the last meeting. This section is lengthy so I

would encourage you to interrupt whenever you have comments or concerns. So starting off with Planning:

Goal:

Establish comprehensive, county-wide policy planning that supports municipal, town and other agency

planning efforts and supports effective decision-making.

Objectives:

Encourage local municipalities and towns to adopt comprehensive plans and development policies that

reflect local characteristics and standards and mesh with the adopted county comprehensive plan.

County planning should anticipate change and provide decision-makers with insight into alternatives and

consequences.

The county should make its comprehensive plan well known, up-to-date and useful so it becomes part of

the fabric of decision-making.

Consistency with the county comprehensive plan should be made a prerequisite of development within

the county’s jurisdiction.

Encourage energy efficiency in site planning and building design.

Policies:

The county acknowledges that the responsibility for accomplishing planning goals and objectives set

forth in plans developed by towns subject to county zoning lies jointly with the Town and Pierce

County. The county further acknowledges that it will seek to further each Town’s planning goals and

objectives when considering the establishment of conditionally permitted uses. In cases where a town

5

has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the county will continue to solicit a non-binding town

recommendation regarding the proposed use.

Pichotta stated this is one of those ones that if you recall, in previous chapters, where we struck the words

“non-binding”. Once again we will be striking them in this paragraph as well as the next.

The county will approve rezoning or map amendments only when the proposed change is consistent

with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. In cases where a town has not completed a

comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved only when consistent with the Pierce County Plan. In

cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the county will solicit a non-binding town

recommendation regarding the proposed rezone.

The county will consider goal, objective and policy statements that “discourage” a given condition or

use – as not prohibiting the specific action – but as a statement that the condition or use is not the

preferred outcome, except when relating to rezones (map amendments). In cases of rezones, language

discouraging the establishment of a use (or type of use) at a given location shall be interpreted as not

supporting the establishment of that district at that location – if the town in which the rezone is proposed

does not have a comprehensive plan. In cases where a town does have a comprehensive plan, the

appropriateness of a proposed rezone shall be determined based on its consistency with that town’s plan.

The county acknowledges that the primary responsibility for achieving plan objectives within urbanized

communities remains with the municipalities. The county further acknowledges that it shares

responsibility with the municipalities for achieving the plan objectives within the one and one-half to

three mile area of shared jurisdiction.

The county will encourage municipalities to adopt land use regulation that allow for the widest possible

mixture of housing types, with particular attention paid to providing housing opportunities that meet the

needs of the elderly, the low and moderate income households and the handicapped.

The county will encourage each municipality to adopt land use controls that support the central business

district of each community, if present.

The county will encourage municipalities to consider land use regulations that include standards for

landscaping, impervious surface areas and maximum lot coverage with the intent of protecting human

and wildlife habitat from any detrimental effects of development.

The county will encourage the use of clustered development of dwellings in an arrangement that

encourages the permanent protection of open space and/or agricultural lands.

The county will work with towns and property owners to establish, when appropriate, land use controls

that preserve and enhance the agricultural industry.

The county will encourage the establishment of town land use regulations and land use transitions

designed to reduce potential conflicts arising from the proximity of agriculture to urban areas and other

incompatible land uses.

The county will work with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to carefully examine proposals

for primary highways and major arterials with respect to the impacts on conversion of agriculture land to

non-agriculture use.

The county will work with municipalities and towns, when appropriate, to prepare and adopt specific

area plans and land use controls for the high-accessibility corridor areas that enhance the opportunity for

economic development.

The county will encourage municipalities and towns to prepare and adopt specific area plans and land

use controls for sites conducive to economic development located along major water corridors, including

the Mississippi River, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between the competitive interests of

industrial uses and recreation and historic/cultural uses.

The county will encourage municipalities and towns to adopt land use controls and promote the

development of structures economic development parks that protect employment areas from

incompatibility and land use conflicts, both internally to the park and externally to surrounding land

uses.

6

The county will encourage the Pierce County Economic Development Corporation to focus potential

employers to areas in proximity to concentration of population within the county and within reasonable

distance to transportation routes, so that Pierce County residents have the opportunity to minimize long,

energy-absorbing commuting.

Pichotta asked if there are any thoughts or comments on this particular lengthy section. Sanden stated many of

these are repeated. Pichotta stated there is some redundancy. Probably you have seen half of them before.

Regulatory Techniques

Goal:

Encourage the development of regulations and enforcement techniques necessary to protect public

health, safety, public and private property, the natural environment, water resources and the aesthetics

and character of the county, through the establishment of regulations such as zoning, subdivision,

floodplain, building and other ordinances or development standards.

Objectives:

The potential for improving Pierce County’s living, working and natural environments should be the

standard used to determine the need and effectiveness of regulations.

All regulations should be consistent with the plan and work to implement county goals and objectives.

Only those regulations that are enforceable under realistic expectations should be considered.

Environmental design criteria should be considered in development controls to protect natural, scenic,

historic and environmental areas and minimize adverse impacts.

All new developments should be encouraged to preserve significant natural features such as vegetation,

waterways, floodplains, wetlands woodlands and scenic vistas.

The county will strive to make its land use regulations, development and performance standards,

approval process and expectations regarding plan compliance as clear and streamlined as possible.

Efforts will be made to attain community goals while respecting private property rights.

Policies:

The county acknowledges that the responsibility for accomplishing planning goals and objectives set

forth in plans developed by towns subject to county zoning lies jointly with the Town and Pierce

County. The county further acknowledges that it will seek to further each Town’s planning goals and

objectives when considering the establishment of conditionally permitted uses. In cases where a town

has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the county will continue to solicit a non-binding town

recommendation regarding the proposed use.

Pichotta stated this is one where we strike “non-binding”.

Pierce County will consider adherence to the goals, objectives and policies of an adopted or amended

comprehensive plan to be consistent with the public interest for conditional use permitting decision

relating to that governmental unit or municipality.

Pichotta stated this is another one that we are proposing to amend a little bit. We propose to change it to: Pierce

County will consider adherence to the goals and objectives; strike out “and policies”, of an adopted or amended

comprehensive plan to be consistent with the public interest. The reason for that being that a policy is, in a lot of

cases, only one of many ways that one might accomplish a goal or objective that they cite. If the policy that the

Town is proposing is over the top and onerous, it may be that we don’t want to tie ourselves to that because

there is a better way to accomplish it that doesn’t get sideways with case law or other considerations. Ross

asked we will go to goals and objectives and drop policies. Pichotta stated yes.

The county will approve rezoning or map amendments only when the proposed change is consistent

with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. In cases where a town has not completed a

comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved only when consistent with the Pierce County Plan. In

cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the county will solicit a non-binding town

recommendation regarding the proposed rezone.

Pichotta stated again striking “non-binding”. The reason we tie a rezone to a Towns comprehensive plan, there

is a need to be consistent with the Town’s plan is because Town’s that have a comprehensive plan have veto

7

authority over rezones so it makes no sense for us to move through the process and approve something that’s

not consistent with a towns plan. It just makes sense to make sure it’s consistent with that on the front end.

Chairperson Fetzer asked if all towns have a comp plan. Pichotta stated everybody but the Town of Union.

The county will consider goal, objective and policy statements that “discourage” a given condition or

use – as not prohibiting the specific action – but as a statement that the condition or use is not the

preferred outcome, except when relating to rezones (map amendments). In cases of rezones, language

discouraging the establishment of a use (or type of use) at a given location shall be interpreted as not

supporting the establishment of that district at that location – if the town in which the rezone is proposed

does not have a comprehensive plan. In cases where a town does have a comprehensive plan, the

appropriateness of a proposed rezone shall be determined based on its consistency with that town’s plan.

The county will, when appropriate, strive to create processes and a fee structure that provides incentives

to produce the activities or outcomes that the county wants to “encourage” and disincentive for activities

or outcomes that the county wants to “discourage”.

Pichotta asked if the committee recalled a couple years ago they had a discussion about the fee structure and

how to approach it and whether to use kind of market strategies to encourage those sorts of behaviors that we

want to see and to discourage those that we don’t? Rather than scrap that whole concept, what he is proposing

to do is walk it back a little bit. Instead of how it was stated originally, the County will strive to create processes

in a fee structure that provides incentives to produce... The County will, when appropriate, seek to create

processes. When appropriate may mean that if we encounter the types of pressures that we saw in ’04, ’05 and

’06, maybe at that point in time there will be a need to put some of these things in place, maybe not. Although it

may be that we won’t see that sort of pressure again in the next few decades. The reason for changing strive to

seek is the word strive suggests a little bit more of a concerted action to make it happen, and seek generally

means that we will explore the option.

The county will continue to utilize land use controls, including site plan review procedures that regulate

site development in a way that encourages compatibility between uses and an efficient development

process.

The county will continue to permit the use of density transfers, which allow for the development of

dwelling at the same overall gross density, to encourage the retention of the greatest area of open space.

The county will consider the adoption of transferable development rights (TDR’s) procedures, which

allow developers to purchase development rights from willing property owners. The use of TDR’s must

be limited only to those developments that implement state public policies. In order to encourage the

preservation of the best agricultural lands, TDR’s may limit the transfer of density to only those

properties with lower productivity at the sending site.

The county will encourage town land use regulation and land use transitions designed to reduce potential

conflicts arising from the proximity of agriculture to urban areas and other incompatible land uses.

The county will require adherence to standards that prevent erosion, sedimentation and adverse visual

impact resulting from the modification of shorelines of rivers, lakes and streams.

The county will utilize land use regulations such as zoning, subdivision, flood plain, storm water and

wetland ordinances, to carefully regulate development in all areas, with particular reference to

safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas and limiting development in these areas.

The county will pay particular attention to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and

groundwater resources in its review of development proposals.

The county will participate in groundwater protection planning efforts of local communities, as

appropriate.

Sanden asked about the TDR one; In order to encourage the preservation of the best agricultural lands, should

that be a comma, TDR’s may limit the transfer of density to only those properties with lower productivity at the

sending site. Staff agreed that it should. Pichotta asked if the committee has any thoughts or comments. Sanden

asked if it would be prudent to mention any case where some issue is not addressed in a Town’s Comprehensive

Plan that we at the county would use our best judgment? Is that a necessary or prudent thing to put in this

8

document? Pichotta stated he almost thinks that’s a given. Sanden explained that we have been talking about

encourage and discourage and you reference the Town’s Comp Plan a lot and talk about how they would have

then solicit the opinions of them. He was thinking the one thing missing is what if that issue is not addressed in

the Town’s Comp Plan. Pichotta stated what has been interesting is often times issues are addressed in their

comp plans and they don’t actually reference it. We see that regularly. Either way that’s fine. The elected

officials use the comprehensive plan as a tool. Basically it helps validate their decisions and if they chose not to

refer to certain sections for whatever reason, that is their prerogative. Holst stated some township plans are

becoming more like zoning ordinances opposed to comp plans. We’ve got to have the latitude to interpret which

it is. If they are trying to zone the comp plan doesn’t carry water with him but if it truly is a plan and gives

direction, then it carries a lot of weight. Sanden said “well stated”. Pichotta asked if there is consensus to go

forward with changes as proposed. Chairperson Fetzer asked if we need a motion. Pichotta stated consensus

would be fine. Committee agreed to changes as proposed.




Hopefully, you received in the mail a copy of the Health Impact Assessment. Sue Galoff, Public Health

Director, sent an email stating; The Board of Health discussed the Health Impact Assessment of Industrial Sand

Mining at their February meeting and are interested in having Audrey Boerner, HIA Specialist and author of the

report to come do a presentation and thought perhaps we could have her speak at a joint meeting with the Land

Management Committee if there is interest. She believes the grant runs through the end of March so we would

need to get something scheduled before that. If there is interest please let her know so she can see when Audrey

is available. Pichotta stated that he did hear from Sue and Audrey is available on the evening of our next Land

Management Committee meeting. He did have a discussion with Mr. Aubart who is not present and he

questioned the timing and wasn’t sure this would have a ton of value given that we have a copy of assessment

and also if we did hold it, he thought it would make more sense to hold it after the County Board changes have

taken place. So it would be April or later but he thinks this is an opportunity that ends in March. He is looking

for some direction, if the committee wants to have a joint meeting with the Board of Health to discuss the

assessment we would do so at our next meeting. We’ve got one other agenda item that is renewal of County

Materials – Spring Lake and we would do the next piece of the comp plan if we don’t do this joint meeting. If

we do the joint meeting, we probably will push off the comp plan until another date. Ross asked if it’s OK with

everyone. Sanden stated on the one hand it’s important because we do have a lot of sand mining going on and

on the other hand he saw no surprises in that report, kind of what we always thought. He can go either way.

