pierce county wisconsin...county code chapter 240-36d, for zeverino investments llc, david zeverino,...

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, December 18, 2019

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Neil Gulbranson, Jeff Holst, and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Emily Lund, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung

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

the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.

Set next meeting dates: January 15th

, February 5th

& 19th

, March 4th

& 18th

, and continuing with the first and

third Wednesdays of each month, all in 2020. Committee consensus to continue with current schedule.

Approve Minutes: Gulbranson moved to approve the September 4, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor with Joe Fetzer and Jeff Holst abstaining because of absence at

the last meeting. Passed.

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

Based Business for a Trucking Company in the General Rural Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-36D, for Zeverino Investments LLC, David Zeverino, agent for James & Lori

Boles, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 1, T26N, R20W, Town of Oak

Grove, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Fetzer invited David Zeverino forward. Mr. Zeverino stated we

can start with the staff report.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Mr. Zeverino created DZ Trucking LLC in 2010 and started a dump truck hauling

business. He currently owns the five adjoining land parcels located to the south of the land pertaining to this

request. If this CUP is approved, Mr. Zeverino intends to purchase the parcel from James & Lori Boles through

the recently created Zeverino Investments LLC and move his business to the site. The agent’s home is situated

on a 140.56 acre parcel and is located in Section 1, Town of Oak Grove. The agent proposes to purchase a 29.25

acre parcel that is located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 1, T26N, R20W, in the Town of Oak Grove. The

property is zoned General Rural Flexible 8. Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-36D allows for farm and home

based businesses accessory to permitted single-family residences through issuance of a CUP in agricultural

zoning 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.

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

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

area greater than 5,000 square feet.

3. Minimum lot size shall be five acres.

4. Other conditions specified by the Land Management Committee pursuant to §240-76 shall apply.

Current land use is agricultural. Adjacent land uses are agricultural and residential. Mr. Zeverino is seeking this

CUP to allow the construction of a new 80ft x 120ft building. The business is intended to be operated out of

5,000 square feet with the remaining 4,600 square feet of the structure intended for use as personal storage. The

business portion includes a shop to repair and maintain six dump trucks, an office for dispatching and business

administration, with the remaining area to be used for personal storage of tractors and vehicles. A large parking

lot is located around the building where dump trucks will be parked and maintained on the property daily. As

you can see on the map, there are two possible project areas. PCC §240-55B states “parking lot landscaping

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

design shall be done in accordance with minimum landscaping requirements on file at the Zoning Office.” The

Land Management Committee’s 2-7-2007 adopted policy requires screening stating, “Vegetation or fencing

shall be placed between nonresidential development and adjacent properties so as to render the development as

visually unobtrusive, as is practical, from adjacent properties or from public view. Native vegetation should be

utilized whenever practical.” To comply with this policy, Mr. Zeverino has proposed to construct a berm on the

north and west side of the building and parking lot and plant trees on the berm to soften views from neighbors

and public view. PCC §240-54G discusses lighting stating, the Land Management Committee’s 2-7-2007

adopted policy also discusses lighting standards for power and orientation of light fixtures stating, “ No exterior

light fixture may be placed or oriented so that the lighting element or associated convex lens is visible from an

adjacent lot line, ordinary high water mark line, or public road right-of-way easement line.” The site will not be

open to the public and dump truck hauling is performed off-site. Normal business hours of operation are 6AM

to 6PM, Monday thru Friday. The applicant proposes to have seven total employees: six for driving dump

trucks and one mechanic. PCC §240-54A requires two off-street and one handicapped parking spaces.

Driveway access is off State Road 29. The owners and agent have contacted Jill Proud and Dan Anderson from

Wisconsin DOT. Once the land is in Mr. Zeverino’s name or has an accepted offer to purchase, the WisDOT

will proceed with a “rural commercial use access application. The applicants will also need to secure a driveway

permit from WisDOT and will need to obtain a Uniform Address Number and sign from the Department of

Land Management. Applicants will need to hire a Wisconsin Licensed Master Plumber to obtain a state sanitary

permit prior to securing any other permits. The applicants plan to establish one on-site advertising sign with this

CUP that will state the company name and telephone number. The sign face area is proposed to be 6ft x 4ft and

shall not exceed 24 square feet per PCC. Applicants currently utilize Paul’s Industrial Garage (PIG) for trash

pick-up and propose to utilize that service at the new business location. The Oak Grove Town Board

recommended approval of this request on 11-18-2019 without identifying any specific conditions or concerns.

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 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 farm

and home based business with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as presented in the application, including hours of operation.

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

3. No more than 8 persons, not residing on-site, shall be employed at the site at any given time.

4. The entire business area shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in an accessory structure.

5. There shall be at least two parking spaces delineated, with a minimum of one space for handicapped

parking.

6. Applicants shall establish a vegetative screen within 12 months by constructing a berm on the north and

west side of the building and parking lot and plant trees on the berm to soften views from neighbors and

from public view. (The LMC should consider whether establishing tree size and number is necessary.)

7. No exterior light fixture may be placed or oriented so that the lighting element or associated convex lens

is visible from an adjacent lot line or public road right-of-way easement line.

8. The applicants shall secure a driveway permit from WisDOT and shall obtain a Uniform Address

Number and sign from the Dept of Land Management.

9. Applicants shall hire a Wisconsin Licensed Master Plumber to obtain a state sanitary permit prior to any

other permits.

10. The business/storage building shall maintain a 10ft setback from rear and side lot lines; 110ft setback to

the centerline or 77ft from the right-of-way of State Road 29, whichever is greater; and shall not exceed

35ft in height above grade elevation. Applicant shall submit documents demonstrating compliance with

all setbacks for each building.

3

11. Applicants shall work with the Town Building Inspector, All Croix Inspections, to determine whether or

not commercial plan review and approval is required from the Dept of Safety & Professional Services.

12. The applicant shall secure a permit from WisDOT for an advertising sign. The advertising sign shall not

exceed 24 square feet, comply with the zoning code standards, and signs shall be located outside the

state road right-of-way.

13. Applicant shall comply with all relevant local and state ordinances and regulations and secure all

necessary permits and licenses (e.g. Department of Safety & Professional Services (DSPS), etc.).

14. This conditional use permit shall be renewed every two years. Permit may be renewed administratively

if no compliance issues arise.

15. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use may 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.

Chairperson Fetzer opened the hearing to the public. Ted Bowen, Town of Oak Grove, asked if there would

be a noise ordinance in the future, he is concerned about jake braking. Chairperson Fetzer asked Mr. Zeverino if

he was going to be trucking in and out of his place. Mr. Zeverino stated the only time they would be trucking in

and out would be while building the berm, if they were hauling dirt to build the berm. Otherwise, no, the trucks

go out, they work for the day and then they come back. Mr. Bowen stated more or less like a garage. Mr.

Zeverino stated yes, they won’t be hauling anything in and out except when they are building the berm or

constructing the driveway. Our guys won’t use the jake brakes empty. That’s why they are building on the state

highway versus the town road, plus it’s safer getting in and out too. Chairperson Fetzer stated if it becomes a

problem, either you talk to your neighbor, or bring it to our attention and we will address it. Chairperson

Fetzer closed the public hearing. Sanden asked about the screening issue. Can we let the applicant put in what

he thinks is prudent and if that becomes an issue, either before the two year time limit or before, reassess and

have him add to it? Pichotta stated we certainly could. Chairperson Fetzer asked Mr. Zeverino if he has a plan

for screening. Mr. Zeverino stated building the berm and then evergreens. Chairperson Fetzer asked size wise?

Mr. Zeverino asked whether there is a limit as to how close can he go to the property line? Pichotta stated there

is not. Mr. Zeverino asked about the berm, if they are to build it vertically, can they go right up to the property

line? Pichotta stated yes. Mr. Zeverino stated it could be 20 feet wide and 8 – 10 feet high and then they would

plant evergreen trees, probably two rows, and stagger the trees on the top of the berm, natural grass on the side.

Chairperson Fetzer stated it sounds like you have a really good plan already. We’ve done enough of these

before, is there a certain size on the trees? Roy stated 8ft to 10ft has been a typical height. The staggering of the

two rows has depended on the species of the trees to figure out how wide is it going to grow to. Mr. Zeverino

stated are you talking 8ft maximum or minimum for height? Holst stated when you transplant them; they start at

8ft. Mr. Zeverino stated anything bigger, they usually die, you have to water the heck out of them. Holst

suggested to let the applicant choose to seed the size of trees to his choosing and let them grow to where he

feels they need to be. Chairperson Fetzer agreed with that because it sounds like he has a good plan already.

Holst moved to approve the conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business for a Trucking

Company for Zeverino Trucking LLC, David Zeverino, agent for James & Lori Boles, owners on

property located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 1, T26N, R20W, Town of Oak Grove, due to the fact

that the proposed use is determined to not be contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or injurious

to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #15/Sanden

seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for Height Exemption for a proposed Wireless Communication Service

Facility, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-29D, for Verizon Wireless, Brian Kabat, agent for

Kurt & Tracy Henn, owners on property located in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 25, T25N, R16W,

Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Adam Adank: Wireless Communication Service Facilities are permitted with a Land Use

Permit. However, Pierce County Code Chapter §240-29 requires towers to comply with the height requirements

of other commercial structures. Verizon Wireless is seeking a height exemption pursuant to Pierce County Code

4

§240-29D to construct a new Wireless Communication Service Facility (WCSF) exceeding 35ft in height in the

Town of Salem. The complete project proposal includes erecting a self-support wireless communication tower

with a total height of 199ft, constructing an equipment platform, and installing supporting equipment to

improve broadband and wireless services in the county. The proposed WCSF is located in the Town of Salem.

The property is zoned Primary Agriculture and requires 10ft side and rear yards in this zoning district. Adjacent

properties are zoned Agriculture Residential, General Rural, and Primary Agriculture. Adjacent land uses are

residential, agricultural, and woodland. Access to the site will be off of County Road CC. The site is currently

an agricultural field owned by Kurt & Tracy Henn. The proposed structure is a self-support lattice tower with a

height of 190ft. A 9ft lightning rod is to be placed on top of the tower which makes the overall height of the

structure 199ft. PCC §240-41C(3)(d) states, “WCSF Support Structures shall comply with the height

requirements of §240-29D.” 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 small area than the requirements of

§240-29D the certification fall zone shall be applied to the setback requirements of §240-29D.” Certified fall

zone engineering certifications state “In the unlikely event of total separation, this would result in collapse

within a radius equal to 40% of the tower height.” Therefore the maximum certified fall zone radius is 79.6

feet. PCC §240-29D states, Industrial and commercial structure heights may be granted 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 §240-27C 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-

27B addresses county highway setbacks and states, “Except as provided in Subsection E, the required setback

for all structures fronting on 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.” Using the 79.6ft fall zone radius, the structure has a right-

of-way setback of 111.6ft from County Road CC and 86.6ft from 230th

Ave; side and rear yard setbacks are

54.6ft. In the proposed location, the tower is approximately 124.5ft from the County Road CC right-of-way and

330ft from the 230th

Avenue right-of-way. The proposed tower is over 900ft to the nearest side or rear property

line. No structures are located within the 79.6ft fall zone of the proposed tower location. Staff will verify

appropriate setbacks prior to issuing a Land Use Permit for the structures. PCC §240-88 defines:

FALL ZONE – the area over which a support structure is designed to collapse.

SUPPORT STRUCTURE – an existing or new structure that supports or can support a mobile service facility,

including a mobile service support structure, utility pole, water tower, building or other structure.

YARD – A required area on a lot, unoccupied by buildings and open to the sky, extending along a lot line to a

specified depth or width.

YARD, REAR – A yard extending along an entire rear lot line from the rear lot line to the depth or width as

specified in the yard requirements for the applicable district.

YARD, SIDE – A yard extending along an entire side lot line from the side lot line to the depth or width

specified in the yard requirements for the applicable district.

State statutes do not allow a permit for a WCSF to expire. This allows the applicant to receive a Land Use

Permit for a WCSF and construct it at any time in the future. In order to monitor possible future changes on

neighboring property, prior to the construction of the WCSF, staff is suggesting placing an expiration date on

this approval.

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

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

LMC grant approval of the height exemption with the following condition:

1. This approval shall expire in two years if construction of the proposed WCSF has not commenced. In

such case, a new height exemption will be needed prior to construction.

Mr. Kabat stated that Adam covered it very well and he stated that his client continues to work hard to improve

service for the benefit of residents of the County and they can’t do that without the support of the land owners

they work with and the support of this committee. They do appreciate the support. Gulbranson asked when do

5

you have to put a light on, 200ft, is it? Mr. Kabat stated 200ft and above, below if the FAA mandates it.

Gulbranson suggested that you are OK on this one. Mr. Kabat stated we are.

Sanden moved to approve the request for Height Exemption for a proposed Wireless Communication

Service Facility for Verizon Wireless, Brian Kabat, agent for Kurt & Tracy Henn, with condition

#1/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for Height Exemption for a proposed Wireless Communication Service

Facility, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-29D, for Verizon Wireless, Brian Kabat, agent for

Ellsworth Baseball Association Inc, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 2,

T24N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: This structure is 150ft with a 9ft lightning rod, 159ft total height. The fall zone

certification on this tower says the fall zone radius is less than half of the structure height. Therefore the

maximum certified fall zone radius is 79.5ft. Using the 79.5ft fall zone radius, the structure has a right-of-way

radius of 111.5ft from County Rd VV and 121.5ft from US Hwy 63 and 54.5ft from side yards. In the proposed

location the tower is over 1,000ft from County Rd VV, 270ft from US Hwy 63, and 71.5ft from the nearest side

or rear property lines. The baseball field appears to be approximately 150ft from the proposed tower location.

The property is also located in the Red Wing Airport Height Limitation zone. This overlay district sets a

maximum structure height of 927ft above sea level on the proposed property. The existing contour elevations on

the property range from 710ft – 730ft above sea level with the proposed tower location near the 716ft contour

elevation. With a tower height of 159ft, the proposed structure would have an overall elevation height of

approximately 875ft above sea level. Everything else is about the same. Aubart moved to approve the Height

Exemption for a proposed Wireless Communication Service Facility for Verizon Wireless, Brian Kabat,

agent for Ellsworth Baseball Association, with condition #1/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss possible code amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 225 Vehicles, Disposal of.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: The Pierce County Disposal of Vehicle Ordinance (Chapter 225) was adopted in

1978 and has never been updated or amended from the original text. The ordinance does not allow for any

disassembled, dismantled, junked, inoperable, wrecked, or unlicensed vehicles in open view on public or private

property. Properties in violation typically try to gain compliance by screening vehicles from public view,

removing vehicles from the property, or proving that the vehicles in question are licensed and operable.

However, when working with the property owners in violation, the most common questions staff receives are

what can I use to screen the vehicles and where does the screening need to be located? Based on the current

ordinance language, staff feels that the ordinance is lacking the appropriate amount of context to properly

enforce the current code to a standard that will satisfy the intent of the ordinance. Below are a few examples of

code amendment concepts staff feels should be discussed:

- Would adding a definition section help clarify instances where the exact meaning of a word is unclear or

could be misinterpreted? A few examples of words that need defining are screening, vehicle, public

view, junked, etc.

- Should any vehicles be exempt from the ordinance (e.g. vehicles that have collector plates).

- Based on the current code language, it appears the intent of the ordinance is largely focused on

aesthetics. Currently all zoning districts are held to the same standard. Should certain zoning districts be

allowed to have an established number of disassembled, dismantled, junked, inoperable, wrecked, or

unlicensed vehicles in public view (e.g. ag districts vs residential districts)?

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee discuss the proposed concepts,

and if necessary, direct staff to draft ordinance amendments for future LMC consideration. Sanden asked if

someone is working on their vehicle, is that considered disassembled? Pichotta stated that is a good question,

largely, we are complaint driven so we don’t necessarily go out and look for issues with cars. If we did go out

and look, we would find a lot of them because many rural properties have them. What we are really looking for

today, is direction as to whether you want us to look into this and propose some amendments. Pichotta noted

that this is not a zoning ordinance. If we want to treat different zoning districts differently, we may actually

6

have to put it in the zoning code in order to make that happen otherwise it would likely apply to the whole

county. What we really need to do is look into what our options are. The ordinance doesn’t have a purpose and

intent statement, and it doesn’t have any definitions. It’s kind of difficult to enforce in many cases. Holst asked

if we are getting many complaints anymore. Pichotta stated that its actually one of the more common things that

we get complaints on. It’s usually someone complaining that their neighbor got one more car and now they’ve

got three or four sitting there and they don’t like it. Roy stated we get that issue a lot. They are working on it.

The problem is when they are working on three or four and this has been going on for years. Another issue we

always have in the summer, with demolition derby vehicles; those show up. Those vehicles are never going to

get licensed. One issue we have as staff, when does it stop being someone’s hobby and when is it become a

problem. The code doesn’t establish that line so we’re left trying to figure it out on our own. Adank stated the

ordinance does reference disassembled, dismantled, or parts thereof too. And it references seven days to remove

the stuff and that’s just not always reasonable. Holst stated apparently you haven’t bought any car parts. A lot of

times you get tearing stuff apart that you can’t even get the part for two or three weeks. Gulbranson likes the

part about treating a residential area a little different than maybe out in an ag or rural area. Sanden agreed with

one exception and then it becomes a zoning issue and that becomes messy. Pichotta stated we could look at

strategies to address that. Aubart stated there aren’t a lot of definitions here and vehicle isn’t defined. Holst

stated it doesn’t look like anything is. Aubart stated you could start there. Pichotta stated we almost have to start

from scratch and basically have to write an ordinance. The question is do you want us to do that? Aubart said

it’s kind of interesting; last month at the Law Enforcement Committee, there is a problem, actually Melstrom’s

was there and Jerry’s Towing was there, what they are running into is abandoned vehicles. They get called and

then nobody gets paid. The problem is that they aren’t worth anything right now. They were talking about that,

people walk away from them and what do you do with them. Pichotta asked if there was any conclusion

reached. Aubart stated no. Who’s going to pay? No, there was no conclusion. It was just brought up as a

problem. Pichotta stated it’s us and Solid Waste too, because they are already dealing with it in some respects.

Holst asked if it’s like a fire call, wherever they abandon them, the Township has to pick up the cost. Aubart

stated that may be a solution. Gulbranson asked where we are getting most of the complaints in residential areas

or rural? Roy stated rural and he would have big reservations about putting this in the zoning ordinance. Roy

said then we are going down a property maintenance road and people are going to come in and say what about

cutting your lawn, trimming your trees, etc. It’s been nice to say we do not have a property maintenance

ordinance. Sanden stated that if this is complaint driven, maybe you just need some clear definitions, so when or

if the issue arises, you folks have some solid ground. Holst stated it’s not a land issue but a solid waste issue and

maybe it should be kicked over to Melstrom’s court. Sanden stated we did have that one several months ago

about the aesthetics, turned out it was a lot of ag implements. He would hate to have anything that would outlaw

that. Chairperson Fetzer stated as he was talking to Andy today, he was sitting at his shop and they have stuff,

tankers, etc sitting around outside. Sanden stated that is why he thinks having a residential focus rather than an

ag district focus may make sense. Pichotta suggested perhaps establishing a minimum lot size. Typically,

residential lots are a good bit smaller. Lund asked how did Land Management become responsible for this?

Holst stated Solid Waste wasn’t enforcing this. When we hired Brad, we hired him as an enforcement guy. You

were hired to enforce for multiple agencies. Roy stated to work with multiple agencies. Pichotta stated this

ordinance has been in the zoning office since it was enacted in ’78 and it hasn’t been amended at any point.

Holst stated nobody ever enforced it. They would go after a guy if he had 20 cars, there was a little bit of value

so they would haul them to the junkyard. They got that one cleaned up then some neighbor would complain

about another one. They would have about two a year. Then they got rid of the bigger players and now they are

down to complaining about a car or two. Roy stated the lack of a screening definition is the problem. Holst

stated if you could say plant two - four foot pine trees on them in four years they are going to be covered up.

Adank stated once they are screened the next question is about environmental impacts. Chairperson Fetzer

stated fluids draining. Sanden asked what about an incremental approach, start by putting a solid definition.

That way when you go up to someone, you can have a bit more authority and say according to our requirements,

these are your options. Pichotta stated we could perhaps incorporate distance too, so that cars that are located a

long way from public view are treated differently. We could get creative. Sanden stated he likes the minimum

7

lot size to keep it away from the ag districts. Pichotta asked if that was the direction the committee wanted to

give. Should we look for some minimal things that we can do to this to make it easier to give folks guidance,

maybe loosens things slightly in ag districts. Sanden stated as long as you don’t think it’s too little. Chairperson

Fetzer stated it would be a step in the right direction. Sanden asked if it was reasonable to put language in that

states, upon complaints received? In other words you are not going to go out and proactively manage this.

Pichotta stated we do have prosecutorial discretion. Sanden stated it probably doesn’t need to be put into

writing. Holst stated he thinks some definitions; what a vehicle is, what screening is. Sanden stated what is not a

vehicle. Holst stated then you will have some of us ag violators that have piles of old junk tractors and stuff

sitting around. Aubart noted that in the one section of the code, removal from private property, he doesn’t know

if you can go on there and remove it. He thinks that is likely illegal. Chairperson Fetzer stated is it something

you can take care of with fines or what? That is really the only way, if they can prove that they are working on

it. If something is sitting there for more than a year, it’s probably junk. Holst stated you don’t have a collector’s

heart. You buy these things and that’s a project. He has about 15 old John Deere tractors and he will start them

up on the 4th

of July and drive them downtown Diamond Bluff and then they come back. He is going to work on

that. Then next year on the 2nd

he starts them back up again. Aubart stated just past Melstrom’s is an old 40’s

pickup with a tree growing out the back of it. He thinks it looks cool. He looks at it every time he drives by. But

that would be a violation. Roy stated but when you have a neighbor that calls about it then it’s a nuisance.

Aubart stated he hopes it never moves. Chairperson Fetzer stated that he understands nuisance complaints but

he can understand it more in a residential area than out in the country. He stated that if he drives by somewhere

and sees a bunch of trucks, he doesn’t care. Sanden reiterated his recommendation of starting by out by looking

at definitions. Committee consensus to direct staff to propose new definitions in Chapter 225.

Discuss possible code amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 240 Outdoor Storage.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: Commercial outdoor storage of property (boats, campers, etc) is currently only

allowed in the Industrial District due to the definitions Heavy Industry and Light Industry. Staff has received

numerous inquiries and regarding the permitting of outdoor storage in the Commercial and Light Industrial

Districts as well as part of permitted Mini-Storage facilities, which the code specifically does not allow. The

Industrial District is intended for uses with the potential for significant impacts, on and off site. Staff suggests

that outdoor storage of property in the Industrial District is not the best use of that district and would like the

LMC to consider:

Should the commercial outdoor storage of property (boats, campers, cars, etc) be permitted in the Light

Industrial or Commercial Districts as stand-alone operations?

Should outdoor storage of property be permitted as part of mini-storage facility?

Should outdoor storage of property be permitted in the Agricultural districts?

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee discuss the proposed concepts,

and if appropriate, direct staff to draft ordinance amendments for future LMC consideration.

This really came up last spring/summer with the flooding of Trenton Island. The campgrounds down there

needed to remove all the campers and we were left with a rush of where can they technically go that is

permitted. That pushed this. We might be in this situation again. Chairperson Fetzer asked if there is any way to

have a temporary permit on something like that? That you know is just going to be a short-term deal. Holst

stated unfortunately last summer’s short-term deal turned into pretty much all year. Roy stated that temporary

uses currently are allowed for less than seven consecutive days and no more than ten days in the year. It’s more

for your garage sales. Gulbranson asked about the outdoor storage like the new one they just allowed down in

Trenton. Are they allowed outdoor storage? Pichotta stated no. Gulbranson stated but the one down the road has

outdoor storage. Roy stated yes, that was permitted under the old code. All he knows is that it was allowed for

storage and it doesn’t say much more than that. We weren’t in position to change that. That question was

brought up. Gulbranson stated our ordinance in Town says no outdoor storage. When they have those storage

units but River Falls, you allow it? Aubart stated yes. Roy stated in our mini-storage code, it explicitly states no

outdoor storage. If that is something you are OK with, we could just remove that line from the current code.

8

Gulbranson stated he isn’t in favor of that but a temporary thing, every year we used to pull them up on the

island road and then they would move them back. It’s been going on for years. Do they ever not get moved

back? Where do they usually put them? Roy stated the campgrounds now, they haven’t had to move them in

many years so this is the first time a lot of them moved off the site. Holst stated quite a bit of stuff got stored at

that Red Eye Express. Roy stated that was a violation so we were left with, what do we do, if we start fining

them, where are they going to go. That individual actually got bad information from the town board.

Gulbranson asked if Trenton was the only spot where this happens. Pichotta stated they are the primary

location. Chairperson Fetzer asked if they would like something written up to allow it? Pichotta stated we are

asking the committee if you think it’s appropriate to allow outdoor storage in places where it’s currently not

allowed. If so where? Basically, industrial land is intended for the worst types of uses and things that generate

vibration, sound, and traffic. Truth be told, outdoor storage typically doesn’t generate those things so there is

the question of whether that really is the best use of the limited amount of industrial space that we have in the

County. Holst stated if this is specific to Trenton Island flooding, then he thinks we need to come up with some

sort of a solution for that. He would hate to see this turn into something where we’ve got people parking stuff

all over in ag districts, year round. He does think we should be able to give them some sort of ability to use it

for a couple months until the water goes down. Pichotta stated another consideration, not to confuse it all, but

under General Retail and Services, which is a permitted use in a Commercial District, is car sales. What’s that

but outdoor storage of cars that are for sale, or trailers, or RV’s for that matter. That is all general retail and

services, and in a defacto sort of a way, we already allow it in some respect - but not storage just for the sake of

storage. Maybe it’s something that should be allowable in Commercial and Light Industrial. If it’s in a

Commercial District and a permitted use, then we have site plan review so we do have the ability to look at

screening. It would take some amendments relating to Light Industrial because right now Light Industrial is

basically defined as everything being inside of structures. But we’ve seen where as part of a commercial use in

a Light Industrial District, Fullerton Lumber for example, outside of town, there was an outdoor storage

component to that. We kind of allow it in some certain cases when it’s part of a use that involves that. Should

we allow it as a standalone sort of a thing? Should we look at some tweaks to commercial and light industrial

and bring them back for your consideration? Gulbranson asked about the one storage place that allows them in

Trenton, if you look at the license plates, probably 90% are Minnesota because Red Wing probably doesn’t

allow them in their neighborhood so they are dragging them over in Wisconsin and parking them. Holst stated

that if it’s got a license plate on them there isn’t a thing we can do about them. Gulbranson stated no there is

not, but we are helping them out. Aubart stated but they are paying for it. Chairperson Fetzer stated the biggest

thing is the emergency down in Trenton. Pichotta stated that is what is driving this. That leads us to a discussion

about Industrial Districts and what’s a good use there. Aubart asked if we have any outdoor storage in the

Industrial District. Pichotta stated we had Bill Schroeder, he is zoned Industrial down there, and he did take in

some RV’s during the flood. Not standalone, not where they permitted it. Holst asked what do we do with PIG

where he has his little two, three campers there. We permitted him to have two or three campers there and that’s

an Industrial zoned area so now all the sudden he changes to I’m going to store campers here. What do we do

when we get into that? We are limiting him now to three or whatever the number is. Pichotta stated unless it’s a

campground, right. He had a multiple CUP or two CUP’s. Holst stated he had his PIG Fair or whatever it was.

That kind of went out by the wayside. Gulbranson stated so you could also have a potential for this at Hwy 29

& 63, up there. They are advertising storage up there now. Is that outdoor or all indoor? Roy stated they are

proposing mini-storage there. We haven’t seen an official plan but have had discussions. Pichotta asked if the

committee wants staff to look at the temporary thing. Sanden asked if it was too wonky to put in language about

under emergency conditions then it’s allowable under light industrial. Holst added and maybe ag under

emergency conditions. Sanden agreed. Chairperson Fetzer asked if people would have to apply for a permit to

allow it. You wouldn’t want to wait for it to go to a public hearing. Holst stated we should give staff the ability

to issue these permits for up to 90 days or 60 days or whatever you think. Pichotta stated where we are at here

is, basically look at language relating to allowing it in the Commercial and Light Industrial Districts but only in

an emergency or some sort of a situation that warrants quick action, then staff is authorized to issue a temporary

permit. Then maybe have a mechanism that kicks it to the committee if it’s over a certain amount of time or it

9

looks like it’s going to be. Let us dig into it and see what we can come up with. Aubart stated you could limit it

to 30 days or 60 days and then renew it. If it’s a flood, you don’t know it could come back up. Holst stated this

was the screwiest season on the river ever. Gulbranson stated in ’65 it was pretty bad, wasn’t it. Holst stated it

didn’t go on all year. 1965 flooded in the spring and subsided. Other floods happened in July and subsided. This

year it stayed high all year. Pichotta stated that if the committee is OK with it, staff will look into some options

specifically to deal with flooding issues and try to come up with a mechanism to deal with it, that is probably

administrative versus committee driven, so that we are able to deal with it on an administrative level. We will

present it to you in a month or two. Committee agreed.

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

time.

Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items

Pichotta stated Big Dog Daddy is still not up and running. He was going to come back after he had the DNR

land purchase dealt with. Roy stated the purchase is final and now he owns the land. The problem was he

stopped the prep work on it, because if he couldn’t get the land, he would have to move roads and move

buildings. When it came for a status report there was nothing really to report until this got done. Now we can do

the status report but the problem is that his permit renewal is in March or April. Do you want him coming in

twice in three months or do we just do the renewal in March or April and go from there. Chairperson Fetzer

stated we will just do the actual renewal. Pichotta stated the other agenda item, likely, is Final Plat for Cory

Huppert Plat in the Town of Clifton. There are a couple housekeeping issues that will be brought forth in the

next few months. We won’t have one on the first Wednesday in January as it is a holiday. So the next meeting

will be January 15, 2020 and then we will go back to the 1st and 3

rd Wednesdays. At a minimum the final plat

will be on the next agenda.

Motion to adjourn at 7:07pm by Gulbranson/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, December 18, 2019 – 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 Set next meeting dates for 2020, proposed January 15th

, February

5th

& 19th

, March 4th

& 18th

, and continue with the first and third

Wednesdays of each month, all in 2020.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the September 4, 2019 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 a

Trucking Company in the General Rural Flexible 8 District,

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

Investments LLC, David Zeverino, agent for James & Lori Boles,

owners, on property located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 1,

T26N, R20W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on a request for Height Exemption for a

proposed Wireless Communication Service Facility, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-29D, for Verizon Wireless, Brian

Kabat, agent for Kurt & Tracy Henn, owners on property located in

the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 25, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem,

Pierce County, WI.

Adank

6 Discuss take action on a request for Height Exemption for a


Pierce County Code Chapter 240-29D, for Verizon Wireless, Brian

Kabat, agent for Ellsworth Baseball Association Inc, owners on

property located in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 2, T24N,

R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Adank

7 Discuss possible code amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter

225 Vehicles, Disposal of.

Adank

8 Discuss possible code amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter

240 Outdoor Storage.

Roy

9 Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta

10 Future agenda items. Pichotta

11 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. (12/6/19)

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, September 4, 2019

Present: Jon Aubart, Neil Gulbranson and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung

Absent: Joe Fetzer and Jeff Holst

Acting Chairperson Jon Aubart called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at

6:00pm in the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.

Next meeting dates: September 18th

, October 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the August 21, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for an Accessory

Residence in the Primary Agriculture District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-40A, for

Dale & Sheila Olson, owners on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 6, T27N, R17W,

Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Aubart invited Dale & Sheila Olson forward. Mr.

Olson stated they bought their property in 1989 which consisted of an old barn, a pole shed and a mobile home

with attached addition. They lived there for two years and then built a new residence in 1991 and got a second

address for the mobile home. They rented out that mobile home until 2016 at which time it had deteriorated to

the point it really wasn’t habitable anymore. They demoed the mobile home and left the addition which is a

structure on posts, conventionally framed up with sheetrock and fiberglass insulation and shingle roof. They

subsequently purchased a small job site office trailer to replace the mobile home kitchen and bathroom, since

the addition had no plumbing or anything in it. Due to the fact that more than a year has lapsed of no residency

there, they have to apply for a new permit.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: In December of 1984, a Land Use Permit was issued for the applicant’s property

to authorize a mobile home. A 12ft x 36ft addition was later added to the mobile home that included a living

room and bedroom. At that time the mobile home was considered to be the Primary Residence. In March of

1991, another Land Use Permit was issued to authorize a single family dwelling on the property. Both

residences were connected to the same septic system. After the single family dwelling was built, the mobile

home was used as a rental unit. In 2017, the applicants decided to remove the mobile home from the property

due to its deteriorating condition but the 12ft x 36ft living room/bedroom addition remains on the property. The

applicant would now like to move an 8ft x 28ft office trailer onto the property and attach it to the existing living

room/bedroom addition. The office trailer would be converted to have a kitchen and bathroom area. The office

trailer and existing living room/bedroom addition would have a total square footage of 656 feet. The proposed

new accessory residence now requires a conditional use permit given that the previous use has been

discontinued for a period of time exceeding 12 consecutive months. The applicants own 14 acres in the Town of

Martell. The property is zoned Primary Ag. Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-40A allows accessory residences

which are accessory to single-family residences in the Primary Agriculture District with the issuance of a CUP.

PCC §240-88 defines Accessory Residence as:

A. A dwelling unit that is accessory to a nonresidential use on the same lot, is the only dwelling unit on the

lot, and provides living quarters for the owner, proprietor, commercial tenant, employee or caretaker of

the nonresidential use.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

B. A dwelling unit located in an accessory building located on a residential parcel.

PCC §240-88 defines Accessory Building as, “building, not attached to a principal building by means of

a common wall, common roof, or an aboveground roofed passageway, which is:

A. Subordinate to and serves a principal structure or a principal use.

B. Located on the same lot as the principal structure or use served.

C. Customarily incidental to the principal structure or use.

The existing primary residence has three bedrooms and a total floor area of approximately 3200 square feet. The

existing conventional septic system was permitted and installed in 1984 and is sized for a three bedroom house.

The existing single family dwelling has an address of N8589 690th

Street. The mobile home that was removed

from the property had an address of N8593 690th

Street. The proposed accessory residence would continue to

use the N8593 690th

Street address. The proposed accessory residence would continue to use the N8593 690th

Street address. Other existing structures on the property consist of a 36ft x 54ft pole barn to the north of the

accessory residence, a 20ft x 24ft car port, a 34ft x 48ft barn, and a 32ft x 48ft pole shed to the south of the

proposed accessory residence. The Martell Town Board recommended approval of this request on 12-11-18

without any concerns or recommended conditions. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan. No

renewal of this request will be necessary provided the use is established within 12 months of approval.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether the request 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 an accessory residence with the following

conditions:

1. The applicant shall work with the Town Building Inspector, Todd Dolan, to determine whether a permit

from the town is needed and to ensure compliance with the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC)

requirements.

2. The applicant shall obtain a sanitary permit for the connection of the accessory residence to the existing

septic system or obtain the proper permits to install a new septic system. If connecting to the existing

septic system, the applicant shall either expand the existing tank and drainfield or record a per capita

flow statement documenting that the septic system sizing is based on number of occupants and not the

number of bedrooms.

After talking with Michelle Williams of the Public Health Department, a third condition is proposed:

3. Applicant shall acquire necessary permits (DATCP, Pierce County Public Health, etc) if the accessory

residence is to be used as a tourist rooming house for short term rentals.

Chairperson Aubart opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Chairperson Aubart closed the

public hearing. Sanden asked, looking at the aerial photo, is he interpreting this correctly that the photo is an

old photo showing the original trailer and the red is the new trailer. Pichotta stated yes the structure with the X

over it is no longer there. Sanden asked what was that? Mr. Olson stated the trailer, that’s what is getting moved

over, it has been moved over. Gulbranson asked if there are any plans to use it as a short-term rental? Mr. Olson

stated they’ve talked about it but don’t feel it would be in their best interest. We’re not inclined to be hosts of an

Airbnb or something like that. Gulbranson asked if the applicants knew about the third recommendation. Mr.

Olson stated not until now but he was aware that there had been discussions about short-term rentals and things

like that. We have never had any issues or problems renting it. It’s a desirable location; it has its own yard;

there’s a car port that people can park in. They have never tried to get rich off of it or anything like that. It’s

been very easily rented.

Gulbranson moved to approve the conditional use permit for an Accessory Residence for Dale & Sheila

Olson, due to the fact that the use is determined to not be contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental

or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 -

#3 as amended/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for BS Construction

Inc and Steve Schoeder Properties, on parcels located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 15 and the N ½

3

of the NE ¼ of Section 22, T26N, R15W, Town of Rock Elm, Pierce County, WI. Roy stated he spoke with

the applicant today and they are unable to attend. They have a big project up in Hayward and couldn’t make it

down. We have talked about the conditions and had no opposition to what we are recommending.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: BS Construction/Steve Schoeder Properties owns a mine which was expanded in

2006. In 2006, the mine operator at that time and the Syllas agreed to allow mining within 50 feet from the

property line as long as the mining did not encroach within 400 feet from the house and peak particle velocity

would not exceed .35 inches per second. On September 5, 2012 the LMC modified the condition regarding

peak particle velocity from the blasts. The peak particle velocity was raised from .35 to .50. It was stated that

the low peak particle velocity makes it more difficult to blast the rock as it gets closer to the Sylla’s structure.

The higher peak particle velocity will allow the blasters to obtain a higher frequency in the blast and utilize

electronic detonators with proper timing to get better results for the operators and the Syllas. The previous

operator was instructed to report back to the LMC after the next full-face production blast with the peak particle

velocity limit of .50 to determine if any modifications to the permit were necessary. To date there has not been a

full-face production blast with a peak particle velocity limit of .50. At the 2017 renewal, Condition #14 was

added to allow for continued use of the .35 peak particle velocity without a signature hole and full-face blast

requirements. The Sylla’s continue to be concerned about the effects of the blasts to them as well as their

structures. As the blasting gets closer to their residence they believe that higher peak particle velocity will make

the blasting less tolerable to them. A partial face blast was recently conducted. The blast was designed to stay

under .35 peak particle velocity. The reading at the Sylla residence was .64. Other nearby graphs showed peak

particle velocity below .35. No other blasts have occurred since then. The mining site has approximately 10

unreclaimed acres. Access to the mine is off of County Road S. Bechel Sand and Gravel has a lease with the

owners. Mining activity is sporadic and the operators have expressed a willingness to work with the Syllas. Due

to the unplanned peak particle velocity of the last blast, the blaster (Terry Johnson, Quick Supply Co.)

recommends that a signature hole be completed prior to any other blasts. He stated this will help the blasting

process for the site and produce better results for the mine operators and the surrounding land owners. Besides

the issue with the blasting near the residence, the Sylla’s have two concerns about well testing and dust control.

The well was last checked in 2014 and dust issues come up during certain conditions (strong north winds). Staff

was unable to contact the Chair of Rock Elm. Tim Bates, Rock Elm Chairperson, stated no one contacted him

and he didn’t know anything about it until something was happening and people were at the Town meeting last

month quizzing him about the blasting. He got the notification about this meeting so thought he should find out

what’s going on. Roy continued stating the existing conditions are listed in the staff report #1 - #14.

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

conditions continue to be adequate or whether additions and/or modifications are necessary. If no additions or

modifications are necessary staff recommends the LMC renew this permit with the following conditions: Roy

stated we are proposing to change #6 to remove any talk of peak particle velocity and signature hole. We are

proposing to remove #13, the old number 13 and changing it now, a signature hole blast shall be conducted

prior to any other production blast. Results shall be presented to the LMC to determine if any modifications to

the permit are necessary. Signature hole blast shall occur no later than December 31st, 2019.

1. Hours of operation shall remain consistent with daylight hours or Monday through Friday, 6:00am –

9:00pm during the construction season with an occasional Saturday, 6:00am – 6:00pm, property owners

within 300 feet and Mr. Huebel shall be notified in advance of Saturday operation hours.

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

3. The reclamation financial assurance information shall be kept current and approved by Corporation

Counsel.