Holst stated he always relates back to the outdoor wood burner. They wanted to regulate outdoor wood burners

and they had a whole list of stuff they wanted to invoke and they wanted somebody else to enforce it. He fears

here is that they will want to start having input in land use decisions and a broader scope than just sand mines so

what happens next. Do we look at where 90% of the airborne stuff comes from; farmer’s fields, etc. This is a

slippery slope, if we allow their foot in the door, how far in are they going to get. He is opposed. He thinks the

committee can read this, come to the conclusion that it’s not as big a problem as some people had it perceived to

be and still seek their input when we feel it’s needed. Sanden stated he is not adverse to that. Holst stated he

thinks the committee has done a relatively good job of protecting the public’s health. Sanden stated if there was

something unexpected in that report then he would want to hear them. But it seems to him it’s what they have

been operating under the assumption of. Chairperson Fetzer stated it’s what we’ve already known, nothing earth

shattering. Sanden stated the only benefit would be to show due diligence and confidence that we delved into it

as deeply as we could. He certainly appreciates Mr. Holst’s comments as well. Holst stated he could go either

way. Chairperson Fetzer agrees with Mr. Aubart to bring them in before the committee changes. Holst stated

once the grant money runs out they have a little money left and they want to burn the grant. Pichotta asked what

is the LMC’s wishes? Ross stated no joint meeting. Committee consensus. Pichotta stated at the next meeting

we have renewal for County Materials – Spring Lake and the next chapter of the comp plan.

9

Motion to adjourn at 6:45pm by Ross/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, March 2, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: March 16th

, April 6th

& 20th


3 Approve minutes of the February 17, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for Expansion/Intensification of Belle Vinez

Winery, a conditionally permitted use, in the General Rural

Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

76A, for Shannon and Angel Zimmerman, owners on property

located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3, T27N, R19W,

Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


and Policies of the Management Chapter, relating to Planning and

Regulatory Techniques of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Bechel







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, February 17, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Jeff Holst, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Kevin Etherton, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung



Set next meeting dates: March 2nd

& 16th

, April 6th

& 20th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Ross moved to approve the January 20, 2016 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor with Fetzer abstaining because of absence at the last meeting.

Passed.

Chairperson Fetzer stated that item #4 has been stricken from the agenda for tonight at the request of the

applicant.

Discuss take action to approve updated Land Records Modernization Plan and authorize/accept Strategic

Initiative Grant.

Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: Each County participating in Wisconsin’s Land Information Program is able to

retain a portion of the fees associated with the recording of documents in the Register of Deeds Office. These

fees are placed into a Land Records Modernization Fund and are utilized to implement the priorities identified

in a County’s Land Records Modernization Plan. A Land Records Modernization Plan establishes each

County’s goals and priorities in making land records and information more accessible to the public and

establishes eligible expenditures from the Land Records Modernization Fund and for State administered grant

funds. Act 20, the biennial state budget for state fiscal years 2014-2015 resulted in numerous changes to the

Wisconsin Land Information Program (WLIP). Changes are as follows:

Initiative to create a statewide digital parcel map

Increase in Land Information Funds at State level

Increase County Base Budgets to $100,000 per year and Training & Education Grant to a minimum of

$1,000

Establish a Strategic Initiative Grant

Increase frequency of update to Land Records Modernization Plan to every 3 years

Establish mandatory benchmarks, deadlines and penalties

The establishment of mandatory benchmarks and timeframes resulted in the need to update the plan to reflect

the new parameters. The draft plan was submitted to Peter Herreid, Wisconsin Land Information Program

(WLIP) Grant Administrator, for a preliminary review. Several changes were made in response to Mr. Herreid’s

review. A final plan must be submitted to the WLIP in March. Pierce County’s Land Information Council met

in late October to review and approve the Land Record Modernization Plan and also meet with Mr. Herreid. Mr.

Herreid discussed changes to the program and encouraged staff to submit an application for a $50,000 Strategic

Initiative Grant to assist the County in meeting the newly established benchmarks.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

Pichotta stated that Keven Etherton, our GIS Specialist, was in attendance and asked him to briefly go through

our current and future projects. Etherton stated the current projects: Aerial Photography or Ortho Photography

as they call it. Ross asked where that name derives from. Sanden stated its Orthographic projection. Etherton

stated we flew LiDAR in April and the same with Ortho Photography. Both of those projects are almost 100%

complete. We are still waiting for some contours from one of the companies that are creating the contours for

us. Pichotta asked what the timeframe for that is. Etherton stated hopefully in the next week or two. Pichotta

stated what we will have on our website will be two-foot contours for the whole County. Etherton stated we

maintain and update Land Management and Zoning information. Maintain the web mapping site and map

services. We maintain the Sheriff’s Department, Dispatch Center and mobile data. Remonumentation is Louie’s

part of the gig. COGO parcels is what ProWest is helping with right now. We provide GIS Data to the public,

State, local and private organizations and agencies. We do permits in Permit Tracking. Nugget Lake flood

warning system, the migration to the newer ArcGIS from previous mapping software. The future projects we

have in mind are ArcGIS on-line, we have started some of that and it is currently on our website, GIS Mobile

Data and ArcGIS Mobile Data for Emergency Management as well, Sheriff’s Department looking at doing

crime analysis mapping, GIS Data and map Maintenance/Creation and looking at free GIS Data available on

our website for downloads and would like to do scanning of large format survey documents which we hope to

do in the next year or so to put on our website as well. Pichotta stated one of the things Kevin mentioned is the

potential for free GIS Data available on the website and that is basically the direction that other counties and

municipalities have gone. We still have a fee schedule that is about a decade old now where we were charging

for data by the megabyte, which is now not very much data. So we will in all likelihood, in the not too distant

future be bringing through the Land Information Council a recommendation regarding fees that we should

charge for data, or lack of fees perhaps. To do so will result in the need for us to take a look at the resolution

which establishes fees for the department. We probably won’t bite off all of the fees but perhaps just do a

resolution to amend the portion relating to data. Etherton stated that a lot of counties, right on their mapping

website, you can just pick a layer and download it. Since we are already giving the parcels away to the State,

anybody can get that data for free right now, granted it could be up to a year old if you go through the State. If

you came through us, it would be up to date as of a week or so. Pichotta stated he doesn’t know if it’s publically

available yet, but there is a statewide map where in the State of Wisconsin you can zero in on any particular part

and look at parcel data, parcel maps and see who owns the land. Any questions about the plan? We could have

Kevin go through page by page but he doesn’t feel it’s necessary unless there are questions. Sanden asked if you

were to charge fees, how would that work on the website. They would be billed by how much they download?

Pichotta stated his hunch is that they will follow the lead of other counties and municipalities, the

recommendation will probably ultimately be not charge. Sanden stated he doesn’t know of any instances where

they do charge and you would think that is taking a financial hit but it is also freeing up a lot of work hours

where the County Clerk doesn’t have to dig up all the information by hand. It will actually result in a savings

even though accessing the data doesn’t pay directly. Etherton agreed and stated he is exactly right and when

people call him, they want it a specific way and we charge them for it but it saves time for him not to do that.

Sanden said what he was looking for, he saw. He is glad that we are going into oblique imagery. That is really

good for assessors to see the fronts of buildings rather than just the roof line. That is really helpful for

emergency services. They can see what they are getting into. The one thing for a future goal perhaps, have you

thought about linking into the national grid? Etherton stated that was mentioned at some of the conferences that

he has gone to. Goodhue County or Dakota County is doing that. He talked to the gentleman there who is in

charge of GIS, Randy Knippel, and he also brought it up to Gary Brown and he was unaware of it. He did create

an on-line GIS with the grid on it just in case there is an emergency, all the power goes out, we would have that

available. Granted who knows how to use it, we don’t know. Sanden stated the national grid is what the military

uses. The beauty of it is, if you have a tornado come through and everything is wiped out, emergency services

can still find where they are going just the way the military does. He doesn’t think it’s something we need to

jump into immediately but maybe in the future. Ross asked if we have to provide our information to the federal

data base. Sanden stated no, think about how we have coordinates systems like latitude and longitude. The

national grid is just like another coordinate system, so we would just overlay it onto our data. Etherton said

3

what he needs to do is create maps if there ever was an emergency, that they are available or an on-line off the

server here where someone can go and look at that grid. We just need to educate them on how to use it, is the

issue. It’s real easy for him to do. We just need to educate people in the field. Holst stated he thinks it’s

worthwhile. We have all the information. Let’s use it however we can.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC approve the updated Land Records Modernization Plan

and authorize/accept available Strategic Initiative Grant Funds.

Pichotta stated we also became aware late in the year last year that a strategic initiative grant was available. It’s

an extra $50,000 for us to meet the benchmarks that we have to meet by 2017. So that will enable us to get all of

our COGOing done. Holst asked how far off are we? Pichotta stated we will make it. Etherton stated surveying

wise we are ahead of schedule, Louie got Oak Grove done early and he is working on Clifton. He was out there

today and he did two corners. ProWest, the company that does our parcels, they are working on Oak Grove right

now.

Sanden moved to approve the Land Records Modernization Plan and authorize/accept Strategic

Initiative Grant/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Management

Chapter, relating to Finance & Budget, Land Acquisition, Public Works, Public/Private Relations,

Education and Information, of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: The Wisconsin State statutes mandating county comprehensive plans place a

significant degree of emphasis on implementation. For a comprehensive plan to be successful and the

community’s vision of the future to come to fruition, action needs to be taken towards implementing the

policies set forth in the various elements of the plan. Recognizing the significant impact the implementation

element has on the successful execution of a comprehensive plan, Pierce County developed a series of

“management” goals, objectives and policies that serve to support and guide the implementation strategies

developed by the plan. The Urban Land Institute has described the management of growth and change as “the

utilization by government of a variety of traditional and evolving techniques, tools, plans and activities to

purposefully guide local patterns of land use, including the manner, location, rate and nature of development.”

Growth can be characterized as the fluctuating “dimensional” aspects of a community such as population,

economic productivity and development. Alternatively, change relates more to the intangible attributes of a

community, often described as its “character.” Growth can influence change and change can occur whether

growth is absent, positive or negative. Implementing a plan almost always requires that a proactive position be

taken on the management of “growth” and “change.” Implementation strategies have to be adaptable to future

growth and change the county may experience over the duration of the plan. Whereas the forthcoming

“Implementation” element of the comprehensive plan consists of the specific “line-item” implementation goals,

the purpose of this element is to develop management provisions that guide and support implementation of the

plan and position the county to proactively manage future growth and change. In reviewing the existing

management goals, objectives and policies the county should assess whether additions or modifications are

warranted to position Pierce County to successfully implement the comprehensive plan in the coming years.

Finance & Budgeting

Goal:

Continue financial monitoring, fiscal analysis, revenue projections and mid-range budgeting to ensure

financial health of the county and the equitable distribution of public costs between current and future

residents and businesses.

Objectives:

The county should minimize the cost of infrastructure and public facility expansion through integrated

planning and capital improvement programming.

The county should encourage intergovernmental approaches to address the cross-jurisdictional impacts

of major new developments.

Policy:

4

The county will review and adopt only those management activities or programs that are adequately

staffed and funded.