4. Applicant shall comply with DNR NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits (Ch 241 PCC).

5. Applicant shall identify blasting frequency and all blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed

blaster.

6. Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given adequate notice (48 hours) of any planned

blasting. Peak particle velocity shall not exceed 0.50 inches per second. A signature hole process

will be conducted to minimize vibrations.

4

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

within 1000 feet of the proposed mining operation to establish a baseline. This shall be completed prior

to blasting and every two years thereafter.

8. Dust control measures shall be implemented when necessary. The operator will water when necessary.

9. This CUP shall be renewed every two years.

10. Fifty foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines and a 400 foot setback shall be maintained

from all existing dwellings.

11. A vegetative buffer shall be established to screen adjacent residences.

12. Operator shall ensure that fly-rock does not negatively impact adjacent properties.

13. The operator shall come back before the Land Management Committee as soon as possible after

the next production blast for a status report and to review conditions.

13. A signature hole blast shall be conducted prior to any other production blast. Results shall be

presented to the LMC to determine if any modifications to the permit are necessary. Signature

hole blast shall occur no later than December 31, 2019. Bill Sylla Jr stated he and his brother recently bought his mom & dad’s house so he is here to speak as the

owner. He is a little concerned as it’s written, there is actually no inclusion of the peak particle velocity at all

anywhere in the conditions. Anything that talked about it has been stricken. When this was originally handed

down to them and the Schoeders, it was contentious but you guys tried to make a choice and it was decided at

that point to be 400 feet from the house, 50 feet from the property line and the .35 peak particle velocity. That

wasn’t great for them, probably not great for the Schoeders either but that was what was given. They really

think they should do the signature hole which makes sense because obviously there is some weird stuff about

the rock there. Even though they are designing for lower numbers, they are getting numbers that are

quadrupling their design factors. They are concerned that there is no peak particle velocity there and they really

believe that it would be fair to keep the .35 in there as the standard. The signature hole should happen because

he feels it’s going to allow them to keep that. They understand it may not be quite as lucrative to blast at a lower

peak particle velocity. They can’t use as much powder but ultimately that was the deal that was first cut with

them. The board had to make a tough choice which neither side was particularly happy that night but that was

the deal as it was struck and they just think it would be fair to stick to it. They really believe the peak particle

velocity should stay at .35. It’s fair, it’s what started. They think it would also be good to improve

communication and get contacted earlier. He brought this up to Brad about a month ago. If there was a way they

could talk to the blaster before the blast is actually designed. Right now they are getting a 48 hour notification

and at that point the hole is in the ground and there is really no way to change anything at that point. It’s either

going to go or not. There was a blast this year. It did exceed not only .35 but .65 and that was a partial face blast

designed to be .20. That was surprising to see those numbers. The numbers came in really, really high even

though it was designed really low. They had a new pump put in December of 2018. There was a well test done

recently by Bechel in compliance with the CUP. Nitrates went from a little over 12.7 parts per million to 17.4.

He has to admit he doesn’t really understand the geology behind the nitrates in the well but he knows that part

of the conditions were to test for nitrates. The nitrates are up almost 50% since the one blast. They would really

like to see a signature blast done and really need some type of peak particle velocity of some type and he thinks

it’s fair to stick to .35. Pichotta stated what the intent was, was that a signature blast would be done, the

applicant would come back prior to any production blast and then we would then have a discussion about the

peak particle velocity. The intention wasn’t to eliminate .35. It was to basically say, you are going to do one

blast between now and the time you come back to this committee for consideration. As far as the concern about

adequate notice, he suggested bumping notice up from 48 hours to a week. Bill Sylla Jr stated they don’t know

when the drilling starts. It would be good to talk before the drilling starts. Pichotta suggested that if you knew a

week before, that would give you an opportunity to reach out to the gentleman that is designing it and have a

discussion. Bill Sylla Jr stated he doesn’t know when the drilling starts, is it a two week process, a week

process. Roy stated before the last blast, they were drilling the day before. He stated he didn’t know if that is

typical. Bill Sylla Jr stated he just thinks it would be good to communicate a little better. Pichotta stated the

other suggestion he would have on condition #13 to make it clear what our intention was, the signature hole

5

blast shall be conducted prior to any other production blast. Results shall be presented to the LMC to determine

if any modifications to the permit are necessary prior to any production blast. The signature hole blast shall

occur no later than December 31, 2019. That time frame, December 31, 2019 basically what that is, is an effort

on our part to bring that to a head to get this addressed so that the conditions can be established, we understand

where we are at, and then everybody knows what to expect in the future. That was the goal in establishing the

December 31st timeframe for them doing a signature hole. Chairperson Aubart stated so you would anticipate

after that signature hole then that would set that. Pichotta stated then they will come back and we will have a

discussion about peak particle velocity .50 versus .35. We have a different blaster now. It’s his understanding

from Brad, he seems to explain things in a manner which is perhaps easier to understand than the prior guy.

Sanden stated to satisfy the Sylla’s, would there be any situation where a signature hole blast that would argue

against the need to define a peak particle velocity? Is that a possibility, should we include that language in

condition #13 any modifications to the permit such as determining peak particle velocity as necessary. Pichotta

stated he doesn’t know that we necessarily need to include that. That is our intent. If we add the little blurb that

he suggested, prior to any production blasts, that means between now and the time they come back to see us

again that they only have the ability to do one blast and that is the signature hole blast. He doesn’t anticipate

that the .35 has gone anywhere at all. He thinks that is the base line for our discussions so it wasn’t their

intention to throw it out. Bill Sylla Jr stated he didn’t think it was but let’s just say a meteor was to hit us and we

were to all pass away untimely tonight. As we walk out of here, this is a public record and if we could just keep

something in there about any peak particle velocity at this point. He would just be more comfortable. Roy stated

we could add that in whether it’s its own condition or in to #13. The issue after leaving the site and talking with

the blaster last time, was you can put whatever limit you want on there but without a signature hole blast,

there’s no saying anyone can design a blast to reach .35. That was his thought. He thought he did everything he

could to stay under the limit and it went way over. The only way to be at any limit, .35 or .50 or whatever is to

get a signature hole in there so they know what they are dealing with. Sanden asked so it’s not likely, unless

they do a signature hole and everything comes out so great, that they say, there is no need for a peak particle

velocity. Roy stated no, the signature hole will basically give them the guidelines to design the blasts going

forward. Bill Sylla Jr stated he thinks they collect a bunch of data at all the surrounding places based upon one

shot. Then they figure out how the energy is propagating throughout all the rock nearby and it allows them to do

some computer math somewhere and come up with something that meets our limit. He would just really be

comfortable if there was a limit in here. Sanden stated that would explain the discrepancy reading between the

.64 reading and the .35 reading that the materials near the Sylla’s home is different than the other direction and

they weren’t expecting that and the signature hole would kind of answer that question. Roy stated right away

they thought there might have been an issue with the seismograph that was off. We never got results from that,

they did send the seismograph in for testing, if it was fine or not. Even with that question, the blaster was still

recognizing a signature hole was needed. Sanden stated maybe the material near the home was denser than in all

the other directions. He would also like to reduce this gentleman’s need for flying back every six months.

Pichotta suggested on condition #6, the part that is struck that says peak particle velocity shall not exceed .50

inches per second, not strike that and change the .50 to .35. The reality is that it doesn’t really change anything

but it does put in there that that is the peak particle velocity and if that gives them a comfort level, why not.

Sanden asked if the blaster would be comfortable with that too? They would be able to operate their mine with

that? Pichotta stated basically they can’t operate their mine until they do a signature shot if you approve this as

proposed. Bill Sylla Jr stated it’s possible that they will blow the signature hole and it’ll come back that they

will say the rock is such a manner that it’s financially unreasonable to do anything less than .7. There is a

chance that once they do this, they will find good data or bad data, we don’t know. Gulbranson asked if we are

changing the 48 hours on #6 also. Pichotta stated yes, to one week. Bill Sylla Jr stated we can make whatever is

reasonable with the blaster. Gulbranson stated you could also call him tonight if you wanted too. Bill Sylla Jr

stated sure, that’s no problem. Pichotta stated the week will just make sure you have plenty of time. Sanden

asked Andy if he was comfortable that putting in the .35 is not going to affect the operation one way or the

other. He doesn’t completely understand the operation here but if he is comfortable that the .35 wouldn’t

impede the operation of the mine then he would agree. Pichotta stated it is his sense that .50, while it was

6

proposed, it was never proven to be a good viable option, and .35, we didn’t have issues with that, or fewer

issues. Bill Sylla Jr stated when they were designing to try and hit a .35, they would occasionally going through

it but if they are designing for a five then we’re going to get sevens. Pichotta stated that having it at .35 just puts

it back to where it was for most of the time this CUP has been active, at least in the last decade. Pichotta read

through all of the changes; #1 will remain the same relating to hours of operation, #2 would remain the same

relating to permits from other agencies, #3 Financial assurance, that would still be required, #4 Compliance

with NR 135 is required, #5 Blasting needs to be done by a state certified blaster, #6 will be stated as this,

“Property owners located within a 1,000 feet shall be given adequate notice (7 days) of any planned blasting.

Peak particle velocity shall not exceed .35 inches per second, the last line, A signature hole process will be

conducted to minimize vibrations, will be struck. #7 Well tests for nitrates and suspended solids, and dissolved

solids shall be conducted for all existing wells within 1,000 feet of the mining operation to establish a baseline.

This shall be completed prior to blasting and every two years thereafter. Results shall be provided to the

Department of Land Management. #8 Dust control measures shall be implemented when necessary. The

operator will water when necessary. #9 This CUP shall be renewed every two years. #10 50 foot setback shall

be maintained from all property lines and a 400 foot setback shall be maintained from all existing dwellings.

#11 A vegetative buffer shall be established to screen adjacent residences. #12 Operator shall ensure that fly-

rock does not negatively impact adjacent properties. #13 will state “A signature hole blast shall be conducted

prior to any other production blast. Results shall be presented to the LMC to determine if any modifications to

the permit are necessary prior to any additional production blast. Signature hole blast shall occur no later than

December 31, 2019.” Roy stated his only issue is the date, December 31st. He doesn’t know if there will be an

issue with that. Bill Sylla Jr stated they are hauling pretty quick right now so whatever they blew down recently

is going to be gone shortly. He doesn’t know what timeframe the blaster has but he thinks it’s going to occur.

He doesn’t think it’s going to be stagnant like it’s been the last couple of years. Bill Sylla Sr stated it’s long way

from sporadic, it’s pretty busy. Roy asked if the Bechel’s came and talked to him. Sanden asked, the Bechels

are aware of this date also? Roy stated we sent them a staff report. Pichotta stated if we want to, no later than

December 31, 2019 or later agreed upon date, agreed upon by the owner, operator and neighbors. We could do

something like that too if we wanted to leave ourselves the ability to be more flexible. Gulbranson asked if it

makes a difference if you blast in the cold winter or different times of the year? Sanden stated he would think

so. Bill Sylla Jr stated as long as it happens before the next production blast, we’re comfortable. Pichotta stated

he recommends that we strike the deadline date then. Bill Sylla Jr stated as long as it happens. Sanden moved

to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for BS Construction/Steve

Schoeder Properties with conditions #1 - #13 with modifications as discussed/Gulbranson seconded. All in

favor. Passed.

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

time.


Pichotta stated we don’t have any renewals or applications for the September 18th agenda so the next meeting

would likely be in October.

Motion to adjourn at 6:35pm by Sanden/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, September 4, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: September 18th

, October 2nd

& 16th

, all in

2019.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the August 21, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for an Accessory Residence in the Primary

Ag District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-40A, for

Dale & Sheila Olson, owners on property located in the SE ¼ of the

SE ¼ of Section 6, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County,

WI.

Adank

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

Nonmetallic Mining for B.S. Construction Inc. and Steve Schoeder

Properties, on parcels located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 15

and the N ½ of the NE ¼, Section 22, T26N, R15W, Town of Rock

Elm, Pierce County, WI.

Roy







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, August 21, 2019

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Neil Gulbranson, Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: September 4th

& 18th

, October 2nd

& 16th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Gulbranson moved to approve the August 7, 2019 Land Management Committee

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

meeting.

Public hearing to discuss and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

67A(2), for Richard & Jeanette Clifford, owners on property located in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section

20, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: This is a request for a CUP for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The

applicant’s own numerous parcels in the Town of Salem. The 40 acre parcel with their home and attached

garage is located along 410th

Street. The existing house is a nonconforming structure with the closest portion of

the house located 48ft from the center line of 410th

Street. In 1982, the applicants received a variance to enable

the construction of their 26ft x 30ft attached garage. At that time, a variance was the only mechanism available

to expand a nonconforming structure. Further expansion(s) must be consistent with the current code. The

applicants are requesting to build a 14ft x 24ft attached 1-car garage on the north side of the existing attached

garage. The exterior wall facing 410th

Street will start 50ft from the road centerline and end flush with the back

of the existing garage. The roof height and the front and back overhang will line up with that of the existing

garage, which will result in the front having a 4 foot overhang. The property is zoned General Rural. Adjacent

properties are zoned General Rural & Primary Ag. Adjacent land uses are agricultural, residential, and forested.

Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-67A(2) states, “Additions to or extensions of nonconforming structures are

permitted, provided that they meet the provisions of the chapter or a conditional use permit is granted as

provided in §240-76.” PCC §240-27C states, “Town highways. required setback for all structures fronting on all

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

whichever is greater.” The nearest intersection is more than 1,175 feet north of their driveway. The nearest

dwelling is located more than 870 feet south of the proposed expansion. The proposed expansion will not result

in a building closer to the road or road right-of-way. The Town of Salem recommended approval of this request

on 7-31-2019. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan and had no concerns or suggested

conditions.

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

determine whether the proposed expansion would be contrary to the 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 the

LMC approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as submitted in the application and as presented to the LMC.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

2. The proposed 14ft x 24ft attached 1-car garage shall be located no closer than 48ft from the centerline of

410th

St.

3. The applicants shall follow Pierce County Solid Waste Code Ch 201 and Wisconsin Administrative

Code NR447 for disposal of used and unusable building materials.

4. The proposed expansion shall be completed within 12 months of CUP approval.

5. Applicant shall contact the Town Building Inspector, All Croix Inspections, to determine if a building

permit is required and shall secure any permits determined to be necessary.

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

hearing to the public. Chairperson Fetzer asked Mr. Clifford if he would like to add anything. Mr. Clifford

stated no, it’s basically all been covered.

Holst moved to approve the conditional use permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure for

Richard & Jeanette Clifford, due to the fact it 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 -

#5/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on publication of agendas. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: As you may be aware, the

Pierce County Herald was recently combined with the Red Wing Republican Eagle. The “new” Republican

Eagle now serves Goodhue County, MN and Pierce County, WI. The Herald published the Land Management

Committee meeting agendas without charge up until the recent merger. Staff has been informed that Pierce

County will, moving forward, be charged to publish LMC meeting agendas in the “Public Notices” section.

Cost would likely range from between $25 which would be for a very short agenda or $75 or a bit more

depending upon the length. Some of the legals get to be pretty lengthy, especially some of the sand mines. A

short meeting notice (basically stating that the LMC will be meeting as well as when and where) could be

placed in the “Government Calendar” section for no charge. Public hearing notices will continue to be

submitted and published for a fee, as has been the case for many years and as required for rezones and

conditional use permits.

Staff Recommendation: Staff is seeking direction as to whether the publication of LMC agendas in the “new”

Republican Eagle, for a fee, is a worthwhile expense, or whether a notice in the “Government Calendar” section

would be sufficient for keeping the public informed.

Chairperson Fetzer stated when this switched over, he is hearing a lot of people are going to be cancelling their

subscription to the new paper, not cancelling but just won’t be renewing. He doesn’t see a point in paying

money for something that not many people here are reading. Holst stated there was a meeting yesterday with

Brad Lawrence, Jason Matthys and himself and they came to the conclusion that, in the long term, they would,

for the County as a whole, try to expand the webpage. Put a page on there that specifically addresses agendas

and things like that. Upcoming agendas, public meeting notices, etc and post it. In the short term, we will

continue to use the paper. We still feel that the Herald, although it’s based in Minnesota paper now, probably

still has the necessary circulation at this time, but we’ll phase away from that over the period of a year. We’ll let

people know what’s happening and probably have to expand our bulletin board area out here. That will meet the

letter of the law. County’s under 250,000 people don’t need an official paper. This department does a good job

of notifying adjacent land owners or land owners within a close enough distance that it becomes a big thing and

word of mouth is still a good way to get stuff around. Believe me if it’s not welcome or wanted people hear

about it. Sanden asked how often does staff receive complaints, either formal or informal about “I didn’t know

this…” is that something common or rare? Pichotta stated he hasn’t heard any complaints. Pichotta asked Shari

if she did. Hartung stated it’s very rare. Gulbranson stated a condensed notice is free? Pichotta stated yes. Holst

stated for the time being. Aubart asked Holst, you are saying that’s good enough? Holst stated he would believe

that it would be. Aubart suggested that then you could call and ask what is going on or go to the website. He

would rather spend money on the new website. Pichotta asked if there was a consensus on the decision to

discontinue publishing agendas. All committee members agreed.

3

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has one travel/training request for Kevin

Etherton, our GIS guy, to attend the GIS/LIS Convention in St Cloud on October 2nd

through the 4th

. He will

stay at the Best Western. He will use the County car. This is one of those things that we receive a grant for.

Gulbranson moved to approve the travel/training request for Kevin Etherton/Aubart seconded. All in

favor. Passed.


Pichotta stated we have a public hearing for an Accessory Residence in the Primary Ag District for Dale &

Sheila Olson in the Town of Martell.

Potentially, either on the next meeting agenda or the one after, the renewal of the CUP for nonmetallic mining

for BS Construction and Steve Schoeder Properties on a mine in the Town of Rock Elm.

Motion to adjourn at 6:17pm by Aubart/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING REVISED AGENDA

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: September 4th

& 18th

, October 2nd

& 16th

, all in

2019.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the August 7, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure

in the General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-67A(2), for Richard & Jeanette Clifford, owners on

property located in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 20, T25N,

R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on publication of agendas. Pichotta







Revised 8-12-19 @ 8:41am

1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, August 7, 2019

Present: Jon Aubart, Joe Fetzer, Neil Gulbranson and Jeff Holst

Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung

Absent: Eric Sanden



Next meeting dates: August 21st, September 4

th & 18

th, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the July 17, 2019 Land Management Committee


Public hearing to discuss and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure in the Primary Ag District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

67A(2), for Janna Cowen, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 3, T27N, R17W,

Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: The applicant’s property is a 4.0 acre lot located on State Road 29. The

applicant is requesting to build a 14’ x 16’ bedroom addition and a 6’ x 6’ deck addition off the east side of the

existing dwelling. The existing dwelling is a nonconforming structure located approximately 96 feet from the

centerline of State Road 29. The Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way extends 70 feet from the

centerline of State Road 29 making the Pierce County right-of-way structure setback distance 147 feet from the

centerline. The proposed addition will not extend any closer to State Road 29 than the existing dwelling. The

existing dwelling is a two bedroom house with both bedrooms upstairs. The proposed addition would make the

dwelling a three bedroom house. However, the applicant is proposing to remove the closet from one of the

upstairs bedrooms and turn that room into an office/storage room. By removing the closet from the existing

room the dwelling would still be considered a 2 bedroom house for septic system purposes. The parcel is

located in the Town of Martell and is zoned Primary Agriculture. Adjacent land uses surrounding the property

are agricultural and residential. The nearest driveway is approximately 190’ to the west of the applicant’s

driveway. Pierce County Code (PCC) 240-67A(2) 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, “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.” PCC

§240-27A states, The required setback for all structures fronting on state and federal highways shall be 110 feet

from the centerline of the road or 77 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater.” The existing

well and septic system are each located on the north side of the house and meet the required setbacks from the

proposed expansion. SPS 383.25(2)(C)(1) states, A municipality may not issue a building permit to commence

construction of any addition or alteration to an existing structure when the proposed construction will modify

the design wastewater flow or contaminant load, or both, to an existing POWTS, unless the owner of the

property:

a. Possesses a sanitary permit to either modify the existing POWTS or construct a POWTS to

accommodate the modification in wastewater flow or contaminant load, or both, or





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

b. Provides documentation to verify that the existing POWTS is sufficient to accommodate the

modification in wastewater flow or contaminant load, or both.

2. For the purposes of this paragraph, a modification in wastewater flow or contaminant load shall be

considered to occur:

b. For dwellings, when there is an increase or decrease in the number of bedrooms.

The proposed expansion will not result in a reduced line of sight for vehicles traveling along State Road 29.

The Town of Martell recommended approval of this request on 6-11-2019. The Town did not reference its

Comprehensive Plan and had no concerns or suggested conditions.



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

LMC approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions:


2. The applicants shall maintain the 96 foot setback from the centerline of State Road 29.

3. The overall number of bedrooms in the house shall not exceed 2 bedrooms and the designed wastewater

flow of the Private-Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (septic system) shall remain the same. One of

the existing upstairs bedrooms shall be converted from a guest bedroom to an open space and the

existing closet shall be removed. Staff to verify.

4. 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.





public hearing. Chairperson Fetzer invited Janna Cowen to speak. Ms Cowen stated one of the upstairs

bedrooms is sort of a weird hybrid to start with because she has used it as a computer room and an office and a

guest bedroom. It will no longer be a guest bedroom and she will move downstairs as she gets older. Holst

moved to approve the conditional use permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure for Janna

Cowen, due to the fact it 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/Gulbranson


Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Retreat Center in the

General Rural District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36M, for Steven & Joan Tyvoll,

owners, on property located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 10, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake,

Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicants received an after-the-fact CUP on 8-16-2017 to operate a Retreat

Center, “River Apostolic Center,” a non-profit, tax-exempt, Christian Retreat Ministry. On 8-15-2018, they

received their first renewal before the LMC. This is their second renewal request and the department has not

received any complaints within the past two years. The 30-acre property is located in Section 10, Town of

Spring Lake and is zoned General Rural. Pierce County Code (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.” The applicants utilize the house and pole shed for 1-2 hour long

worship gatherings on Sundays and occasional weeknights. Their home and pole shed are handicap and

wheelchair accessible. In the future, they propose to provide a home school co-op. Children (2-5 families)

would meet twice a month for fellowship and group learning. The existing conditions are listed in the staff

report #1 - #7. The Public Health Department recently contacted our office regarding this operation. Applicants

should contact the Pierce County Public Health Department to determine if licenses and/or water testing are

required. The Town Building Inspector conducted a final inspection for the structure on 9-5-2018 and no issues

3

were found. On 8-9-2018, the applicants recorded an affidavit for their septic system to set a “Per Capita Flow”

sized based on occupants, flows and loads of their existing septic system. Based on the “Per Capita Flow”

affidavit, the maximum retreat center members/guests shall not exceed 50 people. If a gathering exceeds 50

people, the applicants shall have adequate portable outhouses (1 per 50 people) provided. There is no meal

program, but an occasional potluck meal is offered. Current attendance is between 8-14 members. Staff has not

been provided any information whether the applicants intend to add new members in the future. There are more

than 20 off-street parking spaces available, with one space ADA compliant. No advertising signs and no retail

activities are planned at this time. Applicants will need to obtain a Land Use Permit prior to sign placement if

they choose to have advertising signs in the future. The Spring Lake Town Board recommended approval of this

request on 7-11-2017. The Town Chair and Supervisor indicated no issues or complaints were reported within

the last year.

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether the current

conditions remain adequate to ensure public health and safety. If determined to be appropriate, staff

recommends the LMC renew this conditional use permit with the following conditions, as well as any additional

conditions deemed appropriate (proposed additions are in bold):

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

2. There shall be at least 20 off-street parking spaces available, with a minimum of one parking space ADA

compliant. There shall be no on-street parking.

3. Applicants shall obtain a Land Use Permit prior to construction if they choose to have advertising signs

in the future.

4. Based on the “Per Capita Flow” affidavit, the maximum retreat center members/guests shall not exceed

50 people. If a gathering exceeds 50 people, the applicants shall have adequate portable outhouses (1 per

50 people) provided.

5. Applicant shall contact the Pierce County Public Health Department and shall comply with all

relevant local and state ordinances and regulations and secure all necessary permits and licenses

(e.g. Dept. of Safety & Professional Services, Department of Public Health – DHS standards, etc). 6. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require modification to this CUP.

7. The CUP shall be renewed every two years. Renewal may be completed administratively if no

complaints or compliance issues arise. Chairperson Fetzer asked Ms. Tyvoll if everything is going well out there. Ms Tyvoll stated yes. Chairperson

Fetzer asked Town Chairperson Richard Johnson if he had anything to add. Mr. Johnson stated, no, they haven’t

had any issues or concerns relating to it. Chairperson Fetzer stated he appreciates that any time something

comes up in Spring Lake, you guys are always in here. We appreciate that. Mr. Johnson stated they feel they

owe it to the citizens of the Town and to the committee while doing this work.

Holst moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for a Retreat Center for Steven & Joan

Tyvoll with conditions #1 - #7/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed 2020 Land Management Department budget. Staff Report – Andy

Pichotta: Pichotta stated there is a memo as well as the proposed budget sheets. Going through the primary

areas of the budget there is a slight increase of 1, 2 & 3 %. Almost in all cases, this is due to increased personnel

costs. Pichotta discussed the Land Records Modernization Fund and Grants, stating the Strategic Initiative

Grant will again be available for 2020. He reviewed the itemized budget for a total of $126, 263.16, stating that

none of this comes out of the General Fund. Revenues should be slightly the same or maybe a little higher.

Looking at Land Records Modernization budget, we are proposing expenditures of $40,262.00. All of these

funds are the retained fees; nothing comes out of the General Fund. The Surveyors budget; the proposed

changes are in personnel costs. The County Planner budget; this includes salaries for about half of the office.

Salaries are proposed and again most of the changes are within the personnel section. There is a proposed

increase under postage. With our three-year maintenance letters, we have to go back further in time so that will

be an increase in number that we send out each year. He did offset that to a certain degree, if you recall when

we switched to the new style of signs, we needed to get some inventory on hand so he is proposing to reduce

4

that by $500.00. GIS, budget relating to Kevin’s position. The proposed changes are through the personnel side

of things. Most of what he does, we are able to capture through the Land Records Modernization program. Land

Information Grant, this takes into account three different grants; Base Budget, Strategic Initiative and a

Training/Education Grant. He does anticipate the Strategic Initiative Grant going away in the not-so-distant

future. Total proposed expenditure is $87,000.00. Zoning expenditures, all of the proposed changes are in the

personnel side. The budget as a whole, about 96% is personnel and around 4% is operating. The estimated

revenue side of things, he is anticipating similar to past years, we increased our fee structure, but are anticipated

about the same revenues. Under 2018 Actual, there was an insurance recovery for $7715.01. We had some hail

damage that wasn’t all that bad so he chose not to have it fixed. Revenues in the Zoning Dept, Admin suggested

he bump it up. Similarly with Sanitary, he bumped it up for 2020, same thing for Land Records Fees. Holst

asked how we are doing year-to-date. Pichotta stated we are actually about where we were last year. He stated

we either see new houses or we see conditional use permits. It seems to be either one or the other. This year we

are seeing more houses and the conditional use permits have less to do with entrepreneurial activity and more

expanding nonconforming structures. We’ve seen a lot of those and will see another at the next meeting.

Wisconsin Fund is being discontinued. This is the last year one would be able to apply for that. If you meet

certain income parameters, you are able to get a grant to help you pay for a replacement septic system and they

have discontinued that so the last year we will see any money coming in will be 2020. Gulbranson moved to

approve the proposed 2020 Land Management Department budget as presented/Aubart seconded.

Chairperson Fetzer added that every year you do a fantastic job on the budget. There isn’t really much you can

do on the increases and it always stays pretty darn tight. Kudos to you. All in favor. Passed.

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

consideration tonight.


Pichotta stated we have a public hearing for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in the Town of Salem for

Richard Clifford.

Motion to adjourn at 6:30pm by Aubart/Holst seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, August 7, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: August 21st, September 4

th & 18

th, all in 2019. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the July 17, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair



in the Primary Agriculture District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-67A(2), for Janna Cowen, owner on property located

in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 3, T27N, R17W, Town of

Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Adank

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

permit for a Retreat Center in the General Rural District, pursuant

to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36M, for Steven & Joan

Tyvoll, owners on property located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of

Section 10, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County,

WI.

Lund

6 Discuss take action on proposed 2020 Land Management

Department budget.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, July 17, 2019





Next meeting dates: August 7th

& 21st, September 4

th & 18

th, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the July 3, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor with Fetzer and Gulbranson abstaining because of absence at the

last meeting. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request to modify conditions for 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.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: The applicant received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish the “Belle

Vinez” winery with incidental food service in August 2013. The applicants also reside on the 20 acre parcel.

The Land Management Committee approved an expansion in 2016 to allow year-round operation and a Food

and Wine Plan, detailing how the food operations will be incidental and subordinate to winery operations, in

2014. The operation opened to the public in May 2015. The commercial structure includes a tasting room,

kitchen, dining area, restrooms and offices/conference rooms. The applicant is requesting to modify condition

#11 to allow for two additional hours of operation for special events only, such as corporate events or weddings.

The tasting room is permitted to be open seven days a week. The hours of operation are 11am to 9pm. Off-sale

wine and other various crafts are sold in this area. Only appetizers are served in the tasting room. Customers of

the tasting room are welcome to use the plaza and lounge for seating. The pizza service is open Thursday

through Sunday with hours of operation being 11am to 9pm with lights out by 10pm. (The wording of this

condition has been discussed at previous meetings and it was concluded that service for the customers would

stop at 9pm and customers would leave the premises by 10pm). Condition #10 states, Hours of operation shall

be 11am to 9pm. Condition #16 states, Weddings and special events may not exceed established business hours

and must be conducted consistent with the other conditions of this permit. The Town of Clifton recommended

approval of this request on July 2, 2019 with the following comment: The Clifton Town Board approved the

CUP modification/expansion of operating hours for special events (2 hours or 12:00am).

Existing conditions #1 through #24 are listed in the staff report.

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether any other

additions or modifications to the established conditions are necessary to help mitigate off site impacts. In no

additions or modifications are necessary, staff recommends the LMC modify this permit with the following

conditions: (staff is proposing to modify conditions 10 and 16 to address the requested modification and is

proposing to remove conditions 19, 20 and 24 due to completion of those items by the applicant)

1. Activities shall be conducted consistent with the application unless modified by another condition of this

approval.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

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. Hours of operation shall be 11am to 9pm. Hours of operation for special events shall be 11am to

11pm with lights out at 12am. 11. 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.

12. No beer or liquor shall be served in the tasting room.

13. Lighting shall comply with the Land Management Department policy.

14. Sound system shall only be within the structures.

15. No audio bird repellent shall be used onsite.

16. Weddings and special events may not exceed established business hours and must be conducted

consistent with the other conditions of this permit.

17. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire in 2 years.

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

Conditional Use Permit.

19. Berm shall be established on the east perimeter of the property with adequate vegetative cover.

20. Adequate vegetative cover shall be established to visually screen the parking lot form the road. 21. Applicant shall adhere to the approved Food and Wine Plan and shall ensure that food operations remain

incidental/subordinate to winery operations.

22. Sound shall be limited to no more than 80 decibels at the property line.

23. Promoted access route shall be along County Road M.

24. Arrangements shall be made to establish a visual screen along the southern property boundary. Chairperson Fetzer invited Shannon Zimmerman forward. Mr. Zimmerman stated Brad hit it very well. The

motive behind this really is that we have a lot of different guests who want to host an event; could be corporate,

could be wedding and very simply at 9pm no bride is really going to want to do that. They lose out on those sort

of things. The Wisconsin State law and the interpretation by the Department of Revenue, earlier this year, has

now modified and expanded the hours. So by right and is permissible by law, with the licenses we hold, we

could technically be requesting to 2am or 2:30am. Sanden asked if they could give the committee an idea of

how many of those special events they are looking at. Mr. Zimmerman stated he would use what his wife is

saying are the requests that they have coming in. Probably speculate two a month and part of the motivation

there is that they want to accommodate but don’t want to be shutting down for their normal guests and

customers who are there. He is estimating probably two and on a busy month maybe three. Chairperson Fetzer

asked if he is thinking just on Fridays or Saturdays. Mr. Zimmerman stated this would most predominantly be a

Friday and a Saturday. All the other conditions exist and you saw the letters from the neighbors, if you haven’t

or aren’t aware, it’s a pretty darn good neighborhood these days. Sanden asked if staff has received any

complaints on this operation since it’s been active for six years now. Roy stated not in the last year and a half

or more since the Borgstadts’ moved. Sanden stated it sounds like it was isolated. Roy stated yes, it was.

Holst moved to approve the modification of conditions for Belle Vinez Winery a conditionally permitted

use, with conditions #1 - #21/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

3

Discuss take action in a request for potential modification to approved Site Plan for Mini-Storage in the

Commercial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36K for WD LLC, Jay McGrath,

owner of property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce

County, WI.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: On November 7, 2018 the applicant received Site Plan Approval for Mini-storage in

the Commercial District. At the meeting the neighboring land owner (Hager Heights Drive In) presented

concerns to the LMC regarding the safety of a stormwater pond near the property line and his customers. He

wanted a fence or barrier to help keep people out of the pond. The LMC placed Condition #3 on the approval

which states, “Applicant shall work with Department of Land Management staff on a fencing plan.” Initially,

staff directed the two property owners to work together to determine what type of fencing would be best.

Discussions between the property owners broke down and no agreement was able to be reached. At that time

staff informed the applicant that chain-link fence 3-4 feet tall would be needed on the southwest property line

which wraps around the north and south sides a short distance. The two landowners recently agreed to a land

sale, which is yet to be completed, which would result in the driveway being located entirely on the Hager

Heights property and also to remove the easement from the MC Storage property. If the sale were to be

completed, the Hager Heights property owner would no longer request a fence. The applicant is now

questioning the need for a fence due to the total depth of the pond being three feet and the pond outlet being one

foot above the pond bottom. The three conditions are listed in the staff report.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine if any additions or

modifications to the previous approval are warranted.

Chairperson Fetzer invited Jay McGrath forward. Mr. McGrath stated we are just excavating the pond. We have

it all filled in now. From their parking lot is only three feet down and from the bottom of the pond to the bottom

of the outlet is only 12 inches above the bottom of the pond. Last year while all the excavating was going on,

the pond was quite a bit deeper. Now all final grading is done. Chairperson Fetzer asked if everything is OK

with your neighbor as far as no fencing necessary. Mr. McGrath stated he guessed so. Chairperson Fetzer asked

if we need to get that in writing and also is the neighbor here? Chairperson Fetzer asked the Dudens’ if

everything was OK with them. Dawn Duden stated yes, with the recent action it definitely looks like the pond is

up to grade now. Chairperson Fetzer stated he just wants everything above board so feel free to state your

concerns if you have any. Pichotta stated it’s good that the neighbors have an agreement as far as this but really

the role of the committee is to look at this from a public health and safety perspective, look at traffic flows, look

at landscaping issues. Pichotta noted that there is a couple of photos in your staff report. Although that is not

exactly accurate given those were taken some time ago, there is fill in there and not standing water at this point.

Mr. McGrath stated from that photo that Brad took the other day, we’ve put about three feet of sand in there

now. We just have a little bit of the topsoil to put on top to grow grass. Holst asked if you put sand in there as

opposed to riprap rock? Mr. McGrath stated yes, three feet of sand and then we’ve got to do riprap rock on the

end of the outlet yet. We’re waiting for that to dry. Holst noted that you’re not completely graded yet. McGrath

stated all the sand is in there, they just have to bring in some topsoil. Sanden asked how this situation differs

from the other countless stormwater ponds in Pierce County. Because there is a grade there that goes down to it

that makes it a special concern? Mr. McGrath stated he thinks it was the depth of the pond last year while we

were discussing this. Sanden stated he doesn’t want to set a precedent unless there is some clear distinction of

this situation opposed to the average one. Pichotta stated this is almost like a CUP where it’s hard to set a

precedent because each situation is unique. You should judge it on its merits and if you are comfortable that

there is not an issue. Aubart stated he has spent way too much time on this item. He did some digging in the

City of River Falls, there are 225 ponds, some up to a depth of up to eight feet. There is none that have fences

and they are all in neighborhoods. We have had no incidences. These are uncommon, that is the way things are

built today. Those are on public and private lots. That does not include some of the pervious surfaces and they

range from grass wells to ponds that hold water year round and are several acres. To him, it’s not an issue.

Gulbranson stated he thinks he asked this question the last time, with this sale, in the future if you decided to

fence all your property, would this meet setbacks? It was noted that there are no setbacks for a fence.

4

Chairperson Fetzer stated he appreciates your input, Jon. The max depth of that can only be 12 inches? Mr.

McGrath stated yes.

Sanden moved to approve the modified site plan approval and strike condition #3, no fence

needed/Aubart 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 Agricultural Residential District pursuant to Pierce County Code 240-37 for Wisconsin

Industrial Sand Company, owner and agent for Wisconsin Frac Sand Inc, John & Marjorie Kralewski

Family Partnership, Dean & Mary Holden, Edmund & Dawn Daleiden, William & JoAnn Steele, Jeffrey

& Kelly Von Holtum and Schaul’s Gas Inc, owners, of property located in the S ½ of the SE ¼ of Section

3 and the N ½ of the NE ¼, the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, the E ½ of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the N ½ of the SE

¼ of Section 10, the W ½ and parts of the SE ¼ of Section 11, the W ½ of the NW ¼, the E ½ of the NE ¼,

the N ½ of the SW ¼, the W ¼ of the SW ¼, the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ and parts of

the E ½ of the NW ¼, parts of the E ½ of the SE ¼, parts of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼, all in Section 14 and

the W ½ of the SW ¼, the NE ¼ of the SW ¼, the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, part of the S ½ of the

NW ¼, part of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, of Section 13, all in T24N, R16W, Town of Maiden Rock, Pierce

County, WI. Staff Report – Adam Adank: The WISC mining operation encompasses approximately 2,077 acres total with

approximately 1,587 acres located in the Town of Maiden Rock. Approximately 580 acres have been mined to

date. Due to market conditions the mine shut down in April of 2016 but started back up in January of 2017. The

mine recently shut down again in May of 2019. Before the shutdown, the mine was operating 24 hours a day, 5

days a week and employed 46 people. The goal is to have 70 employees working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Since the shutdown, only four employees are onsite daily to maintain ventilation, make sure everything is stable

underground, check pumps, etc. All DNR and other permits are being kept active and all major assets remain

onsite to allow the mine to start back up if market conditions change. The mine received its first CUP from the

Land Management Committee (LMC) in 2004. In April 2012, a new loadout facility was constructed with a

conveyor and railcar loading spout. A fugitive dust plan was developed for the loadout facility. The mine was

expanded in 2013 and the LMC approved the location of a new vent shaft in 2014. WISC began using a new

wash plant with a water recycling system that reduced the amount of water used in their process. Most of the

activity associated with the operation takes place within the Village of Maiden Rock, which houses the

processing plant. As far as issues pertain to the request, nothing has really changed since their last renewal.

Staff has not received concerns/complaints about this request since the last renewal. Staff contacted the Town of

Maiden Rock Chairman regarding this renewal request; the Town did not have any concerns at this time. The

existing conditions are listed in the staff report #1 through #17. The applicant is requesting to amend condition

#2, as reflected below in the recommended conditions, to only require comprehensive water testing on

residential wells during times of active mining. The amendment of condition #2 was presented to the Town of

Maiden Rock on 6/19/2019 and the Town had no objection to the proposed change.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Land Management Committee determine whether any

additions or modifications are necessary, if none, staff recommends the Land Management Committee to renew

this CUP with the following conditions (proposed additions are in bold):

1. Blasting shall occur up to seven days a week with no time limit constraint unless complaints are

received. If complaints are received, previous time restrictions shall be reinstated. (Blasting shall occur

no earlier than 5 am up to four times per week, including Saturday.)

2. When blasting has taken place, comprehensive water testing will be conducted annually for residential

wells located within the boundaries of the mined area. Testing of the wells on properties on which

mineral rights are not leased and fall 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. If no

blasting has taken place within a calendar year, well testing is not required to be conducted that

year.