Pichotta stated something to keep in mind especially with these chunks that we are dealing with tonight, there is

a consistency requirement for the comprehensive plan and some of the decisions that are made by the county,

Finance & Budgeting, Land Acquisition, Public Works are not one of them. So the consistency perspective,

really relates to the application of zoning and land use type regulations. While these are things, that ideally, the

county would do as they consider various things, we are not actually held to them in a strict sense. Pichotta

noted that we have one suggested policy that may be appropriate to add to this particular section and that is at

the end of the staff report: The County will seek to identify and evaluate cross-jurisdictional and multipurpose

use opportunities when planning community facility and infrastructure improvement projects. Basically, when

we are going to spend some money to do something, at least consider if there is the potential for multi-agency,

multi-county, multi-whatever use of that facility or infrastructure, any thoughts or comments on this? Sanden

asked if this is the implementation. Pichotta stated no, basically, all of these policies, a lot of them suggest an

action of some sort. What we are going to do when we are at the end of this is we are going to conduct a series

of open houses to present this. We are also going to do a survey of sorts through our website to try to help

prioritize or understand the areas that residents or elected officials from the town level, feel ought to be a

priority. That input will be given to the committee to help us identify an implementation plan for the next five

years. Sanden asked if we ever see the CIP, Capital Improvement Program, is that something this committee

handles? Pichotta stated typically not. Sanden stated to your point, he thinks the cross-jurisdiction fits right in

with the first objective. Bechel continued reading the staff report.

Land Acquisition

Goal:

Consider prudent acquisition or public control of property needed for rights-of-way, facility sites, parks

and open space.

Objectives:

The county should consider acquiring property, rights-of-way or easements in advance of identifiable

needs in order to reduce costs and reduce the need to exercise eminent domain.

County acquisition plans should maximize joint development potential (e.g. school/park sites;

fire/police/community centers) to accommodate count and regional needs.

The county or other responsible agencies should consider acquiring environmentally critical lands

wherever the natural environment cannot be protected through regulation.

Policy:

Land acquisitions will be made when in the best long-term interest of the county and a specific need is

identified.

Pichotta asked if there are any thoughts, comments, or concerns on this section? Ross asked if there are any

major changes. Bechel stated everything that he is reading is the existing plan as it is currently. Holst suggested

to go to the one sentence you are changing and let’s move on. Pichotta stated that the one suggested addition

was already covered. Holst moved to approve the proposed update of the Goals, Objective and Policies of

the Management Chapter, relating to Finance & Budget, Land Acquisition, Public Works, Public/Private

Relations, Education and Information, of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Ross seconded. All in

favor. Passed. Pichotta suggested that if committee members had any further thoughts or suggestions on this

section that they should feel free to call him.

Discuss take action to authorize staff to replace the 2002 Ford F150 and to declare said vehicle surplus. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: As part of the Department’s 2016 budget, $30, 000 was authorized for the

purchase of a vehicle to replace the 2002 Ford F150 currently utilized by the Department. Proposed

specifications for the new vehicle are:

Half Ton Pickup Truck

4 wheel drive

5

Extended or Crew Cab

Staff is seeking authorization to solicit bids from local truck dealers for the new vehicle. Staff is also requesting

that the LMC declare the 2002 Ford F150 to be surplus, which will enable the vehicle to either be traded-in or

sold outright. Approval by the Finance and Personnel Committee will also be sought.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee authorize staff to solicit bids for

a new pickup truck for the Land Management Department, consistent with the Department’s approved budget

and also declare the 2002 Ford F150 to be surplus equipment.

Ross moved to approve the authorization of staff to replace the 2002 Ford F150 and to declare said

vehicle surplus/Aubart seconded. Aubart asked if when they solicit bids, are you going to do the state bid?

Pichotta stated that we surely can. Aubart suggested checking with Ewald. Ewald Motors has the state bid.

Holst stated we saved a bunch of money for Solid Waste when we went there and you can transfer the warranty

to the local dealer. It’s a win-win situation. Aubart stated it saves a couple thousand bucks. Holst stated the way

the other one was set up it was $2,000 or $3,000. Chairperson Fetzer asked if Andy has checked prices yet.

Pichotta stated that he has not done much research but that he is confident we will be able to get what we are

looking for, we don’t need anything fancy, just need a pickup truck. All in favor. Passed.



Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items Request for a CUP for the Expansion/Intensification of Belle Vinez Winery.

Another chapter of the comp plan.

Motion to adjourn at 6:28pm by Aubart/Ross seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, February 17, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: March 2nd

& 16th

, April 6th

& 20th


3 Approve minutes of the January 20, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for an Accessory Residence in the Primary

Agriculture District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

40A, for David and Karen Bunch, owners on property located in

the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 12, T26N, R17W, Town of

Ellsworth, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action to approve updated Land Records

Modernization Plan and authorize/accept Strategic Initiative Grant.

Etherton/Pichotta


and Policies of the Management Chapter, relating to Finance &

Budget, Land Acquisition, Public Works, Public/Private Relations,

Education and Information, of the Pierce County Comprehensive

Plan.

Bechel

7 Discuss take action to authorize staff to replace the 2002 Ford F150

and to declare said vehicle surplus.

Pichotta







Revised February 11, 2016 @ 2:17pm

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, January 20, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Jeff Holst, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden

Absent: Joe Fetzer

Others: Andy Pichotta, Ryan Bechel and Shari Hartung



Set next meeting dates: February 3rd

& 17th

, March 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2016.

Approve Minutes: Ross moved to approve the January 6, 2016 Land Management Committee


Discuss take action on a request by the Town of Union for an extension to the timeframe that a town has

to generate a recommendation for a conditional use permit application, per Land Management

Committee policy (6.5.13).

Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: At the LMC October 21st meeting, the LMC granted the Town of Union a 60

day extension to the timeframe within which a town has to generate a recommendation for Muskie Proppant’s

proposed nonmetallic mine. This initial extension was requested to allow for additional information to be

solicited from Muskie Proppant and for input to be sought from the Village of Plum City and extended the

Town’s response time frame to January 25, 2016. The Town had, prior to the extension being granted, requested

additional information from Muskie Proppant regarding their proposed mining operation. Muskie Proppant, on

November 12, 2015, responded to the questions asked by the Town. On December 5, 2015, the Town of Union

requested additional information and clarification of Muskie’s submittal (Town’s request to Muskie is attached).

As of January 13, 2016, a response to the Town’s second request by Muskie Proppant had yet to be received.

The Town of Union is now requesting an additional extension to the timeframe within which they must make a

recommendation. The Town is of the position that it cannot make a meaningful recommendation until they have

a better understanding of the mining activity that is proposed. The Town Recommendation Policy adopted by

the LMC on June 15, 2013 is listed in the staff report.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider and act upon the Town of Union’s request for an

extension to their timeframe to generate a Town Recommendation. Given that it is unknown when Muskie

Proppant will respond to the Town’s request for information or the adequacy of that information, it is

recommended that a 60 or 90 day extension be granted.

Pichotta stated representatives of the Town are here as are folks with Muskie. Chairperson Holst invited John

Krings forward: John Krings, Supervisor, stated their Chairman is coming but not here yet. They are asking for

an extension because they haven’t gotten a letter back from December 7th

. Chairperson Holst invited Kenny

King to respond: Mr. King stated they received the letter . He had to put the engineers on hold because of the

Town Licensing Ordinance that was put in place. Obviously, they put an ordinance in place that will not allow

them to mine there. He convinced management to allow them to move forward with the project so they will

have answers to the questions real soon, he can get the engineers on it. Chairperson Holst asked if they are

opposed to the Town getting an extension. Mr. King stated they are. Chairperson Holst asked if they have

answered the Town’s questions. Mr. King stated they answered the first round of questions and he feels that the

questions that they are asking pertaining to volumes and such have been provided in the initial information that





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

they gave to them. Ross asked about the first round of questions, not the ones dated on December 5th

. Is that the

ones you are referring to? Mr. King stated no, that is the second round. Ross stated on the first round, was there

feedback on that or just a second round of questions. Mr. King stated just a second round of questions. Ross

asked if there is no communication otherwise. Ross asked Mr. Krings on the first round of questions, it just was

not satisfactory then? Mr. Krings, yes, they had more questions. That is why they want the extension until they

answer the questions. Ross asked Kenny, you are opposed to the extension just because it’s time delays? Mr.

King stated it’s time delays, basically many of the questions are answered in that booklet that they provided. If

they would call or email him with a question here or there or set up meetings with him, he is open, he will sit

down every day if he needs to. Ross asked if any of the second round of questions duplicates the first round. Mr.

King stated basically they were, the majority of the questions are pretty much asking the same thing. He can

send them to the engineer’s office but there is so much of that they wouldn’t understand. Mrs. Krings stated

that communication only goes through the clerk and she hasn’t received any response. Pichotta noted that staff

had received a courtesy copy of the application. Our assessment was, if it was presented to us as an application,

we too had additional questions that we felt needed to be answered. So if we had been submitted this application

we would have requested additional information including some of that which the town requested. Mr. King

stated that he would prefer that they express their concerns with him instead of sending him another round of

questions. He told Andy earlier, he could draw them a picture of how he plans on doing it. They just keep

asking him the question, he gives them an answer - fifteen acres. Chairperson Holst stated his suggestion is that

we extend it 60 days and tell you to get going and talk to them Kenny. You will work it out and when you get it

worked out they might be back in 30 days. The quicker you two can sit down and talk the better things are. Mr.

Krings pointed out that it was stated in the first letter that correspondence would be only through the clerk.

Chairperson Holst stated he thinks that is where you should send correspondence - to your Town Clerk and then

the clerk needs to get that out to the other board members. Mr. Krings stated that if you don’t have things

written down then it’s he said, she said - and that doesn’t work. Sanden asked Andy as a point of order, if they

were to sit down and have an informal discussion between the two parties, is that legal or is that considered a

meeting that would have to be posted. Pichotta stated if there was a quorum of the Town Board present then it

would have to be noticed. The approach they are taking where they are trying to steer communication through

an official channel makes a lot of sense. Then you don’t end up with he said, she said, which it appears we are

ending up with anyway. Sanden stated a lot of time written communication aren’t as efficient as sitting down

and hashing out face to face. Ross stated often times when you answer questions in a format like this, what it

does is prompt additional questions. So you are spending a lot of time; Kenny’s answer might trigger yet

another thought pattern or concern that could be remedied as say just a sit down conversation. In a situation like

this, having a formal meeting, however you wish to do it is your choice, and airing out these concerns and

ensure it is documented by the minutes and so on. He thinks Kenny’s concerns are also legitimate. As you are

building business and business models, time becomes of the essence. Where time may not be as critical on the

Town’s side, because you are not having to produce revenues and so forth. In able to be respectful of both,

Kenny and the Town, taking the opportunity and the time to sit down and get this done, would save everybody a

lot of headache and also move things in the right direction. He feels that is important. Aubart moved to grant a

60 day extension to the Town of Union to generate a Town Recommendation/Sanden seconded.

Chairperson Holst stated he is of the belief that if you can sit down and talk and go through your questions, and

as more questions are generated, and you can answer them, Kenny, perhaps they can get this deal wrapped up

quicker than 60 day period and come forward. Closer to what you would like to see, so compromise and

communication is what he would like to see out of this. Bring forward something that we can accept without

making you wait when you get here too. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Intergovernmental

Cooperation Chapter of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: Intergovernmental Cooperation: 26 local governments operate within Perce

County’s borders, including 17 towns, 6 villages, 2 cities and the county itself. Pierce County also shares

borders with 6 other counties (3 MN, 3 WI) and the numerous towns of those bordering counties. As the

3

principal governmental entity in the county, Pierce County plays a critical role in helping to foster cooperation

among local governments as well as assisting in resolving conflicts that may arise. Planning issues such as

housing, natural resource protection, economic development and land use rarely confine themselves to arbitrary

jurisdictional boundaries; therefore, the decisions, plan and policies of one community can impact neighboring

jurisdictions. The most successful and cost effective governmental entities work cooperatively with other units

of government and the private sector in order to efficiently meet the needs and demands of the citizens they

serve. Intergovernmental cooperation can be as simple as sharing ideas, expertise and information or involve

more complex formal agreements and sharing of resources such as equipment, buildings, staff and funding.