5

3. A 100-foot buffer shall be maintained from the active mining to the boundaries of non-leased properties,

and where already closer than 100-feet, there shall be no further encroachment. Mining under a leased

property shall be a minimum of 100’ from any well.

4. Evidence of compliance with applicable state and/or federal regulatory agencies shall be submitted to

the Land Management Department.

5. Any intensification of use or change in approved plans will require the issuance of an amended

conditional use permit.

6. A map of mining activity and areas of future expansion shall be provided to the Town of Maiden Rock.

7. Applicant agrees that any erosion issues that arise shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county.

8. A map of the facility and underground tunnels shall be updated annually and submitted to the Land

Management Department.

9. This permit shall expire in two years.

10. An annual report demonstrating adherence to approved conditions submitted to the Land Management

Department on or before December 31st of each year.

11. The Damage Claim Response Plan, as approved by the Town of Maiden Rock, shall be adhered to.

12. The Town of Maiden Rock’s recommendations/comments, from the January 19, 2011 public hearing,

shall be adhered to.

a) Wisconsin Industrial Sand should be required to establish a historical average for each private water

well they are mandated to test. This information should be shared with the owner of the well along

with an explanation of what the data means.

b) The Commission had concerns about the air from the mines and wanted reassurances that noxious

fumes and bad odors would not affect near-by neighbors. Therefore, the Commission recommends

that Wisconsin Industrial Sand set up a monitoring system that would test the air from the air shafts

before and after blasts are set off in the mine.

c) The Planning Commission recommended that no new portals can be built for this site in the Town

and that Wisconsin Industrial Sand would not be allowed to build more than 3 air shafts for this

permit. If the Sand Company wants to build any additions to this permit they must seek another

approval from the Town of Maiden Rock.

13. 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 from such emissions.

14. A fugitive dust plan shall be developed for the processing facility and submitted to the Zoning Office.

15. The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease and desist from MSHA.

16. All polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permit requirements.

17. No ventilation shafts or secondary access portals shall be developed until after such time as the proposed

location is reviewed by the Town and approved by the LMC.

Chairperson Fetzer invited WISC forward: Lauren Evans, Sustainable Development Coordinator for the Region

and now she has a roll in Environmental Health and Safety. Alyssa Moody, one of the regional folks that is in

their environmental department. Aaron Scott is one of their directors as well. Condition #2, just looking for

some clarification, the way it is written, We would need to complete a second round of testing in the fall for

those properties that are not leased and fall within 1,000 feet of mining activity. Our last blast was on May 2,

and the facility is now idle. They completed their spring round of residential well testing on June 2nd

. So they

have completed sampling since then. Typically they would complete that sampling twice a year for a majority

of the residences because of the second part of that condition. So it’s about 20 residences that they would have

to test again this fall. She was wondering if they would still need to test in the fall or if they would wait until the

next calendar year to determine if they would have operated since then. Chairperson Fetzer asked if there have

been issues. Ms Evans stated no, in fact the last round of sampling that they did is consistent with all of the

previous rounds. Some of these residences they have been testing for ten years or more so they have quite a bit

of data. This last round, any concerns that they have been monitoring or addressed, went down, all positive

indicators. Sanden asked if there is any possibility for delayed impacts, given the geology there, if you do

something in January but it may not show up until September. Ms Evans stated that they have done the

6

comprehensive testing during a idle period so they do have results of when they were idle back in 2015. Ms

Moody stated we were idle April 2016 through January 2017 and we did not suspend sampling during that time.

Ms Evans stated so we have those results but we didn’t go through them comprehensively to determine the

factors but we didn’t see any impacts or changes on the other side. Ms Moody stated in general, the results

across the board have been fairly consistent. We will see minor fluctuations at different residences but there is

nothing that really spiked during that time when we were idle. Holst stated he believes that it’s advantageous to

the company and to the citizens that are having their wells tested, to have them tested yet this fall. The simple

reason is that it builds continuity to the program and it also builds consistency. Holst stated he has been here

since this whole process started with these people and he doesn’t see the room full of people up in arms any

more. It’s a small price to pay, go back to corporate and tell them they have to pay it. Ms Moody stated it’s not

a small price. Holst stated it’s a small enough price. Mr. Scott stated it’s just a high cost. Chairperson Fetzer

stated he could go either way. The blasting had been done. Your blasting had been going pretty much five days

a week. Ms Evans stated at the beginning of this year, as activities slowed before we idled, it was not five days

a week, two to three at the most. Some weeks we didn’t blast. Mr. Scott stated our production fell off until we

made the decision to idle the facility. Chairperson Fetzer stated that is just his opinion, but he could go either

way on this. He also looks at the community, peace of mind. Aubart asked what their projections or do they

have any current projections. Mr. Scott asked for Maiden Rock, right now it’s idle. They are optimistic that the

market could shift and turn around. Right now, we are seeing this across Wisconsin and Minnesota. We are

optimistic that someday we will be back up and running that is why we want to continue on with the permits

and making sure that we are doing everything right. He doesn’t have a crystal ball for the market conditions, it’s

tough. Ms Evans stated they have one other item they want to ask about. On condition #12, this is not

something that we discussed at the Town Board, they see it as an administrative change. That condition was

placed after the January 19, 2011 public hearing with the Town. These were requests from the town, 12a

addresses the residential well sampling, and the historical averages have already been established so that part of

the condition has been met. Every time they sample they share data with the owners so they are thinking that

could be combined with condition #2 which addresses the residential well sampling. 12b they have satisfied that

condition already. There was testing that was done on the airshafts before and after blasting for three

consecutive years. That data was shared with the Township and also provided in the annual reports to the

County. There were no concerns there so we did not have to continue testing. Then 12c is really stated again in

condition #17, it says they would not be able to build new portals or more than three airshafts and condition #17

says no ventilation shafts or secondary access portals shall be developed until after such time as the proposed

location is reviewed by the Town and approved by the LMC. It’s really kind of cleaning up the language here.

We just want to make sure we are not going to be held accountable for something that we’ve already completed

or have to do some kind of testing again. Adank stated we did talk about that we’re hesitant to recommend

taking it out without talking to the Town. Holst stated since it’s a condition that they have met, and it doesn’t

cost them anything to continue to meet it, and they should start blasting during the period that we’ve OK’d it

again, just to cover our posterior with the Town of Maiden Rock, it should remain in effect. It’s important and

we can address it the next time they come in for renewal if they see fit to talk it over with the Town or if you

talk to the Town in the meantime and want to come back in and change the conditions. Sanden stated it seems

the committee might be a little split on condition #2 whether or not to have them do it two times each year, so

he is pondering a motion of cutting it back to one time each year and see where the committee stands on that.

Holst stated that if no blasting takes place within the calendar year, well testing is not required to be conducted

that year. Sanden stated if you read further down it says, “Testing of the wells on properties on which mineral

rights are not leased and fall within 1,000 feet of mining activity shall be comprehensively tested, including for

suspended solids, nitrates and dissolved solids and chlorides, two times each year.” Holst stated when you go to

the bottom that would take care of that, “If no blasting has taken place within a calendar year, well testing is not

required to be conducted that year.” So we’re talking about one time and if they discontinue blasting, they don’t

test. Aubart asked if they stay down until this time next year, then are they required to do two tests in 2020.

Sanden stated it does say testing two times each year. Aubart stated it doesn’t make a lot of sense if we are

requiring them to test two times in six months. Gulbranson stated the last blast was May 2nd

. Chairperson Fetzer

7

stated the last test was in June. Sanden stated which came up clean, I think what they are saying is why should

they have to test another time if no blasting has occurred. Mr. Scott stated if blasting does come back we would

be testing again as stated. Gulbranson asked if you test this fall again, wouldn’t that keep things clean in case

somebody were to sell their home. A new owner would be hanging out there and this would keep it clean.

Sanden stated he thinks that is what Jeff was saying. Holst stated he thinks it’s advantageous to the company to

continue testing the water under the conditions that they have today for this calendar year. After that the

conditions change if they don’t blast in a calendar year or if they blast within six months of the calendar year

they test it once, something like that. He knows he has seen people come in with tainted water they claim was

these guys fault. In reality it wasn’t but I think it’s a good, cheap, insurance policy to test the water. If you guys

want to say you don’t have too, you go ahead, but he has been yelled at too many times. Holst stated if you

really wanted to see it, you should have seen it when the dredgers were around. Those were interesting samples

of water and in the same being said, they wouldn’t allow people to test their wells. He thinks it is just a lot

cleaner for all parties if it stays in there for the second time this year. Gulbranson stated he tends to agree with

Jeff on that, it keeps it clean. Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for a

Nonmetallic Mining Operation for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Co with conditions #1 through #17,

amending condition #2 as presented/Holst seconded. All in favor. 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 pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37E,

for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner of property located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W, Town

of Union, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Adam Adank: This facility was permitted in 2011 and began full operation in 2012. Due to

market conditions Muskie shut down operations at the plant in June 2015. The plant restarted operation in

January 2017 and was producing washed and dried sand at capacity up until September 2018. In September of

2018 the plant shut down again and has had no work activity at the site since. At the time of the shutdown the

facility grounds were treated with a biodegradable material to keep any remaining sand on the ground in place.

Grounds are mowed, and the building is inspected to insure there are no issues. Water sampling, testing, etc.

continues on site as well. At this time the company is unsure of the future of the plant but would like to renew

the permit as there is always a possibility that they could resume operations. Again issues pertaining to this

request have not really changed. However, Land Management staff received two complaints regarding track out

on Highway 10, since the last CUP renewal. One of these complaints was due to the sweeper being down for a

one to two day period where staff was hand sweeping the track out. Since that time they have purchased an

extra sweeper attachment to use as a backup. In May 2018 a utility worker position was created with the main

responsibility to monitor the driveway, dust control, and sand piles. No complaints have been received since the

creation of that position. Staff has contacted the Town of Union Chairman regarding this renewal request; the

Town did not have any concerns at this time. It should also be noted, Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-76I

discusses termination of Conditional Use Permits and states, “Termination. 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.” If the applicant wishes to retain “active” status, activities related to processing,

even if very minor, will need to be conducted. The existing conditions are listed in the staff report #1 through

#13.

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether any

modifications to the existing conditions are necessary. If no changes or additions are necessary, staff

recommends that the LMC renew this CUP with the following conditions:

1. 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.

2. Activities shall be conducted as submitted in the application and as presented to the LMC, unless

modified by another condition of this CUP.

8

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 form applicable municipalities prior to route use.

10. The facility shall be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the LM C 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 2 years.

Chairperson Fetzer invited Tom Olson forward: Mr. Olson stated it’s tough right now. Obviously we would like

to keep the CUP in place and if the market does change, we see a chance to get it restarted, we would like to run

the facility. Chairperson Fetzer asked Maiden Rock is keeping four people busy down there and you guys are

pretty much shut down. Mr. Olson stated they have two other mines and they bring people up to inspect it and

mow the lawn and keep up on that maintenance. Holst stated he assumes that they run a conveyor from time to

time. Mr. Olson stated no, we do not. Mr. Olson, We bump everything once in a while to make sure motors

move and bearings aren’t seized up. They do run all the pumps, once a quarter. Sanden stated given that they

have to have some active status, even if very minor, would you be able to accomplish that before September.

Mr. Olson stated yes. Pichotta stated the activities he described actually fit the bill. Holst stated but it would be

a lot clearer if he ran a conveyor. Mr. Olson stated he will run all the conveyors quarterly. Gulbranson moved

to approve the renewal of a conditional use permit for Heavy Industrial Use (Sand Processing Facility)

for Muskie Proppant LLC, with conditions #1 through #13/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure in the Rural Residential 20 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter

240-67A(2) for Michael Dorricott, owner on property located on Lot 2, Marissa’s Addition in the NW ¼

of the NW ¼ of Section 19, T25N, R18W, Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Adam Adank: On August 1, 2018 the applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit for

expansion of a nonconforming structure located at W9636 295th

Ave in the Town of Diamond Bluff. The

applicant proposed to construct a 2-3 bedroom dwelling addition off the west side of the existing

nonconforming garage. Due to the wet spring and the applicants busy work schedule, he has been unable to get

started on the proposed development and is seeking permit renewal. The proposed building plans are the same

as those presented in 2018 with a four foot setback from rear property line. In 1995, a former property owner

obtained a Land Use Permit (LUP) for a 14’ x 70’ mobile home and a 26’ x 30’ garage. When the garage was

constructed it encroached on the 10’ rear yard property line setback. The applicant was able to estimate a

property line boundary by running line from two apparent property markers. Based on these markers the

existing garage is approximately 5’6” from the rear yard property line. Lot lines have not been verified by a

surveyor. The location of the existing mobile home in relation to the rear yard property line and existing garage

restrict the applicant’s area to build. The applicant intends to live in the mobile home during construction of the

proposed dwelling. The property is zoned Rural Residential 20. Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-67A(2) 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

9

nonconforming structure, or expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use.” PCC §240-23 states,

“Minimum requirements. Developments shall meet the minimum requirements for the applicable district shown

in the Table of Dimensional Requirements.” PCC §240-42E states, “Temporary residence during construction

of principal dwelling. An existing dwelling or manufactured home may be used as a temporary residence during

construction of a new dwelling on the same parcel, subject to the following:

(1) A land use permit shall be obtained for the temporary residence.

(2) A temporary residence, if a manufactured home moved onto a lot, shall comply with all setback

requirements of this chapter.

(3) Such temporary residence shall be connected to an approved wastewater disposal system.

(4) A permit for a temporary residence shall lapse at such time as the principal dwelling is completed and

has been connected to utilities or 12 months from the date of issuance, whichever is earlier.

(5) The temporary residence shall be removed or destroyed at the time the permit for such temporary

residence lapses or converted to a nonresidential use.

A sanitary permit was obtained in 1995 for a 3 Bedroom Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment System

(POWTS). The existing well is located under the front part of the existing trailer over 14’ from the proposed

addition and the septic system is located south of the existing trailer. Both meet the required setbacks from the

proposed addition. The proposed expansion area is currently used as open yard space and should not negatively

impact the functionality of the site. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 125 feet to the west of the

proposed expansion. The Town of Diamond Bluff recommended approval of this request on 7-12-2018. The

Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan. The existing conditions are listed in the staff report #1 through

#7.

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 character of the

area. If no additions or modifications are deemed necessary, staff recommends the LMC renew this conditional

use permit with the following conditions:

1. Activities shall be conducted as proposed in the application and as presented to the LMC unless

modified by another condition of this permit.

2. The applicant shall maintain a rear yard property line setback of four feet. Lot line shall be verified by a

registered land surveyor or as agreed upon by the adjacent property owner.

3. A Sanitary Reconnect Permit shall be obtained prior to any construction.

4. The applicants shall follow Pierce County Solid Waste Code Ch 201 and Wisconsin Administrative


5. The applicant shall follow PCC §240-42E. Temporary dwelling during construction of principal

dwelling and secure all necessary permits.




Holst moved to approve the request for renewal of the CUP for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure

for Michael Dorricott in the Town of Diamond Bluff with conditions #1 through #7/Gulbranson


Discuss take action on proposed changes to GIS Specialist position description. Staff Report – Andy

Pichotta: Staff is proposing to change the position description associated with GIS Specialist position in the

Land Management Department. The proposed change would transfer the duties of the Land Information Officer

(LIO) from the Director to the GIS Specialist position. The GIS Specialist position is currently responsible for

the development and implementation of the County’s Land Records Modernization Plan and is responsible for

planning, budgeting, and monitoring Department expenditures from the Land Records Modernization Fund. The

proposed change would formalize the position’s role as the County’s point person for GIS and Land

Information related issues. The Land Management Director would continue to be responsible for oversight of

the GIS function and Land Records Modernization efforts.

10

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the attached draft

position description to determine whether changes or clarification are necessary. If no changes are needed, staff

recommends the position description be approved as written.

Pichotta noted that the LIO function isn’t mentioned anywhere in my position description nor is it mentioned in

the GIS Specialist. He did a little research and found in about half the cases around the State, that position that

Kevin has, has those duties. Basically what it would enable him to do is sign off on the reports that he submits

to the State of the activities that he has completed. Aubart moved to approve the proposed changes to GIS

Specialist position description/Holst seconded. All infavor. Passed.

Pichotta stated he is requesting that agenda item #10 be removed as no action is necessary for that item

tonight, it is his understanding that administration is coming up with a process for pay for performance

and hopefully we will be able to address this through that. Chairperson Fetzer stated agenda item #10

has been stricken.

6:53pm 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. Motion to convene into closed session by Aubart/Gulbranson seconded. Roll call

vote: Holst – yes, Gulbranson – yes, Aubart – yes, Fetzer – yes, Sanden – yes.

7:27pm Committee to reconvene into open session and take action on closed session item, if required.

Holst moved to reconvene into open session/Sanden seconded. Roll call vote: Holst – yes, Gulbranson –

yes, Aubart – yes, Fetzer – yes, Sanden – yes. Holst moved to grant a favorable performance evaluation to

the Land Management Director /Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.




Pichotta stated we have a public hearing for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in the Town of Martell

for Janna Cowen and also the proposed 2020 Budget.

Motion to adjourn at 7:31pm by Holst/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, July 17, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: August 7th

& 21st, September 4

th & 18

th, all in

2019.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the July 3, 2019 Land Management Committee

meeting.

Chair

4 Discuss take action on a request to modify conditions for 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 of property

located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3, T27N, R19W,

Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

5 Discuss take action on a request for potential modification to

approved Site Plan for Mini-Storage in the Commercial District,

pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36K for WD LLC,

Jay McGrath, owner of property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼

of Section 35, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


permit for a Nonmetallic Mining Operation in the Agricultural

Residential District pursuant to Pierce County Code 240-37 for

Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company, owner and agent for

Wisconsin Frac Sand Inc, John & Marjorie Kralewski Family

Partnership, Dean & Mary Holden, Edmund & Dawn Daleiden,

William & JoAnn Steele, Jeffrey & Kelly Von Holtum and

Schaul’s Gas Inc, owners, of property located in the S ½ of the SE

¼ of Section 3 and the N ½ of the NE ¼, the SW ¼ of the NE ¼,

the E ½ of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the N ½ of the SE ¼ of

Section 10, the W ½ and parts of the SE ¼ of Section 11, the W ½

of the NW ¼, the E ½ of the NE ¼, the N ½ of the SW ¼, the W ¼

of the SW ¼, the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ and

parts of the E ½ of the NW ¼, parts of the E ½ of the SE ¼, parts of

the NW ¼ of the NE ¼, all in Section 14 and the W ½ of the SW ¼,

the NE ¼ of the SW ¼, the W ½ of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, part of

the S ½ of the NW ¼, part of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼, of Section

13, all in T24N, R16W, Town of Maiden Rock, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


permit for a Heavy Industrial Use (Sand Processing Facility)

located in an Industrial District pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-37E, for Muskie Proppant LLC, owner of property

located in the South half of Section 7, T25N, R15W, Town of

Union, Pierce County, WI.

Roy


permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure in the Rural

Residential 20 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter

240-67A(2) for Michael Dorricott, owner on property located on

Lot 2, Marissa’s Addition in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 19,

T25N, R18W, Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI.

Adank

9 Discuss take action on proposed changes to GIS Specialist position

description.

Pichotta

10 Discuss take action on Office Managers 2019 step increase. Pichotta

11 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

12 Committee to reconvene into open session and take action on

closed session item, if required.

Chair







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, July 3, 2019

Present: Jeff Holst, Jon Aubart and Eric Sanden

Others: Andy Pichotta, Adam Adank, Emily Lund, and Tracie Albrightson

Acting Chairperson Jeff Holst called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at


Next meeting dates: July 17th

, August 7th

& 21st, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the June 5, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public Hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Map

Amendment (Rezone) from Commercial District to General Rural District for Brent & Tiffany Gregg,

owners, on property described as Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V12, P100, in the NW ¼ of the SW

¼ of Section 6, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI.