Benefits of these cooperative ventures include reduction of costs, expanded services, more efficient government

and reduced conflicts among government entities. The challenges inhibiting governmental cooperation include

reaching and maintaining agreements, balancing power and addressing local self-preservation and control

issues. To accomplish its comprehensive planning goals, Pierce County will need to cooperate and coordinate

effectively with its neighbors, counterparts and partners. The Intergovernmental Cooperation element of the

comprehensive plan review will focus on reflecting on the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies to consider

opportunities to support existing relationships and evaluating potential new avenues to enhance

intergovernmental cooperation amongst Pierce County’s governmental entities. The existing Intergovernmental

Cooperation Vision: By the year 2035, intergovernmental cooperation efforts have enabled Pierce County to

establish partnerships with municipalities, towns, state agencies and school districts to provide coordinated cost-

effective services. Through cooperation with municipalities and towns, the county has preserved its rural

lifestyle while providing a unique blend of industrial, commercial and residential development. Not a lot of data

to look at for Intergovernmental Cooperation, more of an open discussion format and just kind of look at the

goals, then have a discussion and then the objectives and policies.

Existing Goals, Objectives and Policies

Goal:

Encourage a team approach to comprehensive planning involving state, regional and county

agencies and municipalities and towns for the most effective, representative, decision-making

process.

Work with other units of government to seek efficiencies and economies of scale in providing

services, while recognizing the autonomy of each.

Pichotta stated given there are a good number of Objectives & Policies is there any thoughts to the two existing

goals. Sanden stated he doesn’t see the second goal translated into an objective or a policy. The first one is very

well covered. He doesn’t know how much room there is for sharing of services. Finding efficiencies, just the

lack of it being followed through on the objectives and policies, he did note that. Pichotta asked do you still feel

that is a worthwhile goal? Sanden stated the County is a little different beast for him, he can certainly see where

two Townships could cooperate and share equipment or maybe share personnel. At the County level, do we

have those same kinds of abilities? Pichotta stated at the County level we may not have the same kind of

abilities exactly, however, it may be we could attempt to foster those sorts of relationships. He thinks it’s still a

worthwhile goal. Chairperson Holst stated quite often if Dunn County has a hole patcher, Pierce County rents it.

We will do trucking for St. Croix County. So we have some intergovernmental cooperation with Highway

Department. We’ve got joint jurisdiction with law enforcement, mutual aid. Pichotta stated you have to think

about this from not only a land use perspective, because, from a land use perspective, opportunities are likely

limited. Chairperson Holst stated the Health Department does things, Human Services does things with other

counties. Intergovernmentally at the County level, we are doing a fair amount. Through the townships quite

often, Highway will do work; build roads and maintain for three townships. Those townships have no

equipment, no crew. There is mutual aid with the different police departments. Sanden stated it sounds like it is

happening quite a bit. Chairperson Holst stated a fair amount but there is probably room for more. Sanden asked

are you limited as far as sharing on State programs as an agent of the State, are you limited in anyway? Does the

State say that you in Pierce County have to provide these services for your residents; St. Croix County has to

provide it for their residents and the two shall not. Pichotta stated in cases of private onsite wastewater

treatment staff, it says that each county shall have this staff on board. He doesn’t necessarily preclude the

4

county from sharing those as long as the County had them in some fashion. Typically it does say that the county

shall provide certain functions. But he doesn’t think that would preclude them from sharing that service with

adjacent county. Sanden stated maybe something in the objectives to document, he is pretty impressed with

what you came up with just spur of the moment, document where we are cooperating and explore additional.

Pichotta stated when Pepin County didn’t have a POWTS Inspector; we did provide that service for them. We

did get paid but we were in a contract with them just because that only made sense. Sanden stated in a time of

tight budgets it might be nice to document it just so if an interested party does ask, how are you being more

efficient with our tax dollars, you can show them.

Objectives:

The County should encourage land-use, boundary and administrative agreements between

municipalities and between the county, towns and municipalities, in an effort to eliminate

defensive municipal annexation or private developers taking advantage of municipal or

county approval processes.

County agencies and town and municipal authorities should open direct channels of

communication that promote the two-way exchange of ideas and meaningful dialogue on

issues of importance to either the county or the towns and municipalities.

The County should encourage a variety of approaches to coordinate local planning and

development practices and to help resolve conflicts between communities, including

encouraging the use of intergovernmental agreements, improved notification procedures and

cross-adoption or acceptance of plans and by sponsoring intergovernmental task forces on

specific planning and land use issues.

Encourage each agency within the county that reviews or approves development proposals to

strengthen the public hearing process by requiring, prior to the decision-making process,

conspicuous notices that provide the relevant information, such as maps about proposed

developments, potential impacts and the ability to participate to residents and surrounding

government agencies.

The County should play a prominent role in managing the land-uses around airports,

including the investigation of an Airport Zone.

The County should support the efforts of the Pierce County EDC in working with local

municipalities, chambers of commerce, regional industrial associations and state agencies to

encourage the retention and expansion of existing businesses and industries in Pierce County.

Pichotta asked if the committee had any thoughts or suggestions on Objectives. Chairperson Holst stated the last

one: Pierce County should support the efforts of the Pierce County EDC in working with local municipalities,

etc, when it is relevant. Ross asked if there are any examples of that so far. Chairperson Holst stated we fund

them annually. Ross stated no, he is asking any other involvement that Andy is aware of. Pichotta stated he has

met with Ellsworth Industrial Council on occasion. Ross asked how would you define relevancy? Chairperson

Holst stated when it’s for the good of the county as opposed to the good of a few people in the county. That’s

his opinion. Pichotta stated the second to the last one; dealing with the investigation of an Airport Zone; we

have played a role in that. We still haven’t heard from the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of

Transportation regarding the adequacy of that proposed zoning ordinance that would have been adopted and

that that the City of Red Wing wanted us to administer. That is still out there. Sanden stated given that it is still

an issue we should probably leave it in the comp plan just so we have that covered in the comp plan.

Policies:

The County acknowledges that the primary responsibility for achieving plan objectives

within urbanized communities remains with the municipalities. The County further

acknowledges that it shares responsibility with the municipalities for achieving the plan

objectives within the one and one-half to three mile area of shared jurisdiction.

5

The County will, when appropriate, act to assist in municipal planning and development

practices and assist in resolving conflicts between communities toward the benefit of the

county as a whole and toward its adopted planning and management goals and objectives.

The County will encourage the development, revitalization and redevelopment of urbanized

communities.

The County will encourage municipalities and towns to adopt land use regulation that allow

for the widest possible mixture of housing types, with particular attention paid to providing

housing opportunities that meet the needs of the elderly, the low and moderate income

households, and handicapped.

The County will encourage each municipality to adopt land use controls that support the

central business district of each community, if present.

The County acknowledges that the responsibility for accomplishing planning objectives set

forth in plans developed by towns subject to County zoning lies jointly with the Town and

Pierce County. The County further acknowledges that it will seek to further each Town’s

planning goals and objectives when considering the establishment of conditionally permitted

uses. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the County will continue

to solicit a non-binding town recommendation regarding the proposed use.

The County will approve re-zonings or map amendments only when the proposed change is

consistent with an adopted or amended town comprehensive plan. In cases where a town has

not completed a comprehensive plan, rezoning will be approved only when consistent with

the Pierce County Plan. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the

County will solicit a non-binding town recommendation regarding the proposed rezone.

The County will encourage consistent procedures for municipal management of growth and

change.

The County will encourage municipalities to adopt land use regulations that include

standards for landscaping, impervious surface areas and maximum lot coverage with the

intent of protecting wildlife habitat from detrimental effects of development.

The County will work with municipalities and towns, when appropriate, to establish

boundary agreements and other mutual planning actions that discourage the premature or

inappropriate annexation of lands.

The County will discourage the annexation of land not governed by adopted municipal

comprehensive plans.

The County will work with municipalities and towns to prepare and adopt specific area

plans and land use controls for the high-accessibility corridor areas that enhance the

opportunity for economic development.

Ensure that towns subject to county zoning understand the role of town plans and ordinances

in county land use processes, including implications of statutory authority and land use case

law (e.g. responsibility for decision s regarding conditional use permits, lack of town plan

authority over permitted uses, etc.).

Pichotta stated that there are a large number of policies, and there are a couple things to point out. Middle of the

page; The County acknowledges that the responsibility for accomplishing planning objectives set forth in plans

developed by towns subject to County zoning lies jointly with the Town and Pierce County. The County further

acknowledges that it will seek to further each Town’s planning goals and objectives when considering the

establishment of conditionally permitted uses. In cases where a town has not adopted a comprehensive plan, the

County will continue to solicit a non-binding town recommendation regarding the proposed use. He would

suggest striking the word non-binding in there, simply because it’s a little bit confusing. For example the next

one too, he would suggest it be struck there. The reason, especially for rezones, why we ask for a Town

Recommendation regarding a proposed rezone is because Towns that have adopted comprehensive plans have

veto authority over rezones within their borders. It only makes sense for the County to find out their support

6

based on their comprehensive plan prior to taking action on it simply because it makes no sense for the County

to run it through the process only to find it’s not consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. In that

particular case, if a Town doesn’t have a comprehensive plan and they make a recommendation, they’re

probably going to make that recommendation not only on what they want to see but he would hope they would

review our comprehensive plan and attempt to apply it to it. But our comprehensive plan has some statements

regarding the appropriateness of the expansion of zones and also appropriate locations for possible commercial,

industrial spots say along State Highways and intersections with County Roads. So he would encourage those to

be struck in those cases. He thinks the one good thing about the process we have now, where we request Town

Recommendations and we attempt to further the goals and objectives of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The

fact that we have Town’s referring to their comprehensive plan when they consider land use decisions that are

occurring within their borders is a very good thing. Especially considering it wasn’t that long ago when County

Planning was not very well accepted at all. In fact that is a tremendous step forward that we actually have them

participating in the process. As far as the last policy; Ensure that towns subject to county zoning understand the

role of town plans and ordinances in county land use processes, including implications of statutory authority

and land use case law (e.g. responsibility for decision s regarding conditional use permits, lack of town plan

authority over permitted uses, etc.). That was something that Sarah Palodichuk, Chair of Oak Grove, brought up

at the last meeting. Asking for more educational opportunities where we can make sure the town boards are

aware of the roll that they can play, the roll that their plans play and the need to update their plans occasionally

to reflect things as they change. That is probably something we will be proposing an implementation step when

we get done working our way through these sections. He would note that the next section that we will be

delving into after this one, this one starts to touch on the County/Town relationships. The next one is

Management Policies for the County, which delves into it in a greater degree, so we will be further defining and

refining some of the statements that relate to the weight placed on town recommendations, etc. Ross stated if the

policies were numbered it would be item #4, he was at a meeting about a year ago and they were talking about a

handicapped ramp and there was a gentlemen there whose daughter was handicapped and he said the more

common term today versus handicapped is physically challenged. Whether or not the committee wants to

change it or not he just wanted to bring it up for discussion. There were some negative overtones to some folks.

Pichotta stated he has no issue with that change if that is how it is more appropriately referred to, does the

committee agree? Committee agreed with word change. Pichotta asked if the committee had any other thoughts,

comments or concerns. Sanden stated he thought it was very thorough. Pichotta stated there are some folks from

a variety of towns present, maybe they have some concerns. Sanden stated that he is assuming, not having the

entire plan in front of him, these policies that you have mentioned here are also reflected in other elements like

the land use element and the economic element. Pichotta stated that is correct. Diana Smith, River Falls

Chairperson, stated she came mostly to see how the committee was going to address the concerns that Sarah

Palodichuk addressed at the last meeting. It really is helpful for the Towns if there is some point where they can

understand what is going on. Even though they are not covered by County Zoning, they are still very much

affected by it and she would love if there would be some time when the Towns and the County could sit down

and we could hear what’s going on and what the changes are, what the plans are, what the hot topics are. There

are so many things because we function in your own little world and many of us are doing other jobs besides

working in the Town capacity, to understand it. One of the things, the process in land use, so that we aren’t

duplicating efforts so someone that comes and wants to do something doesn’t have to meet the Town objectives

and then have to meet the County objectives. So we are aware of them when someone comes to us with an

issue. How can we make this work for the good of everybody? Some of the things that are working really, really

well, when their Town truck broke down, she could call the County and ask if they have a truck and a driver

that they could pay for and use in order to get their roads plowed. Certainly on working on their zoning plan,

Andy and his office has been so incredibly helpful that we couldn’t move forward without their knowledge.

There are many, many pieces out there that are working really well but she bets not a lot of people know that.

Pichotta stated as part of this process there will be a series of meetings held at the end to present what we have

discussed and what the committee has recommended prior to adoption. He thinks she is suggesting something

more than that, that there almost be an information sharing mechanism somehow. What one Town is dealing

7

with, other Towns are dealing with the same thing and perhaps there is something to be learned and shared.

Mike Miller, Trenton Township, stated he feels that sometimes not a lot of weight is placed on their conditional

use permit recommendation. Some of the townships feel, you struck on that earlier, Jeff, what is best for the

County versus a few, what do you classify as a few, where do you cross that line? For a whole township, is that

considered a few out of the County? Where do you set a guideline for that? That has always been a gray area

that hasn’t been defined. Chairperson Holst stated that is a complicated definition, the case he was referring to

earlier, it was a few, less than 3, 4, 5 people. Ross stated it wasn’t a Town issue that he was referring to. It was a

core group of people, nongovernmental that had some specific concerns. Chairperson Holst stated every Town,

if you come forward with a plan and you have the goals, objectives and policies to back up what you are coming

forward with, you pretty well have your own self-determination. Pichotta stated he is struggling to think of

where the Town of Trenton has made a recommendation that we didn’t follow. Mr. Miller stated that isn’t what

he said, he is wondering where between the County and the Townships, where you cross that magic line at

when you consider what is good for the whole County versus a few. Ross stated he thinks, in the time that he

has spent here, we do take very seriously recommendations that do come forward and often have found

ourselves in situations where we follow those recommendations. He thinks in definition of a few would be a

difficult thing to address, because he cannot cite an example either, during his time here. In all the decisions that

they have made, often hot button issues that come forward, they are very well vetted and we get community

turnout. He can think of one, in a winery, were the opposition to it was very vocal but not very specific. That

made a very challenging time but from the Town’s perspective it was different in terms of recommendations.

Chairperson Holst stated his reference involved the Pierce County EDC working with local municipalities,

chamber of commerce’s at a meeting he went to, he was waylaid by a group of people asking specific questions

about a specific part of the County and they wanted the County’s blessing to go over and above what would

have been for the good of the County for the good of two or three people so they could sell their house so they

could do this, they could do that. That’s what he was making reference too. Otherwise, if Towns have a plan, if

they can back up their decision with their plan, and they do it in a timely manner, he doesn’t know of anytime

they have ever overridden anything. Pichotta stated he can’t think of a circumstance where that has occurred.

He noted that he is not sure he understands Mr. Millers point. Mr. Miller stated we will leave it at that.

Chairperson Holst stated he feels you did alright on this section. Committee consensus to approve as presented.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has one request for Brad Roy to attend a

seminar in Eau Claire on February 2nd

, continuing education on his POWTS/Soil Tester Certification. The fee

will be $25.00 and he will utilize a County vehicle. Aubart moved to approve the travel/training request for

Brad Roy for February 2, 2016 for POWTS/Soil Tester Certification continuing education/Ross


Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items We only have two items, one is to authorize replacement of the truck and the other is the comp plan section. If

you want to meet for that we could or we could push both of those items off two more weeks. Committee

consensus to meet on February 17th

.

Motion to adjourn at 6:50pm by Ross/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, January 20, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: February 3rd

& 17th

, March 2nd

& 16th

, all in

2016.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the January 6, 2016 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Discuss take action on a request by the Town of Union for an

extension to the timeframe that a town has to generate a

recommendation for a conditional use permit application, per Land

Management Committee policy (6.5.13).

Pichotta


and Policies of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter of the

Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.

Bechel

6 Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests Pichotta






1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, January 6, 2016

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Jeff Holst, Jim Ross and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Ryan Bechel, Louie Filkins and Shari Hartung



Set next meeting dates: January 20th

, February 3rd

& 17th

, March 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2016.

Amend approved minutes of the October 21, 2015 meeting. Sanden moved to approve the amended October

21, 2015 Land Management Committee minutes/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed with Fetzer and

Holst abstaining because of absence at the last meeting. Approve Minutes: Ross moved to approve the November 4, 2015 Land Management Committee

minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed with Fetzer and Holst abstaining because of absence at the

last meeting.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Heavy

Industrial Use (Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant and Processing Facility), pursuant to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-37E by Monarch Paving Company, agent for Michael A. Johnson, owner on property

located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Chairperson Fetzer invited Monarch Paving Company forward: Tony Tomashek, Vice President of Mathy

Construction, Milestone Materials speaking on behalf of Monarch Paving, stated along with him, here tonight

are Candy Anderson, Geologist and Permit Specialist with Monarch Paving and Milestone, which are divisions

of Mathy, Brian Gosse, from Monarch Paving, he is the area guy at the Hager City plant and Bob Servais,

Geologist and Hydrogeologist with Mathy. He is here to answer any groundwater or well questions that you

might have. Mr. Tomashek explained the purpose of the request is to expand the stockpile area at the asphalt

plant on Hwy 35 and 830th

Ave in the Town of Trenton. It is currently owned by Mike Johnson and his wife.

They have a purchase agreement in place with Mike if all of their permitting and zoning goes through Mathy

will buy that property. They are expanding approximately 16 acres. Approximately 49 acres that Mike owns,

they are going to buy the entire property but their expansion is only going to be 16 acres. Currently 38 acres is

zoned Industrial and the balance is a residential zoning to the east of their current plant. Today they stockpile on

County property and some of Bill Holst’s property and they also wash some of their aggregates on Bill Holst’s

property. They would like to consolidate all of their operations onto their own property. The main reason for the

request is to expand their current footprint and be able to do all their work on their own property. The main two

things they will do is stockpiling aggregates that will come off the Morrison Quarry or sand that they will bring

in from sand pits or some of the recycled asphalt that they also bring back from jobs. Also want to wash the

portion of the aggregates they have to wash. They will not be doing any mining on the property even though

there is some sand on Mike’s property. They will just be doing the industrial use of the stockpiling and the

washing. They submitted a substantial packet to the Township and the County. He will talk about the highlights

and if the committee has any further questions, they will be happy to answer them. They are requesting the

same hours of operation as the asphalt plant, 6am to 8pm, Monday through Saturday. They do have a

reclamation plan on file for the existing asphalt plant. Even though they are not doing any mining, if they ever

get done using the site, they will reclaim it similar to the asphalt plant. The only haul route will be 830th

Ave out





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

to Hwy 35. If they have a job or a town road to pave back the other way, they may go out the other way but all

the trucks today come in and out 830th

Ave to Hwy 35. That will not change. We will handle any erosion

control issues. That was a permit condition in the last conditional use permit. Stockpiles have to be below 35

feet. They are requesting a two year request similar to the other ones. The expansion will require a high capacity

well which is a DNR permit they have to get. They will file for that after all the local zoning is done. They are

proposing a three to five hundred gallon a minute well. They will only run that well to fill the ponds in the

spring. They will only add water as they have to. They plan to recirculate the water in those wash ponds. They

won’t use a great deal of water once the ponds are full. They are going to line the bottom of the wash ponds

because it is sand down there. They will bring clay material off from the quarry to line the bottoms of those

wash ponds so they will hold water and any sediment will stay in the ponds. They will dig the sediment from

the ponds out and either use it for mix or for ag lime for the farmers in the area. They will have two storm water

retention ponds on site that will handle the storm water on site. Those ponds will be sand bottom ponds so the

water can filtrate down to the ground water. The bulk of the site will be gravel covered or the edges of the site

will have grass on it to control erosion. It will be basically rainfall or clear water going into those two ponds.

The operation will be seasonal, similar to the asphalt plant, starting in April or May and usually done by deer

hunting season. Nothing there will change; they are proposing to put the same type of operation there. They are

proposing to put berms around the property and some tree planting. That is one request from the Town, they

asked for the berms to be 15 feet high and also plant trees on the berm not just out in front of the berm. The dust

control will be handled by either paving, water trucks or the actual wash plant will be a wet process so any of

the stockpiles will be wet or damp. So dust control should not be a problem. They will seed and do erosion

control around the berms and the exterior of the property. They will get all the other required permits before

they begin construction which includes a DNR Storm water permit and an on-site Storm water permit along

with the high cap well permit. Sanden asked if the western berm is being done at the request of the Township.

Mr. Tomashek stated they actually proposed all the berms as you see it. The Town just requested that they make

them all 15 feet high. Sanden asked if he could characterize the view shed that you would get from Hwy 35 as

you are driving past. Let’s say you have a 35 foot mound of inventory, would that be visible from the road? Mr.

Tomashek stated yes, it would be similar to what is there now. Although some of those piles will probably

move to the back as time goes on. The recycled blacktop will stay in the same general location. Most of the

aggregates will be virgin aggregates or washed out. Mr. Tomashek indicated the location of the wash ponds and

the two storm water ponds on the map presented. Holst stated he is wondering if they are going to move the

blacktop pile because it gives tourist an excellent chance to view buzzards, spring, summer and fall, as they

spread their wings. He believes it would be good for tourism. Mr. Tomashek stated they did notify about 15

neighbors and some of those folks came to the Township meeting. Their only concerns were about the berm and

the tree planting. No other concerns about the plant. There was a question if they were going to move the

asphalt plant onto this expansion but they are not. The asphalt plant is going to stay exactly where it is. Ross

asked about the trees, did the Town suggest a size at all? Mr. Tomashek stated no, they plan on doing just what

they did at the plant there now. Plant some pine trees on the berm. There are pines on those berms now and they

will do a similar type of thing and maybe do some mixed trees around the outside borders. They are going to try

to leave as many trees, there are a fair amount of trees around the perimeter. The only trees they will probably

have to move is for the storm water pond. Ross asked about the clay lining and how deep is the clay. Mr.

Tomashek stated about a foot to 18 inches in those ponds. They will have to get in there with machines and

shape them. Holst asked if the ponds are going to be fabric lined. Mr. Tomashek stated probably not because

they have to clean them out occasionally. It’s easier to replace the clay. Once they start washing and seal them

up with the silt and lime that comes out of the limestone, it will help seal them up. Chairperson Fetzer asked if

he is correct there is a certain density in the clay that you have to look for, correct. Mr. Tomashek, it’s not like a

landfill liner, but they try to look for the cleanest clay they can find at the quarry. Obviously, they are not using

topsoil. They will use the overburden clay.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: This proposed plant is an expansion of the company’s Trenton area operations as

they currently own and operate a “hot-mix” asphalt plant (referred to as “Plant 46”) on the property adjacent to

the proposed site which has been in operation since 2001. The site proposed for the “Plant 46 Expansion”

3

comprises 38.5 acres and is currently agricultural land owned by Mike Johnson. If approved, the plant would

require LMC site plan review as required by PCC § 240-75. The property is located in the Town of Trenton.