Brent Gregg stated he bought the property a few years ago with intentions on building. There once was a mobile

home on site. When it came time to build, they realized it was zoned Commercial. Sanden asked if Mr. Gregg

owns the land to the east of said parcel that is also zoned Commercial. Gregg stated no.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 2.367 acre property from Commercial to

General Rural to enable construction of a residence. Prior to 4-22-2009, the applicants parcel was a part of the

adjacent parcel to the east. At that time, a mobile home was on the property as an accessory residence to a

commercial use (allowed per 240-40A(1)). After the land was subdivided, the mobile home was no longer

accessory to a commercial use and became a preexisting nonconforming use. The applicants have removed the

mobile home and the land is currently vacant. The parcel‟s address is N8714 250th

Street in Sec. 6, Town of

Spring Lake. Adjacent land uses are agricultural, commercial, residential and mining. The parcel is currently

zoned commercial. Adjacent zoning districts are Commercial and General Rural. Purpose and Intent of Zoning

Districts states: 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. Commercial 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. 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

soils are Vlasaty Silt Loam which is Prime Farmland and Whalen Silt Loam which is Farmland of Statewide

importance. The Town of Spring Lake recommended approval of this request on 6-11-2019. They stated, “A

residence has been on this site for years and the Town of Spring Lake wants to keep this parcel as a residential

site.” They also referenced Objective 8.4.1 in the Land Use section of their Comprehensive Plan to support the





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

recommendation that states, “Promote an organized pattern of development that will minimize conflicting land

use and provide for controlled development.”

Staff Recommendation: Given that the Spring Lake Town Board has determined that this proposed map

amendment (rezone) of 2.367-acres from Commercial to General Rural is consistent with their Comprehensive

Plan, staff recommends that the LMC approve this map amendment (rezone) and forward a recommendation to

the County Board of Supervisors.

Chairperson Holst opened the public hearing. No public comments. Chairperson Holst closed the public

hearing. Sanden asked how we would minimize conflicting land use in the future if one would to arise, having a

residential right next to commercial. Pichotta stated the establishment of a new commercial use would, at a

minimum, require site plan review. This is a historical use that‟s being allowed to continue and the Town likely

viewed this as not so much minimizing conflicting uses but to provide for controlled development and to allow

the site to continue to be used for housing.

Sanden moved to approve the proposed map amendments (rezone) and to forward it to the County Board

/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure (Deck) in the Agriculture Residential District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-67A(2), for David Lofgren, owner of property described as part of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of

Section 2, T26N, R15W, Town of Rock Elm, Pierce County, WI.

David Lofgren stated he has been there about 1.5 years and it was his dad‟s estate that he purchased. They are in

the process of doing some remodeling. This project is on the south side of the house. The deck is not going

beyond the house towards the road at all. The reason for the 4 to 6 feet within the 110 foot setback is to make

room to go into the doorway that will also be handicapped accessible.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: The applicant‟s property is a 102.11 acre parcel located along State Road 72.

The existing house is a nonconforming structure with the closest portion of the house located 94‟ from the

center line of State Road 72. The applicant is requesting to build a 6‟ x 36‟ deck with a wheel chair accessible

entrance ramp off the south side of the existing house. The road right-of-way along this portion of the property

angles from 33‟ to 45‟. The angled right-of-way makes the structure setback somewhere between 110‟ and 122‟

feet from the centerline of State Road 72. A survey would be needed to make a final setback determination.

The proposed deck will start approximately 104‟ from the centerline of the road. The wheelchair ramp will start

approximately 109‟ feet from the centerline of the road. The wheelchair ramp and a 5‟ x 5‟ deck landing are

exempt from road setbacks per Pierce County Code 240-27(G). However, the rest of the deck is subject to the

appropriate road setbacks. Staff presented the applicant with an option so that only the exempted 5‟ x 5‟ deck

and ramp is within the setback, which would not require a CUP, but the applicant opted to apply for the CUP.

This parcel is located in the Town of Rock Elm and zoned Agriculture Residential. PCC § 240-67A.(2) 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.” PCC § 240-27(G) states, “The following

structures shall be permitted within the required setback of highways, provided that they do not violate any

other provisions of this chapter: (7) Structures, such as ramps and landings, lifts or elevator housing, which are

designed and intended to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act or fair housing

laws to make existing buildings accessible to disabled people and where no feasible alternative locations exist.”

Pierce County Code (PCC) § 240-27A states, “State and Federal highways. Except as provided in Subsection

E&F, the required setback for all structures fronting on all State and Federal highways shall be 110 feet from

the center line of the road or 77 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is greater.” Adjacent land

uses surrounding the property are agricultural, residential, and commercial. The nearest driveway is located

approximately 100‟ to the north of the applicant‟s driveway. The proposed expansion will not result in a

3

reduced line of sight for vehicles traveling along State Road 72. The Town of Rock Elm recommended approval

of this request on 6-11-2019. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan and had no concerns or

suggested conditions.



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

the LMC approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1) Activities shall be conducted as

submitted in the application and as presented to the LMC. 2) The proposed deck shall be located no closer than

104‟ from the centerline of State Road 72. 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. 4) The

proposed expansion shall be completed within 12 months of CUP approval.

Chairperson Holst opened the public hearing. No public comments. Chairperson Holst closed the public

hearing.

Sanden moved to approve the expansion of a nonconforming structure with conditions 1-4/ Aubart


Discuss take action on Preliminary Plat Approval for Hidden Hills of the Kinni, for Cory & Gena

Huppert, owners, by Dan Kugel, agent, on property zoned General Rural Flexible 8, described as the

entire NE ¼ all in Section 9, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: On 1-2-2019, concept plan approval for the 164.9-acres with 33-lots and 2-outlots

was granted by the LMC. The applicants are now requesting preliminary plat approval for the first phase, a

60.7-acre, 13-lot, 1-outlot subdivision. The property is located in Sec. 9, Town of Clifton. The Huppert‟s own

164.9-acres of land zoned GRF-8 that allows for the creation of 33 lots and 2 outlots. This is the first phase

which would create 13 buildable lots and 1 outlot. Cedar Corporation reviewed the Storm Water & Erosion

Control Plan on behalf of the Land Conservation Department. On 6-20-2019, the Land Conservation

Committee recommended approval to the Land Management Committee with the following conditions: 1)

Storm water runoff models are completed using Atlas-14 precipitation amounts. Revisions were submitted last

Monday and that item still needs to be revisited and revised. 2) Storm water runoff models shall assume pre-

development “good hydrologic conditions” for all land covers (consistent with NR 151.24(4)(a), the condition

of the 34.5 acres of cropland must be revised in the HydroCAD model, which has been addressed. 3) The

preliminary plat must show that no land cover disturbance can occur west of the “drainage easement” as shown

in the current storm water modeling. If the development plans are different, the storm water model must be

revised to reflect. The Land Conservation Director indicated that an 8‟ wide gravel walking trail in the

woodland areas west of the drainage easement could be established without triggering the need for additional

modeling. 4) A copy of the Cedar Corporation memo regarding „protective areas‟ in „cold water communities‟

be submitted to Land Management Committee for their review. 5) Contractor and owners of „Hidden Hills of

the Kinni‟ agree provide construction timelines to Pierce County Land Conservation Department. Land

Conservation staff will be contacted once construction begins. 6) Storm water and Erosion Control Plan review

fees are received by Land Conservation Department. Review fees were paid on 6/20/2019. Pierce County Code

§ 237-17C.(4) states, “Before preliminary plat may be approved by the Land Management Committee, it shall

be referred to the Land Conservation Department and Committee for review of its erosion control plan, upon

whose written comments the Committee shall condition and accept or, where insufficient, reject a preliminary

plat as submitted.” Drainage easements are delineated between Lots 3-4 and Lots 5-9. Storm water retention

ponds are located between Lots 3-4, Lots 7-9, and Lot 9-Outlot 1. This project‟s construction site activities are

regulated by the WI DNR per chapters NR 151 and 216, Wis. Admin. Code, and Ch. NR 283, Wis. Stats. A

Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit and Notice of Intent (NOI) were

submitted to the WI DNR on 4-10-2019. WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-05 was conditionally approved on

6-3-2019 and expires 3 years from the permit issuance date. The WI Dept. of Administration – Plat Review

does not object to this preliminary plat and certifies it as complying with requirements of Sec. 236.16 and Sec.

236.20, Wis. Statutes as stated in their letter dated 4-24-2019. They had two comments: 1) Reference maps

4

indicate a watercourse crossing the west part of the subdivision. If such watercourse exists, it must be shown

and identified on the final plat. If the watercourse is a perennial navigable stream, then provisions of s.

236.16(3) and s. 236.20(c) apply. 2) Streets within the subdivision must be clearly marked “dedicated to the

public” on the final plat. The estimated cost of installing erosion control measures was $18,500. An irrevocable

letter of credit in the amount of 200% (or $37,000) of the estimated cost of installing and maintaining erosion

control measures was submitted on 6-5-2019. The irrevocable letter of credit is currently being re-reviewed by

the County Corporation Counsel‟s office after a number of requested changes were made. The document will

need to be approved by the Pierce County Corporation Counsel and shall be renewed if the erosion control

measures are not completed within the initial timeframe. Proposed lots meet the slope and frontage

requirements. Preliminary soil borings which demonstrate the suitability of each lot for a private on-site

wastewater treatment system were conducted and evaluated by Mary Jo Huppert. Draft covenants were

submitted and staff review will be completed before final plat approval. Pierce County plat review fees were

paid on 6-14-2019. Per §237-17B(3), staff reviewed the site to determine if the property was subject to any

hazards to life, health, or property; no such hazards were found. Traffic control signs and uniform road

numbering signs shall be shall be installed at the intersections of 825th

Avenue & 1090th

Street and 823rd

Avenue & 1100th

Street. All proposed parcels meet the 3-acre minimum lot size for the Town of Clifton. The

Clifton Town Board approved (Phase 1) the preliminary plat of “Hidden Hills of the Kinni” showing a new

Town Road access onto the existing 1090th

Street with the condition “new roads to be built to Town Road

Standards and roads must have (4) houses per ½ mile” before being taken over by the Town of Clifton. The

submitted road plans have been revised and there were two comments that the town engineer made for

revisions. A Developer‟s Agreement between the developer and the Town of Clifton was signed and submitted.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this request for

preliminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) Conditions of preliminary plat approval shall be met

prior to construction and installation of roads and erosion control measures. 2) Roads shall be built to Town of

Clifton Town Road Standards prior to final plat approval. Town road construction shall be coordinated with

Town of Clifton‟s engineer. 3) All required DNR permits (i.e. WPDES & NOI permit) shall be secured and all

conditions met. 4) All required DOA-Plat Review conditions shall be met. 5) All conditions recommended by

the Pierce County Land Conservation Department and Committee shall be met (1-6). 6) A statement of

completion that is signed and stamped by a certified professional engineer that the erosion control and storm

water measures have been installed according to approved plans shall be submitted. Any deviation from

approved plans shall be noted on as-built plans that shall be submitted with the statement of completion. Any

issues requiring follow-up (punch list) should be listed along with a proposed schedule for completion. 7)

Erosion control measures shall be installed according to approved plans and associated conditions, and the site

stabilized, to the satisfaction of the Land Conservation Department, prior to final plat approval. Applicant

understands that final plat approval will not be granted until the Department of Land Management is notified by

the Land Conservation Department, in writing, that the project is eligible for final plat approval. 8) Applicant

agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues that arise during construction will be addressed to the satisfaction of

the county. 9) The irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 200% (or $37,000) of the estimated cost of

installing and maintaining erosion control measures that was submitted shall be reviewed and approved by

Corporation Counsel. The letter of credit shall be renewed if the erosion control measures are not completed

prior to the expiration of the letter of credit. 10) Traffic control signage and uniform road numbering signs shall

be installed at the intersections of 825th

Avenue & 1090th

Street and 823rd

Avenue & 1100th

Street prior to final

plat approval. 11) Finalized covenants shall be reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel prior to final

plat approval. 12) Applicant shall obtain all necessary sign permits (i.e. temporary new development signs; on-

site construction signs; on-premises residential neighborhood signs).

Sanden asked for clarification on Cedar Corps. recommendations, are they implying they make some kind of an

official designation of Outlot 1 to be not developable. In their letter, site plan #1 it states, “However the plat

shows no formal building restrictions and labels on Outlot 1 as intended for a walking trail.” It states in NR 115

they require a 75‟ protective area from the top of the channel starting at the top of the 12% slope. Then the

paragraph after that does talk about how the DNR has some jurisdiction, however, there is also some

5

requirements of recommending something by us. Pichotta stated an Outlot by definition is not buildable. So

there can‟t be any construction on it. It would need to be converted and it wouldn‟t be eligible for a variety of

reasons to be converted to a building site. Sanden clarified that at a future date they couldn‟t change it to a

buildable site. It will always, in perpetuity, be unbuildable. Pichotta stated in Land Conservations

recommendations it states, “no land cover disturbance can appear west of the drainage easement.” It was his

assessment that that basically covers it, given we actually don‟t have the option to override Land Conservations

recommendations. We have the option to either condition approval or we reject as insufficient. So if the LMC

didn‟t like what Land Conservation recommended, it would need to be kicked back over to them. Sanden stated

it would be redundant and perhaps over-stepping our authority to put that in as a condition. Pichotta stated that

the committees review is essentially to look at whether it conforms to the tenants of the subdivision code and if

it does conform, they are eligible for approval. Sanden asked if at the next step we take a closer look at the site

design. Pichotta stated no, this is that. In the past the committee used to have to look at proposed storm water

and erosion measures to determine adequacy. About half way through the boom of the early 2000‟s is when

Land Conservation became involved. At that time there was discussion about the potential creation of a storm

water ordinance and the current checklist was created. So our role lessoned a little bit part way through the first

building boom. Land Conservation typically works with a consultant so they didn‟t have to do as much of the

ground work themselves. Lund stated we are kind of like the facilitators in this respect in making sure it meets

the requirements of the preliminary plat section of Chapter 237.

Sanden moved to approve the proposed preliminary plat approval with conditions 1-12/ Aubart




Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items. Request to modify conditions for Belle Vinez Winery.

Potential modification for the site plan that was approved for mini storage in the commercial district for Jay

McGrath in the Town of Trenton. Request for renewal of CUP for non-metallic mining operation of WISC in

the Town of Maiden Rock. Request for renewal of CUP for heavy industrial use, sand processing facility, for

Muskie Proppant in the Town of Union. Proposed changes to the GIS Specialist position description and the

Office Managers 2019 step increase. Director‟s performance evaluation.

Motion to adjourn at 6:33pm by Sanden/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted by T. Albrightson


MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, July 3, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: July 17th

, August 7th

& 21st, all in 2019. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the June 5, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

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

Amendment (Rezone) from Commercial District to General Rural

District for Brent & Tiffany Gregg, owners, on property described

as Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V12, P100, in the NW ¼ of

the SW ¼ of Section 6, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce

County, WI.

Lund



(Deck) in the Agriculture Residential District, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for David Lofgren, owner on

property described as part of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 2,

T26N, R15W, Town of Rock Elm, Pierce County, WI.

Adank

6 Discuss take action on Preliminary Plat Approval for Hidden Hills

of the Kinni, for Cory & Gena Huppert, owners, by Dan Kugel,

agent, on property zoned General Rural Flexible 8, described as the

entire NE ¼ all in Section 9, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce

County, WI.

Lund







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, June 5, 2019


Others: Andy Pichotta, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: June 19th

, July 3rd

& 17th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Gulbranson moved to approve the May 15, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Holst seconded. All in favor with Aubart and Fetzer abstaining because of absence at the last

meeting. Passed.

Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Expansion of a

Nonconforming Structure (Garage) in the Primary Ag District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter

240-67A(2), for Matthew Matzek, owner, on property described as Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM)

V14, P40, in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 29, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI>

Staff Report – Adam Adank: The applicant’s lot is located at the intersection of 690th

Ave and County Road J.

Lot access is from County Road J. The applicants are requesting to tear down their existing detached garage and

build a new garage in the existing footprint. The existing garage is a nonconforming structure located 91’7”

from the center line of County Road J. The applicants are also proposing to add additional square footage to the

structure by constructing a second story on the new garage. The additional square footage constitutes an

expansion and triggered the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicants propose to rebuild the

new garage on the existing garage foundation. The existing foundation has walls that extend approximately 12”

above grade allowing the applicant to remove all other parts of the detached garage. The total height of the

proposed structure will be 26 feet tall. The parcel is located in the Town of Martell and is zoned Primary

Agriculture. Pierce County Code (PCC) §240-67A(2) 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.” PCC §240-27B states, “County highways. Except as provided in Subsection E, the required setback for all

structures fronting on all 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.” The existing well and septic system are each located on the

north side of the house and meet the required setbacks from the proposed expansion. Adjacent land uses

surrounding the property are agricultural and residential. The nearest driveway is approximately 230’ to the

south of the applicant’s driveway. The proposed expansion will not result in a reduced line of sight for vehicles

traveling along 690th

Avenue or County Road J. The Town of Martell recommended approval of this request on

5-14-2019. The Town did not reference its Comprehensive Plan and had no concerns or suggested conditions.

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


to public health, safety or character of the area. If found to be not contrary to the above, and no modifications to

the site layout are necessary to achieve efficient traffic flow and circulation, or to mitigate off site impacts, staff





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

recommends that the LMC approve this conditional use permit and the proposed site plan with the following

conditions:


2. The applicants shall maintain the 91’7” setback from the centerline of County Road J.

3. The applicants shall follow Pierce County Solid Waste Code Ch. 201 and Wisconsin Administrative




public hearing. Chairperson Fetzer asked Mr. Matzek if he would like to add anything. Mr. Matzek stated no,

he didn’t feel there was anything more to add. Holst stated this seems pretty straight forward.

Holst moved to approve the conditional use permit for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure for

Matthew Matzek, due to the fact this is not found to be contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or

injurious to public health, safety or the character of the area, with conditions #1 - #4/Sanden seconded.

Aubart asked if he would have to renew this. Pichotta stated no, as long as it’s established within 12 months. All

in favor. Passed.




Pichotta stated we don’t have anything for the June 19th

agenda. Next meeting will be July 3rd

. Gulbranson and

Fetzer stated that they would likely be absent from the July 3rd

meeting.

Motion to adjourn at 6:10pm by Aubart/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, June 5, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: June 19th

, July 3rd

& 17th

, all in 2019. Chair

3 Approve minutes of the May 15, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair



(Garage) in the Primary Agriculture District, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-67A(2), for Matthew Matzek, owner, on

property described as Lot 1, Certified Survey Map (CSM) V14,

P40, in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 29, T27N, R17W, Town

of Martell, Pierce County, WI.

Adank







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, May 15, 2019

Present: Jeff Holst, Neil Gulbranson, and Eric Sanden

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

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


Next meeting dates: June 5th

& 19th

and July 3rd

& 17th

all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the May 1, 2019 Land Management Committee


Public Hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Utility Facility

>1,000 square feet in the General Rural Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

41E, for Dairyland Power Cooperative, owner, by Garret Seebandt, agent, on property located in the NE

¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Garret stated they need to expand on the substation. They are going to be purchasing .6 acres to the south to add

a driveway. The current driveway is narrow, unsafe and difficult to access the substation.

Staff Report-Emily Lund: The applicant is requesting to expand an electrical substation which was originally

permitted on September 12, 1977. Due to population growth in the Prescott area, the power load continues to

increase. The expansion is not only necessary for reliable electrical service, but also for safer working

conditions. The expansion will remain within the existing 1.15 acre parcel. The applicants propose to purchase

a separate parcel (±0.5 acre) adjoining south of the existing parcel for intermittent parking and to add an

additional driveway. This property is located in Section 7, Town of Oak Grove. This and the surrounding

property are zoned General Rural Flexible 8. The property is bordered by agricultural and institutional uses.

PCC Ch. 240, Attachment 1, Table of Uses lists Utility Facilities (>1,000 sq.ft.) as being allowed in General

Rural Flexible Zoning Districts with an approved Conditional Use Permit. PCC Section 240-41(E) states Utility

Facilities are subject to the following: 1) No land use permit shall be required for any installation that is at or

below grade elevation nor for electrical distribution poles, towers and wires. 2) Those structures which are four

feet or less above grade elevation need not meet setback requirements nor need they be placed on conforming

lots. 3) Electrical substations shall be enclosed by a chain link fence at least 10 feet high. Such structures shall

additionally be located at least 75 feet from a dwelling unit and 50 feet from any residential lot line. 4) Utility

facilities where the land area bounded by the location of such structure or equipment is less than 1,000 square

feet shall be exempt from the permit requirements of this chapter and shall not require a land use permit. 5)

Utility facilities in the Exclusive Agriculture District shall be consistent with agriculture use per 91.01(10)Wis.