The property is zoned Industrial. PCC § 240 Attachment “Table of Uses” lists Heavy Industrial uses as a

conditionally permitted use in the Industrial district. Heavy Industrial Uses is defined as: Uses such as

manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, processing, bulk handling, storage, and trucking which are likely to

generate significant levels of traffic, noise, pollution, vibration, dust, fumes, odors, pesticides, herbicides, or

other hazardous materials, fire or explosion hazards, or other undesirable conditions which are unsuitable for

any other district. Surrounding land uses include agriculture to the south, industrial to the north and west, and

residential to the east (Hager City within .25 miles). The town of Trenton’s future land use map designates this

area as “Mixed use.” Access to the site is through the existing private driveway off of 830th

ST that services the

hot-mix asphalt plant (Plant 46) to the north of the subject property. Truck traffic for the Plant 46 Expansion is

proposed to follow the route currently established for Plant 46. The proposed haul route to be used by loaded

trucks will be north through the Plant 46 site to the existing driveway on 830th

ST. Truck traffic entering and

exiting the Plant 46 site are required to use HWY 35 to travel to HWY 63 under the existing CUP to minimize

impacts to Town roads. No buildings are proposed to be constructed at the site. The crushing and washing

plants are portable and easily moved on and off of the site as needed. Four 12 to 13 foot deep settling ponds will

be excavated to provide water storage for the washing process. Excess water from the washing operation is

stored in the ponds to allow fine sediments to settle out prior to reuse. Typical equipment involved in the

processing operation includes 2 crushing/screening plants, 1 wash plant, backhoes (1-2), portable generators (1-

3), and front end loaders (1-4). No mineral extraction activities will take place at this site. In accordance with

PCC § 240-29, no portable equipment or aggregate stockpiles will exceed 35’ in height. The duration and

frequency of plant operations are dependent upon product demand, which vary by season and by the amount of

road construction in the area. The plant is anticipated to operate for a period of 4 to 6 weeks, one to two times

per year. During times of high demand, it is possible that processing operations would be conducted for longer

periods of time. The applicant is proposing hours of operation to be Monday through Saturday from 6am to

8pm, similar to the Plant 46 site. The applicant anticipates the need for one high-capacity well to initially feed

the wash ponds with water. Water usage after the ponds are initially filled is limited. No potable water supply

well is proposed due to the relatively short periods of time that crews are anticipated to be on site. Portable

sanitary facilities are proposed to be brought on site when aggregate processing operations are being conducted

and removed when processing equipment are removed from the site. No processing operations will be

conducted at or below the water table at the site. The approximated groundwater elevation is 680’. The

elevation of the site is at an average of 701’ to 719’. Solid waste disposal will be provided via portable

dumpsters that would be brought on site when processing operations are active. The applicant has submitted a

grading plan for the site. With the exception of a portion of the access road, all storm water runoff and spring

melt-water runoff from the site will be contained via 2 storm water retention ponds. The WI DNR will regulate

the establishment of the site through a Construction Storm Water Permit. The WI DNR Bureau of Air

Management regulates crushing and screening operations at the site under an Aggregate Processing General

Permit. The general permit provides flexibility in meeting ambient air quality standards and also outlines

productions requirements as well as reporting, training, prevention, and abatement standards to be followed in

order to maintain compliance. Fugitive dust emissions from plant equipment will be controlled using wet

suppression to supplement insitu moisture from the plant equipment. Dust from roads in the operation and site

area will be controlled by use of a water truck that will spray water on the roads as necessary. Calcium chloride

may also be use on areas where trucks travel to suppress dust. The operation does not anticipate producing any

nuisance odors. Aside from security lighting, no exterior lighting is being proposed for the site. No night-time

operations other than occasional equipment maintenance are proposed with this operation. No advertising signs

have been proposed at this time. No known historic or archeological sites are located on the subject property.

The Town of Trenton recommended approval of the CUP request on December 8, 2015 with the following

recommendations.

15 foot or higher berms.

Trees put in for buffer beyond berm.

4

Combination of trees on berm and south of berm.


use at the proposed location would be contrary to the public interest, detrimental or injurious to public health,

public safety or character of the surrounding area. If found to not be contrary to the above, staff recommends

the LMC approve the proposed heavy industrial use with the following conditions:


Department of Safety and Professional Services, MSHA and other agencies as required.



3. Berms and vegetative screening shall be established and maintained according to submitted plans within

12 months of operation.

4. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday, 6am to 8pm.

5. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to beginning processing operations at

the site.

6. Stockpiles shall be limited to 35 feet in height above grade.

7. The dust control plan shall be adhered to.

8. The existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

Plan shall be updated to include the expansion area.

9. The haul routes for trucks traveling to Minnesota projects via Red Wing shall be routed from 830th

Ave

to Hwy 35 to Hwy 63.

10. Any unforeseen dust, noise and /or erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the

County.

11. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification for this use will require modification to the


12. This CUP is valid for two years and may be renewed administratively unless compliance issues exist.

The owner/operator is responsible for requesting renewal.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Chairperson Fetzer closed the

public hearing. Sanden asked about the reference in the staff report to conditions #3 screening, #7 dust control

& #8 Storm water pollution plan. He assumes the berm and vegetation screening plan is part of the grading

plan. Looks like #7, the dust control plan has been submitted. #8, has the storm water pollution prevention plan

been updated. Bechel stated we haven’t received the updated plan but that is required before they would be able

to start, should this be approved, they would basically have to expand that plan to include the Plant 46

expansion. Mr. Tomashek stated they are in the process with the DNR right now. It’s on hold, pending the

zoning approval.

Holst moved to approve the conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Nonmetallic Mining Wash

Plant & Processing Facility) for Monarch Paving Company, due to the fact this is not found to be

contrary to the public interest nor detrimental or injurious to the public health, public safety or

character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #12/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on site plan review for a Heavy Industrial Use (Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant and

Processing Facility), pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37E by Monarch Paving Company,

agent for Michael A. Johnson, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N,

R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Mr. Tomashek stated they did develop a grading plan for this

site. Mike’s property drains south to north toward the railroad tracks. They will strip off the black dirt or black

sand and use that for the berm construction and then they will base coarse material or grade some of the sand on

site to get the site to drain. The south part of the property will be the high point. They will drain it to the two

storm water ponds. They will keep the wash plant area the high spot. So the water drains away from the wash

plant and flows to these two storm water ponds. There is an existing emergency overflow pond on the asphalt

site. They will keep that separate from their two ground water ponds. They will leave a part of the berm in there.

That is actually an impervious paved pond that is for the potential oil spill or diesel fuel spill on the plant. They

5

do occasionally pump the ground water or rain water that gets into that pond. They do have the ability to pump

that out. They are permitted by the DNR to do that. They are proposing to locate the high cap well on the north

end of where the wash plant would sit. They will bring in a whisper quiet generator to run that as they need too.

They plan to seed and mulch the berm as soon as practical as soon as they have it constructed and then plant the

trees shortly thereafter. They would start as soon as possible in the spring and start with the grading work and

excavation after that.

Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: During the previous agenda item the Land Management Committee discussed the

Conditional Use Permit required for establishment of this facility and conditions for its operation. PCC § 240-

75 requires site plan approval for new construction or additions to existing structures and buildings for

industrial uses. The purpose of site plan review is assure site designs which promote compatibility between land

uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper access to street and transportation,

protect property values and contribute to efficient land use in Pierce County. Access to the site is through the

existing private driveway off of 830th

ST. The proposed haul route as we discussed before would be from 830th

ST to HWY 35 to get to HWY 63. With the exception of a proposed berm, a minimum 100 foot setback will be

maintained between operations and all property lines. There are no minimum setbacks in an Industrial Zone.

Ample parking space is available on the site to satisfy Pierce County code requirements. 2 to 4 employees are

anticipated to be on site while aggregate processing operations are being conducted. Outside storage will

include temporary stockpiles of raw aggregates, washed aggregates, processed aggregate stockpiles and

equipment intended for use at the proposed plant.

Stockpiles are proposed to remain under 35 feet in height. The applicant has submitted a grading plan for the

site which he just discussed. Monarch Paving Company has an existing storm water plan and associated WI

DNR permit for the Plant 46 site that they intend to update to include the Plant 46 Expansion site. The plan

employs Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for pollution prevention and addresses petroleum product

handling, erosion control, and onsite runoff containment for control of suspended solids. The processing areas

are proposed to be screened using a combination of existing vegetation, earthen berms and installation of

additional vegetation. A 75 foot vegetative buffer is proposed along 830th

ST where no vegetative buffer

currently exists. Stands of existing mature trees on the east and south side of the property will be left intact. A

15 foot high berm constructed of soil and overburden materials created during site preparation is proposed along

the east, south and west perimeter of the processing area. The berm would be mulched and seeded and trees

would be planted on top of the berm following the submitted “Plant 46 Expansion Site Plan.” The proposed

berm and additional vegetation also serve to mitigate noise generated on the site by plant equipment and

machinery. Fugitive dust emissions from plant equipment will be controlled using wet suppression to

supplement insitu moisture. The operation does not anticipate producing any odors. No advertising signs have

been proposed at this time. The Town of Trenton recommended approval of the CUP request on December 8,

2015 with the following recommendations which are also relevant to Site Plan Review:

15 foot or higher berms.

Trees put in for buffer beyond berm.

Combination of trees on berm and south of berm.


and determine if any changes or modifications to the proposed plan are necessary. The LMC should consider

existing and proposed structures, architectural plans, neighboring uses, use of landscaping and open space,

parking areas, driveway location, loading and unloading areas, highway access, traffic generation and

circulation, lighting, drainage, water and sewer systems and proposed operations.




Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the following condition as part of this site plan

approval:

6

1. Berms and vegetative screening shall be established and maintained in accordance with the Town of

Trenton’s recommendations.

Aubart asked about the height of the trees. We’ve gone down this road how many times. Holst stated with this

Township, the height of the trees, the spacing, the location, etc. Aubart asked Andy what the language has been

in the past. Pichotta stated the last time you approved trees on a berm, the trees were a minimum of 6 foot tall,

20 feet apart and there was two rows, staggered ten feet apart. Holst stated on top of the berm.

Aubart moved to approve the site plan for a Heavy Industrial Use (Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant and

Processing Facility) for Monarch Paving Company as presented with condition #1 and adding #2 Two

rows of trees, a minimum of six feet tall, planted 20 feet apart with the second row staggered ten feet

away/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed. Mr. Tomashek thanked the committee and staff for their time and

effort in this, they appreciate it. Holst stated the citizens of Pierce County would like to thank Monarch Paving

for being good neighbors to the community and for the services you provide.

Discuss take action on Departmental Policy regarding placement of Center of Section Survey Monuments

Staff Report – Louie Filkins: Louie Filkins, County Surveyor, introduced himself. Most of his duties are

outlined in the State Statutes but it is silent on centers of sections. In the past 40 – 50 years or so, the County

Surveyor has placed many of the center of section monuments. He presented a drawing of the section and stated

a mile square in the original government surveys there was four corners placed and midway quarter, quarters.

They call them quarter, quarters because when you run a straight line between them, it divides a section into

four quarters. About 10 – 15% of the centers of sections are monumented. Most of them were monumented over

a hundred years ago. He thought it was appropriate to have a county policy in place to monument all the centers

of section in order to have consistency. When a surveyor approaches a section now, he might use the

intersection method or he might use the historical method but there is a chance for some ambiguity there and

some uncertainty. If all of those are monumented with a modern day monument, there is much greater chance

the surveyor will use the modern day monument. Throughout history in Pierce County, the practice has been if

it has been monumented in the past, and some of these are old monuments, that is what the County Surveyor has

used. What can happen is you can have an old survey versus a newer survey and two different methods are used

and you will get two different locations. That is what we want to avoid. He doesn’t think it’s fair to have one

County Surveyor or any surveyor set a location and the land owners rely on that for a long time, fences are

constructed and then a new surveyor comes by and says we think it should be over here. In his pros and cons, in

the staff report, some surveyors believe the intersection method, the federal method should be used regardless of

where it falls. To him, what that results in is every time we improve our technology, we are going to move the

corner. It used to be tape, then it was electronic distance measurements, now GPS, what’s next, who knows but

he doesn’t believe the corners should move with our technology. He feels we should be monumenting all of the

corners so there is no doubt, he can do it along with his normal maintenance of the townships and the current

budget. Hopefully, it will bring consistency. Sanden asked if he is proposing doing all the corners over again.

Filkins stated no, what he is proposing is setting the centers of sections, county monuments at the centers of

sections. It’s been done at other areas of the State. Sanden asked what would happen if that new center makes

the corners out of date. Would you have to go back and change the corners? Filkins stated those wouldn’t

change. Those are permanent. Sanden stated they are accurate to your knowledge, with the new technology,

they have all been updated using GPS. Filkins stated he is working in Clifton now. That is the last township for

remonumentation. Filkins stated except for a handful along the St. Croix River and Clifton, all the monuments

in Pierce County are in. Holst stated if he has a full section of land, you are going to plop a survey marker in the

middle and he gets to farm around it. Filkins stated they will set it below the ground if it’s an ag field. Holst

asked, then you will find it again. Filkins stated it used to be that the monument was a very important part of the

corner because all the land, legal descriptions are based on these monuments. Now the most important part is

the coordinates. Once you have the coordinates, you don’t need any of the accessories; signs, ties any of that. If

it all gets wiped out, in theory, as long as the satellites keep flying around, you can go back with GPS and

replace it very accurately now. Holst asked how much more accurate are you now, using the Russian satellites

than you were using the American ones. He has noticed in his field equipment, he got a lot more accurate with

7

the Russian satellites. Filkins stated a little more accurate but the biggest thing is that you can work in the

woods now. Three years ago, two years ago the County purchased a new GPS system, big investment but it can

work faster and in the woods with the leaves off. It’s really a huge improvement in GPS technology.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider adopting the following

policy relating to the County Surveyors placement of center of section monuments:

The LMC authorizes the County Surveyor to set survey monuments at all of the centers of section to further the

goal of continuity. The location of monuments is to be based on the best available corner evidence or by using

the intersection method, at the discretion of the County Surveyor.