Stats. Applicant has an existing 75’x77’ secured area and the expansion is an additional 31’x77’ (overall

106’x77’). Within the new secured area, they propose to install fence, have a future feeder circuit, move an

existing feeder circuit, and add an 8’x12’ control building. The security fence is required to be 10 ft high and

located within the property lines and out of the 1170th

Street right-of-way. Pierce County Code §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”. The Town of





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

Oak Grove recommended approval of this request on 4/15/2019 without any comments or recommended

conditions.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider the above and determine whether the proposed

use at the proposed location would be contrary to the 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 approve

this conditional use permit, with the following conditions: 1) Activities shall be conducted as submitted in the

application and as presented to the LMC. 2) The security fence shall be installed to a height of 10 feet above the

grade elevation. 3) The applicants shall not encroach on 1170th

Street right-of-way. 4) 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. 5) Best management practices shall be implemented to prevent off site

impacts from ground disturbance activities. 6) The proposed project shall be completed within 12 months of

CUP approval. 7) Applicant shall contact the Town Building Inspector, All Croix Inspections, to determine if a

building permit is required and shall secure any permits determined to be necessary. Chairperson Holst

opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed.

Sanden asked if a 12 month time period would be sufficient. Garret stated they will be starting the project this

fall, but it might move into next year. He asked if they get delayed, can they ask for an extension. Pichotta

stated they can put in a condition of approval to extend the time frame if the committee wishes to.

Sanden moved to approve with conditions 1-7 with amending condition 6 to read, “the proposed project

shall be completed within 24 months of the CUP approval”/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Public Hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic

mining in the Agriculture Residential District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-37A, and

Reclamation Plan hearing, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 241-15A(2)(a), for Tommy and

Michelle Heath Revocable Trust, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 27,

T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI. Greg Bechel stated he would be the operator of the sand pit. The idea is for local sand. They don’t have any

small scale fill sand pits in the Plum City area. They make bedding sand and with the dairy prices the way they

are, they are trying to get locally sources sand so they don’t have to go as far and to keep the prices down.

Staff Report- Brad Roy: The applicants are requesting a permit to operate a sand mine of approximately 4

acres. It is estimated that 90,000-95,000 cubic yards of material will be removed. The applicant has previously

mined the area for personal/agricultural use which did not require a permit. A Reclamation Plan was also

submitted for the proposed mine. The post-mining land use is proposed to be agriculture and natural area.

Neighboring properties are zoned Agriculture-Residential. Surrounding land uses are agricultural, woodlands,

and residential. The total extent of the mine would be approximately 4.2 acres. Access to the mine is to be off

County Road U. The applicant is proposing to remove the material from a hillside. The site has moderately

steep slopes with approximately 40 feet of relief. The site will be internally drained. No more than one acre is

proposed to be open at any one time. Sand would be extracted utilizing excavating equipment and trucks. Sand

screening equipment is to be placed on the site when necessary. No other processing would take place onsite.

No structures are proposed. There will be no blasting on site. Hours of operation are proposed to be daylight

hours, with an occasional Saturday. The application does not provide any additional details regarding hours.

The LMC may wish to establish hours for weekdays or Saturdays in condition #6. Mining is proposed to occur

approximately 450 feet from the nearest property line. Pierce County Nonmetallic Mining Policy requires a 100

foot setback will be maintained from property lines and 200 feet from all existing residences. Floodplain is

present on the property. No mining will take place in the floodplain. A Reclamation plan for the mining area

was submitted and satisfies the requirements of PCC §241. The post mining land use is to be agriculture and

natural area. All overburden and topsoil will be stored on site and used for final reclamation. All slopes will be

reclaimed to 3:1. Topsoil will be replaced at depth of 3” – 6”. The area not returned to agricultural use will be

seeded using DOT seed mixtures. Silt fence or other erosion control measure will be used as needed. A

driveway permit from the Pierce County Highway Department will be needed to enable access to County Road

U. The Pierce County Highway Commissioner has expressed concerns about a new mining operation accessing

3

onto County Road U and the condition of the road. The Town of Union recommended approval of this request

on April 16, 2019. No concerns or recommended conditions were listed.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider the above and determine whether the proposed

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

safety or character of the area. If not contrary to the above, staff recommends that the LMC grant this

conditional use permit with the following conditions, as well as any additional conditions deemed appropriate.

1) Operations shall be consistent with the submitted plans, including the designated mining area, unless

modified by another condition of this permit. 2) Applicant shall comply with all requirements of Pierce County

Code Chapter 241, Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation. 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) A fugitive Dust Plan shall be developed and implemented for the mining site and haul roads. 6)

Hours of operation shall remain consistent with daylight hours Monday through Saturday. 7) A map displaying

the proposed final reclaimed contours for the Reclamation Plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Office. 8)

Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county. 9) The

reclamation financial assurance information shall be reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel. 10) A

100-ft setback shall be maintain ed from all property lines for all mining activities, which includes stockpiling

and equipment placement. 11) Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans and shall be completed within

one year of ceasing mining operations. 12) Applicant shall pay the $1,000 Nonmetallic Mineral Extraction

initial fee. 13) Any expansion or intensification shall require a new conditional use permit. 14) This CUP shall

expire in two years. 15) A driveway permit shall be acquired to enable access to County Road U. A Uniform

Address Number (UAN) and sign shall be obtained and placed. 16) The applicant shall enter into a road

agreement with the Pierce County Highway Department if deemed necessary by the Highway Commissioner.

Bechel stated it used to be a sand pit that Pierce County used to haul out of and they used the same existing

driveway. Holst stated the road issue will be discussed at the Highway Department and that is where you will

address the driveway. Roy stated we need an address out there and part of that is getting a driveway permit from

the applicable jurisdiction. Although this is an existing access, we still need something from the Highway

Department to get the address number. In talking with the Highway Commissioner, it was all about the intensity

of the use. Chairperson Holst opened the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing closed.

Sanden asked for explanation on the internal drainage. The pictures make it look like it’s kind of a gully, so

where does it stop. Matt Heath explained it will be internally drained. They will be mining into a hillside with a

relief of about 40 feet. They are going to have to drop the floor about 1.5 feet to contain the water that comes

off of the hillside. Anything north or above the hillside that is at higher elevation will be routed around so they

are not contaminating any more water.

Gulbranson moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions 1-16 as it will not be

detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area/Sanden


Discuss take action on a request for a Height Exemption for a proposed Wireless Communication Service

Facility, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-41C, for Verizon Wireless, Chris Barton, agent,

for Ronald & Marlys Johnson, owners, on property located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 17, T26N,

R18W, Town of Trimbelle, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report-Adam Adank: Wireless Communication Service Facilities are permitted with a Land Use

Permit. However, PCC §240-29 requires towers to comply with the height requirements of other commercial

structures. Verizon Wireless is seeking a height exemption pursuant to Pierce County Code §240-29D to

construct a new Wireless Communication Service Facility (WCSF) exceeding 35’ in height in the town of

Trimbelle. The complete project proposal includes erecting a self-support wireless communication tower with a

total height of 259 feet, constructing an equipment platform, and installing supporting equipment to improve

broadband and wireless services in the county. The applicant is located in Chicago and was unable to attend. If

4

the LMC has any issues or concerns the applicant requests the item be deferred to a future meeting so he could

be present. The property is zoned agriculture residential. PCC §240-23 requires 10 foot side and rear yard

setbacks in this zoning district. Adjacent property is zoned agriculture residential and primary agriculture.

Adjacent land uses are residential, agricultural, and industrial. Access to the site is off of County Road O. The

site is currently agricultural and wooded land owned by Ronald and Marlys Johnson. The proposed structure is

a freestanding lattice with a height of 250 feet. A nine (9) foot antenna is to be placed on top of the tower

which makes the overall height of the structure 259 feet. PCC§240-41C.(3)(d) states, “WCSF Support

Structures shall comply with the height requirements of §240-29D.” PCC §240-29D states, “Industrial and

commercial structure heights may be granted 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 §240-27B addresses county road setbacks and states, “Except as provided in Subsection E, the

required setback for all structures fronting on 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.” The 259 foot structure has a right-of-way

setback of 324 feet from center line of County Road O. Side and rear yard setbacks are 234 feet. In the proposed

location, the tower is 789 from the center line of County Road O and 495’ 10” from the nearest side or rear

property line. Staff will verify appropriate setbacks prior to issuing a Land Use Permit for the structure.

Definitions: FALL ZONE – the area over which a support structure is designed to collapse. SUPPORT

STRUCTURE– an existing or new structure that supports or can support a mobile service facility, including a

mobile service support structure, utility pole, water tower, building or other structure. YARD - A required area

on a lot, unoccupied by buildings and open to the sky, extending along a lot line to a specified depth or width.

YARD, REAR - A yard extending along an entire rear lot line from the rear lot line to the depth or width as

specified in the yard requirements for the applicable district. YARD, SIDE - A yard extending along an entire

side lot line from the side lot line to the depth or width specified in the yard requirements for the applicable

district.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC review the proposed WCSF height exemption and

determines if any changes or modifications are necessary. If none, staff recommends the LMC grant approval of

the height exemption.

Sanden stated with his numbers it looks like the rear setback is exactly 234 feet, which is what is exactly needed

but with no structures on the edge he doesn’t think it will be a problem if it falls over.

Sanden moved to approve the height exemption for the WCSF /Gulbranson seconded. All in favor.

Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for amendment to an approved Site Plan for Mini-Storage in the

Commercial District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36K for WD LLC, Jay McGrath,

owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce

County, WI.

Staff Report- Brad Roy: On November 7, 2018 the applicant received Site Plan Approval for Mini-Storage in

the Commercial District. At the meeting, the neighboring land owner (Hager Heights Drive In) presented

concerns to the LMC regarding the safety of a stormwater pond near the property line and his customers. He

wanted a fence or barrier to keep people out of the pond. The LMC placed condition #3 on the approval which

states, “Applicant shall work with Department of Land Management staff on a fencing plan.” Initially, staff

directed the two property owners to work together to determine what type of fencing would be best. Discussions

between the property owners broke down and no agreement was made. At that time staff informed the applicant

that chain-link fence 3-4 feet tall would be needed on the south-west property line which wraps around the north

and south sides for a short distance. The applicant informed staff that, because of an easement along the

southwest property line, the fence would need to be placed into the downslope of the pond which could impact

the ponds effectiveness. He is also questioning the need for a fence due to the total depth of the pond being 3

feet and the pond outlet being 1 foot above the pond bottom. The property is bordered by a Commercial zoning

district to the north, west and south and a Rural Residential 20 district to the south. An Industrial district is

located to the east and is currently used for agriculture. Access to the site is off of 170th

Ave. The engineered

5

stormwater pond will decrease the total stormwater runoff for the site. The stormwater will exit the pond

through a culvert into the ditch along 170th

Avenue. The Site Plan was approved with the following conditions:

1) All signage shall be permitted by the Zoning Office and WisDOT when applicable. 2) All lighting shall

comply with the Department Lighting Policy. 3) Applicant shall work with the Department of Land

Management staff on a fencing plan.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine if any changes or

modifications to the previous Site Plan Approval are warranted.

Holst stated that generally this is a matter that is taken up by the committee with discussion amongst

themselves. But being all are going to have to live with one another for quite some time, he suggests we talk

about it aloud. Jay McGrath stated the concern when he was excavating was when he had a pretty good sized

hole there and that’s what they saw. Now that they have realized that has been filled in, not totally yet, but it

will only be 3 feet down from their parking lot elevation and from the top of the pond to the bottom of the outlet

is only 1 foot in elevation, max. So there will never be more than 1 foot of water in there and as it fills in with

segment it will vary too. Dawn Duden stated that until the pond and water way are complete it’s hard to really

determine if that’s what the water depth will be. Their concern is public safety. McGrath stated he has to

comply with the DNR pond that they designed for him. Dawn Duden thinks the mishap originated with the

easement because the pond was placed in the middle of the easement. She thinks they are coming to terms with

a legal land transaction. McGrath stated yes, they are working on that. Holst asked if this meeting was

premature. McGrath stated he does not think so because now he thinks they understand that the pond is only

going to be a 3 foot elevation where last fall they made a comment about an 8 foot hole there, which it was.

Russ Duden showed some pictures to the committee. He then showed an aerial overall view of the water they

are dealing with. Out on the end of that at the widest point down where the culvert is currently located, it’s full

of mud on the bottom and he’s guessing it is 4 to 6 feet deep right now. The reason they are having a hard time

with this deal and signing off on the fence situation, he needs to see more action done in regards to the easement

and the entire fence situation. The silt fence right now is holding back the little kids with the bicycles, any

transportation, it gives them a guide line. But it’s not helping them with their situation with it collapsing his

traffic back and forth. He cannot get 18 wheelers in there, or oversized traffic because they are afraid of the silt

fence. If the pond is going to stay the way it is, the fence will have to be put across the top of the culvert and go

to Hwy 63 and across. McGrath stated he is still in the middle of construction. He is going to be bringing the

pond up to grade. Final grade still needs to be done along the whole waterway that the DNR designed for him.

Russ Duden stated that all were made aware of the easement back on April 5th

. Survey stakes from November

have been replaced. That is when the new 25 foot setbacks were put into place. He is trying to work with it and

get the easement figured out and dealt with. He is not dropping the fence at this point. Gulbranson asked if there

is a time frame of when the pond will be done. McGrath stated this summer, hopefully within the next month, to

month and a half. Or if they would be happy with that, we could say, “once the pond is brought up to actual

depth, then no longer a fence is needed”. Russ Duden stated that will not happen until the easement is all

addressed and taken care of. McGrath asked if he was holding a fence over his head for the easement. McGrath

stated he doesn’t care about the fence. He has emails, Brad has talked to Russ about the fence, said that he is not

concerned about it. Dawn Duden stated if the water is only 1 foot deep, then they are not concerned about it.

McGrath stated the water will not be more than 1 foot deep when he gets done. Dawn Duden stated the seasons

will prove that if the filtration works like it’s supposed to. Holst stated on the 15th

of March we were supposed

to have a river reading of 11 feet in Red Wing. But the water did what it wanted to do. Until we know how deep

the water is, he isn’t ready to say no fence. So get your grade up, get the easement taken care of and come back

here. And get along with each other because you are both going to be there a long time and nothing is worse

than having an upset neighbor. He does see the ability to reach some sort of an agreement. McGrath stated the

pond will be brought up to grade, he has to or the DNR will be on him if he doesn’t. Pichotta stated the

suggestion to leave it as is for a while makes sense. He doesn’t feel the fence decision should be based on

whether or not the easement is taken care of. It should be based on public health safety which he noted it will

be. He suggests that once things are a bit more finalized then we can make a determination as to whether or not,

6

from a public health and safety perspective, it’s necessary to put a fence in to ensure that folks don’t wander

into the pond.

Sanden suggested we put this on a July meeting. No action was taken. Approval stands as is. Gulbranson

clarified that the decision regarding whether the fence stays or goes is up to the committee. Pichotta agreed

suggesting that input will be taken from both parties.




For the first meeting in June, Pichotta stated there will be a public hearing to consider a request for a CUP for

expansion of a nonconforming structure that being a garage in the Town of Martell. Also possibly discuss the

outdoor rec. plan.

Motion to adjourn at 6:40pm by Sanden/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted by T. Albrightson


MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, May 15, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: June 5th

& 19th

, July 3rd

& 17th


3 Approve minutes of the May 1, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for a Utility Facility >1,000 sq ft in the

General Rural Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-41E, for Dairyland Power Cooperative, owner, by

Garret Seebandt, agent, on property located in the NE ¼ of the NE

¼ of Section 7, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County,

WI.

Lund


conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Agriculture

Residential District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

37A, and Reclamation Plan hearing, pursuant to Pierce County

Code Chapter 241-15A(2)(a), for Tommy & Michelle Heath

Revocable Trust, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE

¼ of Section 27, T25N, R15W, Town of Union, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

6 Discuss take action on a request for a Height Exemption for a


Pierce County Code Chapter 240-41C, for Verizon Wireless, Chris

Barton, agent, for Ronald & Marlys Johnson, owners, on property

located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 17, T26N, R18W,

Town of Trimbelle, Pierce County, WI.

Adank

7 Discuss take action on a request for amendment to an approved Site

Plan for Mini-Storage in the Commercial District, pursuant to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36K for WD LLC, Jay McGrath,

owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35,

T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.

Lund







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, May 1, 2019

Present: Jon Aubart, Neil Gulbranson, Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden

Absent: Joe Fetzer

Others: Andy Pichotta, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung

Acting Chairperson Jeff Holst called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at


Next meeting dates: May 15th

, June 5th

& 19th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the April 3, 2019 Land Management Committee


Public hearing to consider and take action on proposed amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-

35, Agricultural Uses (Keeping of Domestic Fowl in the Residential Districts), §240-40D(2)(a) Residential

Uses, §240-88 Definitions and §240-17 Table of Uses.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: The raising of backyard fowl in residential areas has become quite popular.

Current zoning ordinance language under §240-35 Agricultural uses, prohibits animal husbandry, including

domestic fowl, in residential zoning districts. On April 3, 2019, the Land Management Committee finalized

proposed amendments to §240-35 Agricultural Uses. The proposed amendments would allow domestic fowl on

residentially zoned parcels. The proposed amendments would also clarify and better define which agricultural

uses are allowed in specific zoning districts. An updated Table of Uses chart has also been drafted to reflect the

proposed ordinance amendments. Staff proposes the following code amendments:

§240-35 Agricultural uses.

A. General Cultivation agriculture.

(1) Barnyards, feed lots and farm structures housing animals shall be located at least 100 feet from

navigable water and shall be located so that manure will not drain into navigable water.

(2)(1) General Cultivation agricultural practices shall be allowed in all agricultural zoning districts without

issuance of a land use permit, except that structures shall require a land use permit.

(3)(2) General agriculture practices, except for barnyards, feed lots and uses involving agricultural

structures, shall be allowed in all nonagricultural zoning districts without issuance of a land use permit.

Agricultural structures shall not be the principle structure in a residential, commercial, or industrial zoning

district.

B. General Agriculture.



(2) General agricultural practices shall be allowed in all agricultural districts without issuance of a land use

permit, except that structures shall require a land use permit.

B C. Agricultural business operations. [Added 6-26-2012 by Ord. No. 12-07]

Nothing has been changed in this section.

(1) Agritourism.

(2) Direct market agriculture.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

(a) Except for temporary structures not exceeding 160 square feet of floor area, all structures associated

with direct market agriculture shall meet all setbacks and other provisions of this chapter. Temporary

direct market structures which do not exceed 160 square feet of floor area shall be considered a

minor structure such as those listed in §240-32A(1).

(b) Only one direct market structure shall be permitted on a lot.

(3) Farmers market.

(a) Such use shall principally involve the sale of farm and garden products, but other types of

merchandise may be sold, provided such merchandise occupies not more than 25% of the indoor and

outdoor display area of the farm market.

(b) At least one off-street parking space shall be provided for each 200 square feet of indoor and outdoor

display area.

(c) Combined indoor and outdoor display areas shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.

(d) The farmers market shall obtain site plan approval and a land use permit.

(4) Nursery.

(5) Orchard.

(6) Winery.

D. Domestic fowl.

(1) For parcels under 2 acres in size:

(a) No more than 10 domestic fowl shall be allowed on a parcel.

(b) Roosters (non-castrated male chickens) shall not be allowed.

(2) For parcels 2 acres or more in size;

(a) There shall be no limitation on number or sex of domestic fowl.

§240-88 Definitions:

Animal husbandry: The raising of livestock.

Cultivation Agriculture: Low impact agricultural uses that involve the cultivation of soil and harvesting of

crops, including horticulture; floriculture; grain production; forest crop; and specialty crop production such as

viticulture; maple syrup; mint and willow; and truck farming.

Domestic Fowl: Any domestic breed of chicken or duck. No other species of bird shall fall under this definition.