Chairperson Fetzer has one question, because he is sure that not all land owners are going to care for you being

out on their land putting a monument out there; is there anything we can do beforehand for a heads up? Holst

stated whenever Louie has dealt with them, he has always called well in advance saying he is going to be there,

is this convenient for you , do you have standing crops, he will work around that. Basically, we can’t tell him

no, he has that right to go there. Filkins stated he always tries to get ahold of the land owner, it doesn’t always

work out. In that case he leaves a card and he gets very few calls back. He keeps telling Andy that it’s just a

matter of time before someone comes in and is irate but so far so good.

Holst moved to approve the proposed Department Policy to complete the setting of county survey

monuments at all centers of sections in Pierce County as written/Ross seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on review and update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Chapter

of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report – Ryan Bechel: Land Use is among the most

important planning considerations. Moreover, it is also often one of the more controversial elements in a

comprehensive plan. The Land Use element is really a compilation of all the other elements of this plan.

Designating land uses and promulgating standards for development requires the consideration of Pierce

County’s utilities, roads and other support services as well as implications for housing, economics, agriculture

and natural resources. Therefore, the goals, objectives and policies of the land use element should be supported

by and complimentary to all other elements of the plan. Land Use in Pierce County is regulated by several

ordinances, including the county’s zoning ordinance. The county’s ordinances are the primary mechanism

through which the Land Management Department seeks to attain the goals and visions set forth by the

Comprehensive Plan. The plan offers guidance regarding changes to zoning and other regulating ordinances and

provides context to consider local growth decisions in conjunction with neighboring communities. The purpose

of this section is to review and analyze land use trends in Pierce County. Land use trends are indicative of what

changes are occurring regarding type, location and intensity of uses over time. It is these changes that should be

carefully considered through the comprehensive plan review process to determine whether modifications to the

county’s existing Land Use goals, objectives and policies are warranted to further the Land Use vision.

Land Use Vision: In the year 2035, Pierce County has successfully maintained its land base and continues to

offer rural residential living options in relative close proximity to the Twin Cities. The natural beauty of the area

has been maintained through the protection of environmentally sensitive corridors, parks, agricultural lands and

preserved open spaces throughout the county. There is a list of the existing land uses in the county, in the staff

report. No surprises there. Looking at the data for land use, the first one we have is Land Use Intensity, getting

that data from the Pierce County Property Valuation statistics, for a couple years there: 2002, 2005, 2010 and

2014 comparing land and percent of land area as well as the change in the last five years, for residential,

commercial, manufacturing and agricultural uses. On the fifth page there is a breakdown of what we’ve seen

across the county. Overall minimal changes throughout the County. Agricultural lands increased 0.5% and

forest lands decreased 0.3%. Undeveloped land uses experienced a slight gain, increasing 0.2%. Not a lot of

changes countywide. In terms of the individual townships themselves, most towns experienced gains of about

1% in Ag Lands over the last five years. Towns of Oak Grove and Rock Elm were the only two to have more

with Oak Grove a 2% gain and Rock Elm having 3% gain in Ag Land. That is as reported through taxes. The

only one to lose Ag Land was the Town of Ellsworth, losing 1% and residential and commercial was relatively

static for all towns except for Oak Grove that posted a loss of 1%. Holst stated your figures balance out so we

didn’t gain any more land anywhere. Bechel stated there is rounding in there. On page 7, is a Land Cover map,

8

just another way of looking at land uses in the county. This one is based off of satellite data versus taxing data.

You can see on page 8 what breaks down what we’re seeing in the Land Cover Data from the National Land

Cover Dataset, pretty much the same story as what is being reported through the property valuation statistics.

Cultivated crops and forest are the biggest land uses in the county which is no surprise. We have the Real Estate

Equalized Values that is also from the Pierce County Property Valuation statistics. We saw about a quadrupling

of equalized values since 1980. Sanden are those adjusted for inflation? Bechel stated those are not they are

strictly from the property valuation statistics. But the story of the last five years from 2010 to 2014 has actually

been of decrease of about 3.5% reduction across the county. Isabelle and Union are the only towns that have

posted gains in equalized values over the last five years. The biggest loss was seen in Rock Elm which was

about 25% from 2010 to 2014. Looking at Population Density and Change, the map in the staff report is

showing percent change in Block Group Population Density so what the map really shows is the dichotomy that

we know is in Pierce County with the east side of the county having a lower population per square mile versus

the western portions of the county. Over the last ten years from 2000 to 2012, that kind of has gone up a little

more as you see the eastern half posting more reductions in density per square mile than the western half. Those

are skewed though because they are based off of census block groups. The census quit doing it off of townships.

You get a little bit of skewing because they include municipalities in some of the areas that are more rural. Next

in the staff report is the Land Use Permit Application data from our department for the last six years. Page 13

has a breakdown of what we have seen in land use permit applications over the last six years. Total land use

permit applications has been fairly steady; average about 231 permits a year, maybe a slight upward trend,

pretty close to that again this year. Looking at the individual categories, new dwellings may have had a slight

uptick over the year and new accessory buildings have continued to be the number one permit that we issue.

Existing Goals, Objectives and Policies

Goal:

Provide for a well-balanced mix of land uses within the county to take into consideration the

other goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

Objectives:

Encourage land use patterns in conjunction with transportation options that reduce single

occupant auto dependency.

Encourage the protection of prime industrial and mineral extraction areas from encroachment

by incompatible uses.

Encourage the protection of other land uses from negative impacts of mineral extraction and

heavy industry through appropriate siting and adequate screening and buffering.

Preserve the county’s natural, cultural, historic and rural areas, including productive

agricultural lands, by encouraging new residential growth to locate close or adjacent to

existing areas of development.

Encourage development that promotes open space through site design, has minimal impact

on the environment, and fits within the character of the county as well as the specific location

in which the development is proposed.

Ensure all landowners have an equal opportunity for proposing land use change.

Discourage the establishment of land uses that are incompatible with existing land uses.

Policies:

Encourage the planned growth of urban communities, including the expansion of municipal

boundaries through annexation of lands only as shown on adopted municipal plans and in

cooperation with Town comprehensive plans.

Encourage the use of non-automotive modes of transportation.

Encourage commercial development within existing municipalities. Major commercial

activity will be discouraged outside existing municipalities and unincorporated areas unless

approved by the affected municipalities and/or Towns and included within their adopted

plans.

9

Encourage the preservation of open space and protection of natural resources before, during

and after development of land uses.

Encourage preservation of woodlands, conservation areas and open spaces close to

developed areas to protect the natural environment and so that the effects of urbanization

and the loss of the character of the area can be minimized.

Encourage the location of public schools, parks and libraries in locations that are central to

existing, recently developed and planned areas so that automobile driving and the need for

school bus facilities can be minimized.

Encourage the concentration of non-agricultural employment, including the commercial and

light industrial uses, within high accessibility corridors, at or near intersections of County

and State Highways and within close proximity to necessary support services.

Land adjoining waterways actively used for transportation that is within high access

corridors may be developed for industrial uses.

Encourage industrial development in appropriate location within Heavy Transportation

Corridors (e.g. railways, waterways, highways).

Encourage the establishment or expansion of residential districts in close proximity to or

adjacent to existing areas of residential development.

Land Use – Urban Areas

Goal:

Create a pattern of compact, contiguous urban development that enhances the quality of

personal and community life.

Objectives:

Establish a pattern of development that supports the sense of community.

Promote a vital central business district as the central focus of each community.

Coordinate land use type and density with the level of accessibility provided by the

supporting transportation and infrastructure systems

Encourage development consistent with good design principles in the process of

development.

Policies:

Encourage a compact development pattern that clusters neighborhoods, rather than a pattern

that sprawls subdivisions.

Build on the patterns of established urban communities, rather than creating new urbanized

places isolated from existing development.

Encourage the use of non-automotive modes of transportation.

Encourage commercial development within existing municipalities. Major commercial

activity will be discouraged outside existing municipalities and unincorporated areas unless

approved by the affected municipalities and/or towns and included within their adopted

plans.

Encourage the preservation of open space and protection of natural resources before, during

and after development of land uses within the contiguous growth area.

Encourage preservation of woodlands, conservation areas and open spaces close to

developed areas to protect the natural environment and so that the effects of urbanization

can be minimized.

Encourage the establishment of growth areas served by central utility systems, with varying

suburban, countryside and urban densities.

Encourage the development of housing surrounding existing municipalities at suburban or

countryside densities in a sequence that follows an orderly pattern of annexation, zoning,

subdivision and the extension of public facilities. In cases where properties are contiguous

10

to existing urban densities, similar urban densities may be extended into the contiguous

growth areas.

Land Use – Rural Areas

Goal:

Maintain a rural environment that provides for continuation and evolution of agricultural

activities and a rural character and lifestyle.

Objectives:

Encourage the preservation of cultural, social, economic, environmental and aesthetic

amenities provided by agricultural land use for the benefit of Pierce County.

Encourage the maintenance of the most productive agricultural lands for agricultural

purposes.

Discourage urbanization from penetrating prematurely into productive zones of agriculture

and support services.

Encourage the use of agriculture techniques that produce long-term advances in agriculture

production and soil and water conservation.

Encourage development within established areas that can provide the infrastructure required

by such development.

Encourage the establishment of a pattern of rural land use that is sensitive to the natural

environmental context and that encourages compatibility between land uses.

Support land use practices that reduce potential conflicts between agriculture and other land

uses.

Policies:

Incorporate land uses as shown in plans adopted by municipalities or towns.

Encourage towns to define the physical and practical limit of rural settlements based on the

capacity of facilities and the historic function of the community.

Recommendation

The LMC should consider whether changes or additions to the Comprehensive Plan’s Goals, Objectives and

Policies are warranted to further the County’s Land Use vision.

Pichotta stated there are a lot of goals, objective and policies in this section, as staff we went through these and

once again, didn’t find a lot of things that we thought needed tweaking. There will be some things that will need

to be tweaked in other sections. The next one that we will be tackling will be Intergovernmental Cooperation

where we start to define relationships between different units of government including the County’s relationship

with Towns. We have had five years now where we have utilized the Comprehensive Plan and the mechanism

identified through that. There will certainly be some changes that we will make to future sections more so than

we do to this land use one. The question is does any of these - whether its goals, objectives or policies - jump

out as something that needs to be tweaked, is there something that we’ve missed or something that could be

better stated? Sanden stated he thought you had a very insightful development a couple years ago. We were

focusing on conservation design and that wasn’t really catching on, he doesn’t think it will for quite some time

in this area. He thought it was very insightful that you decided to steer the ship to density transfers, to maintain

productive ag lands, which he thinks is probably a better approach. So he was wondering if that might be

articulated in this, the use of density transfers. He can see the approach that we have taken here, at the county

level, to be a more of a general umbrella approach and not to be as specific as talking about density transfers

versus this or that. If we were to get down to that level of detail it would be nice to see it in there. Pichotta

stated as we are going through these different sections, keep in mind, when we are done working our way

through all of the different sections, we are going to need to put together an implementation plan which

basically is going to identify what we are going to do or what the committee wants to see staff do, as far as

implementation steps/tasks related to the comprehensive plan, over the course of the next five years. Keep in

mind the density transfer issue because he thinks that is a policy or goal, somewhere, to ensure folks are aware

of that. Bechel said he thought it is in the management goals. Holst stated this was a real big deal in the 80’s

11

when we did our first comprehensive plan. The second one that came along, it was a real good idea that never

grabbed ahold because very few people wanted to live in cluster housing. Sanden say it wouldn’t go as far as to

say that, but we are not in a situation where that is going to be attractive. Holst stated people in our area didn’t

want to live in cluster housing. People moved to the country to have a three acre lot or a five acre lot. Generally,

that is one of the biggest waste of land is the five acre lot. Sanden stated he would agree. Pichotta stated that

density transfers are useful, not only in a cluster sense, but say you have land that’s zoned Primary Agriculture

with two density units per forty. You could transfer all your density points on a less desirable forty and put your

five acre lots, three acre or two acre, what have you. We try to inform folks of it, there are a lot of folks out

there that are simply not aware it’s out there. If fact, he thinks there are some towns that aren’t aware. Ross

asked on page 15, under policies, item 4, wouldn’t we just say bicycles instead of non-automotive. Holst stated

we have to be sensitive to the Amish that are moving into the eastern part of the county. Pichotta stated he

thinks that phrasing was what Mr. Rudd came up with. Ross stated if we want to specify those kinds of things

either now or at some point, that would make sense to him, but the non-automotive doesn’t make sense to him.

What are we talking about? Pichotta stated it is also a nod toward buses and transit - it’s not just walking or

biking. Holst stated the person that wrote that, it was his intent to cover multiple modes of transportation. It was

to cover skateboards, cross-country skis, It was never the intent to travel from Oak Grove to Rock Elm. Ross

noted that this it is in the Urban section. Pichotta stated the thing to remember about the Urban section is we’ve

got no formal jurisdiction there. State Statutes mandates that we have goals, objectives and policies relating to

that in case they didn’t adopt that, then ours would apply. But they all did. The reality is that we will likely not

apply these. Sarah Palodichuk asked if Urban specifically means not towns. Pichotta stated correct. Ms

Palodichuk stated it’s not like a certain density, its city versus town. Holst stated you are safe down there but

you could be incorporated area and part of their township could be annexed. Ms Palodichuk stated she wanted

to bring up a couple things specifically. The policy about town recommendations, how much weight does it

hold? She would also like an explanation of what it means to incorporate land uses as shown in plans adopted

by municipalities or towns. Andy mentioned the turnover on town boards. She feels a lot of the town leaders

would benefit from some education or knowledge of what that means and how we can help use it so we can

communicate better to you. The second thing, they have run into trouble, they have a lot of General Rural

Flexible 8, the way Andy explained it is that we have a lot of agricultural land zoned residential so we have

Rural Residential 12 being row cropped and we have a lot of residential land that is zoned General Rural

Flexible 8 which is an agricultural zoning. That leads into a zoning question that probably isn’t appropriate

here, can we find a way to remedy those things? As you look into implementation of it or the description of it,

she has had questions about Rural Residential 12 whether you can hunt on it and Rural Residential 8 and they

had the issue where someone didn’t buy a house because they couldn’t have chickens and maybe assorted other

animals. This is a problem for them. She is sitting on over ten acres in Rural Residential 12 and she can’t have

chickens on her land. She didn’t know that. Her whole planning commission laughed and said go buy chickens

if you want chickens. She thinks it’s something that they need to address. She reads in the goals, objectives and

policies that we want a rural life style. There are plenty of people that come out, buy their three acres and if we

really want to have that rural attitude, if that is our theory, then we need to be able to tell people coming, you

are getting the aesthetics of the rural community, maybe that’s the sounds and smells. Another part that she

doesn’t appreciate is the way that dogs are handled in the rural community. Holst noted that dogs are a township

problem. Ms Palodichuk stated she knows they are. They are a very large township problem. That falls into how

do we look at rural communities. She would love to see more discussion about that. She wants to tell people

“keep your dogs in your yard.” Then again she grew up on a farm where the dog ran a half mile to the Aunt &

Uncles house all the time and nobody said anything because there was no neighbors in between. But now you

have people’s dogs following them to Big River Church. The other thing that does play into this, maybe a little

more specific, the zoning issues, she knows there were changes made about large animals on land and how

many acres are required. That was before her time or she wasn’t cognoscente enough about it to know there had

been a change made but she has heard from different townships that’s problematic for them. She doesn’t really

understand the nuances of it but she does know the general feeling is that we had something a certain way and

we liked it a certain way. We all know it’s the county’s responsibility and they can do something about it but

12

she does hear rumblings about how many horses you can have on five acres or how many acres are necessary

for one horse. If you can talk a little about what the policy means as far as town weight and about rural nature.

Pichotta stated the relationship with towns and the weight placed on town recommendation, that is actually one

of the things he was eluding to earlier and we’re going to need to discuss that in the intergovernmental

cooperation section as well as the management goals. That is not really addressed in this section but there will

be discussions on that. Ms Palodichuk asked what this means then, incorporate land uses as shown in plans

adopted by municipalities or towns. Pichotta stated it means that the county can’t approve rezones that aren’t

consistent with a town’s comprehensive plan. Holst stated this is specific to rezones. Pichotta said this is all, to a

large degree, specific to zoning. Your question about the Rural Residential versus the General Rural Flexible,

we can’t fix that for you. The county would approve or adopt the changes that you propose but the towns would

- through your comprehensive plan - that’s the mechanism that you would use to correct those deficiencies

where you got ag land that’s zoned residential. Ms Palodichuk asked so that starts with the comprehensive plan.

Pichotta, yes that’s where it would start. Holst stated you base your rezones off your comprehensive plan. He

knows of one development specifically in your town where people wanted horses, and it was zoned Rural

Residential 12. You guys addressed that and changed the zoning and you based that off your plan, because

you’ve got these bigger lots, you would like to see chickens or a person can have a horse or two. You change

that zoning that fits into one of our districts that allows that. That’s why we look at these things every five years

to address those deficiencies that the county and towns didn’t realize weren’t aware of. Now we open the lines

of communication and you have been on the board long enough now that you have a little experience with

horses and dogs. You tie it to your comp plan, you justify the zoning change, you change the zoning in those

districts to satisfy the wants and needs of your township in those areas. Then the correct process is to bring it

through your town board, through your plan and petition the county for a zoning change and then go through the

public hearing process. That’s the way you move from Rural Residential districts to General Rural districts or

vice versa. Pichotta stated that we would view this as a comprehensive revision to your zoning map and noted

that the Town of Gilman did that a few years ago. Ms Palodichuk stated what if we wanted to create a zoning

district that was altogether different? Pichotta stated something like Ag Light. Ms Palodichuk stated that was

what we called it in our conversation. It addresses the problem that she brought up. Holst asked if it would

allow chickens but not horses. Ms Palodichuk stated chickens, horses and would not allow sand mining. There

are a couple communities that want Rural Residential 12 and want their neighbors to have nothing and they

want it to be a big suburb. For the most part, there is a tolerance for a little more than that but they don’t want to

have General Rural Flexible 8. Holst stated he doesn’t believe that the county would be opposed to another

zoning district that would allow those types of uses if you could define them and come forward and work with

us. He can see River Falls not doing it because they have their own zoning issues. Ms Palodichuk stated it’s

really surprising to look at the numbers and how similar Clifton and Oak Grove really are compared to the

eastern part. This is why I’m dealing with this more. In the future, if there is something they should be doing as

far as preparing for the fact that Prescott really would like to annex more of their land. That would be great to

have that conversation. They had a conversation with Prescott about a year ago and they nicely said we could

wait a little while to talk about it and they said thank you. But if they need to be proactive in that, it would be

great to get some direction. The second policy here, encourage towns to define the physical and practical limit

of rural settlements based on the capacity of facilities. Pichotta stated it’s a reference to what they used to call

rural centers. Where you’ve got Lawton and Beldenville, Diamond Bluff, in reference to those types of

situations, typically they are zoned Rural Residential 20. Ms Palodichuk asked is there anything that the LMC

gives us as far as advice for infrastructure as far as broadband goes or phone, like when we are creating

development. When talking to CenturyLink, they have a lot of plans to do work in Oak Grove in the near future.

Do you guys keep track of that when we bring CSM’s or development plans. Pichotta stated not specifically.

Mainly we deal with two things, the regulation of uses and the running of utilities may require permits because

there are structures involved but it’s not really the establishment of a use from a land use perspective. Then we

deal with lot creation. Some of this stuff is outside of our ability and purview. As far as the horse issue, what we

did years ago was change it from five acre minimum lot size to a three acre minimum lot size. The requirement

that there be one open acre per horse did not change. The reality is that if the County poses a change to a zoning

13

district or the uses, any change to the zoning code, it can’t be adopted if one more than half of the towns that

would be impacted by it don’t want to see that happen. We do send out notices as well as staff reports. He has

not heard any feedback from anybody ever that they are having an issue with it. It may be that they do but they

aren’t telling us about it. Ms Palodichuk stated she is here tonight because you nicely send these packets and she

thinks it’s better to at least come and listen than have inaction and then care about it a couple years later. Diana

Smith, River Falls Town Chairperson, stated she wants to reiterate what Sarah said, that it is so helpful to get

the information in the mail, so that the towns have a chance to look at it and have a comment. Her only

comment is that River Falls isn’t listed in the information listed and she thinks she understands that only the

land use applications that came to the County were listed in here but then they are listed on page 12 as having

no new construction, no values. Either they need to be on or off. If the committee wants them on, it’s no

problem for Jerome to get you that information. Holst stated it’s no problem for us to leave you off either.

Pichotta stated if you want to provide that information to us that would be wonderful because then we could see

where you are at with the rest of the County. Ms Smith, if this is to be a true picture of the County, then they

need to be on. Pichotta stated we don’t need a motion but consensus that we leave as is and we’ll tackle the

Intergovernmental Cooperation. Chairperson Fetzer stated it sounds good. Ms Smith stated the other thing that

she really likes about this is as they have to look at their comprehensive plan, this gives a lot of guidance to the

Towns to see what the County is doing to help us move forward with the changes and things as we make

changes and update our plans. Holst stated it’s not too late for you to get back in County zoning, you know that.

Ms Smith stated it will have to be with a different board than what she has right now. So this is really helpful in

that respect. Committee consensus to accept as presented.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has one request for Kevin Etherton to

attend the WLIA Annual Conference in Elk Hart Lake on February 10th

through the 12th

, $305.00, two nights in

a hotel. We do get a $1,000 grant from the State for his attendance at this sort of a thing. Aubart moved to

approve the travel/training request for Kevin Etherton for February 10 - 12, 2016/Ross seconded. All in

favor. Passed.


While River Falls is still here, have you received certification from DTCAP on your zoning ordinance yet? Ms

Smith stated the last they heard, it was imminent but they have not gotten a positive piece from them. Pichotta

stated we won’t put that on until we get that because it’s possible it could change.

Discuss take action on a request by the Town of Union for extension of the timeframe that they have to generate

a recommendation regarding a conditional use permit application. As you may recall, we issued them an

extension some time ago. The Town has requested additional information from Muskie. Muskie responded with

information that was vague and lacking in detail. They have requested additional clarification. They are coming

back to request an additional extension.

Discuss take action on the Goals, Objectives and Policies of Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter.

Motion to adjourn at 7:28pm by Holst/Ross seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, January 6, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Set next meeting dates: January 20th

, February 3rd

& 17th

, March 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2016.

Chair

3 Amend approved minutes of the October 21, 2015 meeting. Chair


Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Nonmetallic

Mining Wash Plant and Processing Facility), pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-37E by Monarch Paving Company,

agent for Michael A. Johnson, owner on property located in the SW

¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton,

Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

6 Discuss take action on Site Plan Review for a Heavy Industrial Use

(Nonmetallic Mining Wash Plant and Processing Facility), pursuant

to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37E by Monarch Paving

Company, agent for Michael A. Johnson, owner on property

located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 34, T25N, R18W,

Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Bechel

7 Discuss take action on Departmental Policy regarding placement of

Center of Section Survey Monuments.

Filkins


and Policies of the Land Use Chapter of the Pierce County

Comprehensive Plan.

Bechel

9 Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests Pichotta