General Agriculture: Any agricultural use, except those listed for intensive agriculture, including apiculture;

animal husbandry; dairying; floriculture; forage crop production; forest crop production; grain production;

grazing; horticulture; orchards; specialty crop production, such as maple syrup, mint and willow; viticulture;

and truck farming. Agricultural uses with higher amounts of input and output compared to cultivation

agriculture including but not limited to animal husbandry; grazing; dairying; apiculture; etc.

Livestock: Any horse, bovine, sheep, goat, pig, domestic rabbit or domestic fowl, including game birds raised in

captivity. Domesticated animals used in an agricultural setting to produce income, labor, or commodities such

as meat, eggs, milk, leather, wool, or other animal byproducts. For the purposes of this ordinance, horses shall

be regulated under outdoor recreational uses.

Pierce County Code Section §240-40D(2)(a) regarding second farm residences would also need to be amended

as shown below if proposed changes in §240-35 are approved.

§240-40D(2)(a): Such manufactured home shall provide housing for farm employees who assist farm operators

engaged in general agriculture or intensive agriculture activities or for parents and/or adult children of farm

operators.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider the proposed amendments and any input

gathered through the public hearing, to determine if changes or additions are necessary. If determined to be

appropriate, a recommendation that the proposed amendments be approved should be made to the County Board

of Supervisors.

Sanden asked if the Ag Residential Zone, is that for the purpose of this regulation, considered agriculture or

residential. Pichotta stated that is an agricultural district. Chairperson Holst opened the hearing to the public.

Pichotta stated he was asked to bring up some concerns raised by Jerry Kosin, Town of Oak Grove. Mr. Kosin

had suggested that perhaps two acres was not big enough for more than ten chickens and had suggested three

3

acres or more may be more appropriate. Gulbranson asked if he wants us to change from two to three acres.

Pichotta stated his concern is that you might have someone on a small lot who decided to become a commercial

egg producer. Pichotta stated he thinks he addressed Mr. Kosin’s concerns, but he did tell him he would share

his comments. Sanden stated he doesn’t think ten chickens are a lot of chickens. Chairperson Holst stated two

acres is a pretty good size chunk of ground. Sanden stated you could put ten chickens in a small coop. Pichotta

stated he thinks he was concerned that someone might have 2.1 acres and decide they were going to have two

hundred birds or something along those lines.

Chairperson Holst closed the public hearing. Gulbranson moved to approve the proposed amendments to

Pierce County Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses and forward to the County Board of Supervisors

for approval/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.




Pichotta stated we have four for the next meeting: Public hearing for Dairyland Power for an expanded

transformer station in the Town of Oak Grove.

Public hearing for Nonmetallic Mining in the Town of Union.

Request for a height exemption by Verizon for a 250 ft tower to be located in the Town of Trimbelle.

Request to amend Site Plan Approval for the McGrath project in the Town of Trenton, apparently there has

been difficulty coming into an agreement relating to the chain link fence that was to go around the stormwater

pond. We are hoping that will be resolved but it’s possible it won’t and then we will need to bring it back in

front of the committee for resolution.

Motion to adjourn at 6:11pm by Sanden/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: May 15th

, June 5th

& 19th


3 Approve minutes of the April 3, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Public hearing to consider and take action on proposed

amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter §240-35, Agricultural

Uses (Keeping of Domestic Fowl in the Residential Districts),

§240-40D(2)(a) Residential Uses, §240-88 Definitions and §240-17

Table of Uses.

Adank







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, April 3, 2019





Next meeting dates: April 17th

, May 1st & 15

th, June 5

th & 19

th, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Aubart moved to approve the February 26, 2019 Land Management Committee

minutes/Holst seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Chairperson Fetzer asked for a motion to hear Agenda item #5 first and then Agenda item #4. Holst

moved to amend the Agenda, hearing item #5 first/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses.

Staff Report – Adam Adank: At the February 6, 2019 Land Management Committee meeting staff presented a

proposed concept that would allow domestic fowl to be kept in residential zoning districts. Staff also suggested

redefining the terms “general agriculture” and “intensive agriculture” to better describe which agricultural uses

are allowable in specific zoning districts. Staff, utilizing the input from the LMC, has drafted proposed revisions

to §240-35 Agricultural Uses. Staff has also drafted several new definitions and proposed changes to existing

definitions for better clarification. An updated Table of Uses chart has also been drafted to reflect the proposed

ordinance amendments. Staff proposes the following code amendments:

§240-35 Agricultural uses.

A. General Cultivation agriculture.


navigable water and shall be located so that manure will not drain into navigable water. Cultivation

agriculture shall pertain to low impact agricultural uses that involve the cultivation of soil and harvesting

of crops, such as horticulture, floriculture, grain production, forest crop, and specialty crop production

(viticulture, maple syrup, mint + willow, truck farming).

(2) General Cultivation agricultural practices shall be allowed in all agricultural zoning districts without

issuance of a land use permit, except that structures shall require a land use permit.

(3) General agriculture practices, except for barnyards, feed lots and uses involving agricultural structures,

shall be allowed in all nonagricultural zoning districts without issuance of a land use permit.

Agricultural structures shall not be the principle structure in a residential, commercial, or industrial

zoning district.

B. General Agriculture.



(2) General agricultural practices shall be allowed in all agricultural districts without issuance of a land use

permit, except that structures shall require a land use permit.

B C. Agricultural business operations. [Added 6-26-2012 by Ord. No. 12-07]

(1) Agritourism.





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

(2) Direct market agriculture.

(a) Except for temporary structures not exceeding 160 square feet of floor area, all structures associated

with direct market agriculture shall meet all setbacks and other provisions of this chapter. Temporary

direct market structures which do not exceed 160 square feet of floor area shall be considered a

minor structure such as those listed in §240-32A(1).

(b) Only one direct market structure shall be permitted on a lot.

(3) Farmers market.

(a) Such use shall principally involve the sale of farm and garden products, but other types of

merchandise may be sold, provided such merchandise occupies not more than 25% of the indoor and

outdoor display area of the farm market.

(b) At least one off-street parking space shall be provided for each 200 square feet of indoor and outdoor

display area.

(c) Combined indoor and outdoor display areas shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.

(d) The farmers market shall obtain site plan approval and a land use permit.

(4) Nursery.

(5) Orchard.

(6) Winery.

D. Domestic fowl.

(1) Agricultural Districts

(a) Domestic fowl shall be allowed in all Agricultural Zoning Districts

(2) Residential Districts

(a) For parcels under 2 acres in size:

(1) No more than 10 hens or capons shall be allowed on a parcel.

(2) Roosters shall not be allowed.

(b) For parcels 2 acres or more in size;

(1) There shall be no limitation on number or sex of domestic fowl.

§240-88 Definitions:

Animal husbandry: The raising of livestock.

Cultivation Agriculture: Low impact agricultural uses that involve the cultivation of soil and harvesting of

crops, including horticulture; floriculture; grain production; forest crop; and specialty crop production such as

viticulture; maple syrup; mint + willow; and truck farming.

Domestic Fowl: Any domestic breed of chicken or duck. No other species of bird shall fall under this definition.

General Agriculture: Any agricultural use, except those listed for intensive agriculture, including apiculture;

animal husbandry; dairying; floriculture; forage crop production; forest crop production; grain production;

grazing; horticulture; orchards; specialty crop production, such as maple syrup, mint and willow; viticulture;

and truck farming. Agricultural uses with higher amounts of input and output compared to cultivation

agriculture including but not limited to animal husbandry; grazing; dairying; apiculture; etc.

Livestock: Any horse, bovine, sheep, goat, pig, domestic rabbit or domestic fowl, including game birds raised in

captivity. Domesticated animals used in an agricultural setting to produce income, labor, or commodities such

as meat, eggs, milk, leather, wool, or other animal byproducts. For the purposes of this ordinance, horses shall

be regulated under outdoor recreational uses.

Pierce County Code Section §240-40D(2)(a) regarding second farm residences would also need to be amended

as shown below if proposed changes in §240-35 are approved.

§240-40D(2)(a): Such manufactured home shall provide housing for farm employees who assist farm operators

engaged in general agriculture or intensive agriculture activities or for parents and/or adult children of farm

operators.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC review the proposed amendments to determine if the

language is consistent with prior committee direction, and if so, direct staff to schedule a public hearing to

consider adoption.

3

Aubart asked about Domestic Fowl, that’s chickens or ducks, so you can’t have turkeys? Chairperson Fetzer

stated or pheasants, or ostrich or emus? Pichotta stated the limitation would only apply in the residential

districts. Holst suggested that’s not the way it reads. Pichotta stated that we wouldn’t want to preclude someone

from having turkeys or whatever in the agricultural districts. Adank suggested that the other animals would fall

under animal husbandry. Aubart stated if they are domestic fowl, and you are excluding no other species.

Pichotta stated that D would refer only to what we define as Domestic Fowl that would be chickens and ducks.

Aubart asked are you saying no other bird falls under it so there is no limitation. You could read it that way.

Pichotta stated but only in the ag districts. Because we are limiting Domestic Fowl, that being chickens and

ducks. Roy stated in an ag district, if it’s turkeys, then we would just consider it animal husbandry. Aubart

asked why we are even putting Domestic Fowl in the Agricultural District? Chairperson Fetzer suggested that

we are coming down to definitions. Holst stated we are getting fine-tuned so that when we get technical on

something other than this thing, then we’re consistent. Holst stated you have two definitions for the same thing.

We want one definition. Chairperson Fetzer asked when we get to the definitions, why are we defining

Domestic Fowl as any domestic breed of chicken or duck? Holst stated then we leave out all the other stuff in

the ag districts. Aubart stated it’s confusing to him. Holst stated if it’s confusing to you, think of all of us that

don’t read these things on a daily basis. Pichotta stated he understands his point. We will make an adjustment to

reflect that concern. Aubart asked if we even have to have under D. Agricultural Districts period. If you

eliminate that, they are allowed there regardless. Is there any reason to have agricultural districts under D. Roy

stated he thinks we are going to need it or else this will get hung up in Corporation Counsel’s Office. If we are

only addressing it in the residential districts, then basically we are saying it’s not allowed anywhere else. So

that’s why we put it in there for agricultural districts. There have been other things where we felt like it’s

implied and we were directed by Corp Counsel that you need to actually say it, don’t assume it’s implied.

Gulbranson asked if you could just say that Domestic Fowl in a residential area is defined as this. I had a guy

ask me if he could have ten ostrich. This takes care of that, it doesn’t allow them in a residential area. Roy asked

so then we just scratch 1(a). Chairperson Fetzer asked what the definition of viticulture is. Adank stated it is

grapes. Holst asked what you do with mint and willow. Adank stated that language is in the existing code.

Sanden asked in the first area 240-35(1) under Cultivation Agriculture, B General Agriculture, it jumps right

into the restrictions, for consistency should there be a short definition to distinguish it from Cultivation

Agriculture. Adank stated we could do that or just scratch 1. Pichotta stated we could scratch 1 and just go with

the definition in the back. Adank stated he put it in there because when we are reading this, then you just don’t

have to jump back to the definition to look up again what exactly Cultivation Agriculture is. Maybe we should

put the definition under B for General Ag. Sanden stated either or. Holst stated be consistent in the way we do

it. Sanden asked if he was reading it right, so Cultivation Ag would be any type of agriculture that doesn’t

require any buildings or significant impacts. Like a cornfield would be Cultivation Agriculture. Pichotta stated

yes. Sanden stated a dairy operation would be General Agriculture. Pichotta stated yes. Aubart stated generally

in statutes, definitions are in the front so when you read the rest of it, and here they are in the back. Holst stated

this is zoning. Pichotta noted that is generally how zoning ordinances are written. Aubart asked if we want to

move the definitions to the front, then you don’t have to have that. Pichotta stated the structure of zoning codes

varies widely and whoever was hired back in the 90’s to write our zoning code, basically took Door County’s

ordinance and worked off of that and that is why it’s structured the way it is. Pichotta stated that if the

committee is comfortable, we will make the changes that we have talked about, discuss it with Corporation

Counsel, and schedule a public hearing. Sanden moved to approve the proposed amendments for Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Resort in the General Rural

Flexible and Commercial Districts, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39G, for John

Grabrick, Big Dog Daddy’s Roadhouse LLC, owner on property located in part of Government Lot 3, in

Section 7, T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Brad Roy: The applicant is requesting to renew a CUP for a Resort. The resort will operate

year-round and include 42 campsites, 24 cabins, a support structure with bathrooms and showers, and

4

infrastructure (new roads, septic, electrical and water services). No cabins or campsites have been constructed at

this time. The applicant has removed vegetation and prepared the site for utility installation. A survey of the site

was completed and it was determined that there is a discrepancy with the existing fence line and east property

line. The applicant has been in contact with east property owner about purchasing the necessary adjoining

property. A Bar and Grill and mobile home is currently on the property. The applicant had previously stated the

intention of purchasing the neighboring property to the west and making that his primary residence. The

applicant did not purchase that property and will continue to reside onsite. Resort is defined as: A facility for

transient guests where the primary attraction is generally on-site recreational features or activities and may

include multiple related use managed as one operation. Surrounding land uses are the Red Wing Airport to the

north, railroad right-of-way to the south, vacant DNR property to the east and residential to the west. The

proposed design is for camping cabins line the exterior west, south and east borders of the property. The 42

campsites will be in the interior area. Interior roads will have a minimum width of 26’. The applicant is

proposing two styles of cabin. One style of cabin will have full bathroom and kitchenette. The other style will

be a sleeping cabin. The applicant received a Land Use Permit to construct a shed in 2016. The structure was

permitted to only be used for storage. The applicant intends to use this structure for the resort bathrooms and

showers. The structure will need to have Commercial plan approval from DSPS, prior to resort use. The plan is

to also include retail space within the structure. A rezone of that area (including the Bar and Grill) to

commercial will be needed. Pierce County Code 184 regulates campground under the Public Health

Department. At this time, the Public Health Department has not issued a permit for the site. There is an existing

sanitary system and holding tank; the applicant intends to update the systems to satisfy current state codes and

use it for the resort. Phase 1 of the plan includes construction of 17 campsites. Further development of

campsites and cabins will occur, based on demand. As he said, he has completed a survey. It hasn’t been

submitted until that property line issue is resolved. Staff contacted the Town of Isabelle Chairperson regarding

this renewal and he stated that the Town has no concerns about renewing the permit at this time. The 6 month

status report, required by condition #10, was not submitted by the applicant. Condition #4 requires the applicant

to submit a screening plan, since they do not own the property to the west. The existing conditions are listed #1

- #10 in the staff report.

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

additional conditions or modifications are warranted. If additions or modifications are not necessary, staff

recommends the Land Management Committee renew this Conditional Use Permit for a Resort with the

following conditions:

1. The resort shall be conducted as described in the application, unless modified by a condition of this

permit.

2. A survey of all property lines, existing structures, and setbacks for cabins and campsites shall be

completed. Land Management Department staff shall verify side yard setbacks and minimum campsite

dimension requirements prior to campground operation.

3. State Plan approval for the required improvements to the sanitary dump station, holding tank, and sewer

services, as well as associated service contracts and contact information, shall be submitted to the Land

Management Department prior to construction.

4. If the applicant does not own the neighboring property to the west, a Screening Plan shall be submitted

to the LMC for approval. Any required screening shall be established prior to resort operation.

5. Internal roads, camping pads, and water and sanitary improvements shall be constructed or implemented

prior to operation of the resort. Staff shall be contacted to verify prior to operation.

6. All advertising signage shall comply with the Pierce County Zoning Code.

7. 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 (DSPS), Department

of Health-DHS standards etc.).

8. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions, numbers 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 as modified,

as recommended conditions of Town of Isabelle dated December 18, 2017 unless specifically modified

by another condition of this CUP.

5

4. Fires are allowed in fire rings and grill only. All fires shall not be left unattended and all fires shall be

extinguished before being left unattended. The burning of garbage, plastic, glass, cans or other

recyclable items shall not be permitted. To minimize the spread of diseases, firewood shall be

purchased locally. Locally is defined as within a 25 mile radius of the site not including the State of

Minnesota.

6. Excessive noise is inconsiderate to fellow campers and of the general residences of the areas near the

campground and bar area. Noise levels shall not exceed 80 decibels, DBs, at the property lines of

Parcel #014-01019-0700 (applicant parcel) at any time. Additionally, the noise level shall not exceed

55DBs200 feet west of the West property line of parcel #014-01019-0700 which is the west property

line of parcel #014-01018-0910 (neighboring residential parcel). In addition, noise levels shall not

exceed 70DBs (with the exception of air conditioners) at the property lines of Parcel #014-01019-

0700 for a time duration of eight (8) hours commencing at 10pm each day of the week except Friday

and Saturday. The start time of the 70 DB limitation on Friday and Saturday shall be no later than

11pm.

7. Fireworks shall not be permitted at any time on Parcel #014-01019-0700.

10. The warm weather camping season shall run from May 1st through October 31

st. Approved electric,

sewer and water hookups shall be provided during the warm weather camping season for each

campsite as shown in Exhibit B. Cold weather camping shall be permitted if and only if permanent

restrooms as defined by applicable Wisconsin Cods are operational. Year round residences shall not

be permitted at the designated campsites and cabin sites.

11. The maximum number of campsites including cabin sites as shown in Exhibit A shall be limited to

66.

12. Applicant shall provide an annual status report to the Town of Isabelle.

9. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require issuance of a new

conditional use permit. If the applicant has questions as to what constitutes an expansion or

intensification, Land Management staff should be contacted.

10. This permit shall expire in one year. A status report shall be presented to the LMC in 6 months to verify

compliance.

Chairperson Fetzer asked John what was with not submitting a status report. Mr. Grabrick stated that one just

slipped his mind. He was busy preparing the site. They have been cutting trees like crazy. They are working in

conjunction with the DNR to remove all the Black Locust from the site because it’s very nasty. They have taken

out about 200 trees already and have about another 100 to go. He has from the DNR, a land use agreement, so

they are taking all the remaining trees off the DNR property as well. So they have about one hundred feet of

trees that they are taking off the adjoining property line. That is to clear all the Black Locust out. He also has

purchased 125 new trees through the county program so they will be putting in maples and flowering crabs

throughout the site to replace the vegetation that they have removed. They should be installing utilities very

shortly which means they have to talk to Public Health and find out what their final requirements are. They do

have portable restrooms on site that they can move around as needed. Once the State approves their plan for the

building that they put up two years ago, they will then install the bathrooms and showers in that so they can

have their year-round camping. The screening plan which they now need to put forth, Brad and he had

discussed, a year or year and a half ago, for fencing and/or vegetation between his property and the neighboring

property to the west. He had a bid in on it but he got outbid by someone from out-of-state. They didn’t realize

what they were buying so he would imagine that within 12 months that will be back up for sale and he will be

buying it anyway. His plan is to get the utilities in for Phase I and II this year. Phase III, they need to bring in

some extra fill and fill in the back part of the lot. They have a couple contractors on board with that now. They

are just waiting on those projects so they can get the extra fill in. Chairperson Fetzer asked about the lot line.

Mr. Grabrick stated the east lot line, between the DNR and the fence line that were there don’t coincide. There

is about a thirty foot discrepancy at the midpoint of the property. He has been in contact with the DNR and has

various emails that have gone back and forth. They just didn’t want him to make it part of the public record but

they are in process of doing the paperwork to sell him the needed property next door. He would assume it would

6

be the 70 foot that he asked for and the 100 foot that they gave him to clear trees on. Once that is done then he

will submit the final survey to Brad and we can go forward from there. Holst moved to renew the conditional

use permit for a Resort for Big Dog Daddy’s Roadhouse LLC with conditions #1 - #10/Chairperson

Fetzer asked if there is another six month status report due. Staff stated yes. Chairperson Fetzer stated

that would be six months from now, around October/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Passed. Gulbranson

asked if we typically put the Town’s recommended conditions in with the numbers like that. Have we had them

in the past like that? Pichotta stated we have. We have that in the case of a number of the mining conditional

use permits where the Town recommended a variety of conditions to be placed and the LMC identified specific

recommended conditions to be included in their approval.

Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Land Management Department Fee Schedule.

Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: The Land Management Department’s fee schedule has not been reviewed in a

number of years. We talked about it a few years ago after we had done the update to the Comprehensive Plan

but at that time it was determined that economic conditions weren’t right to increase fees. This time we went

through with a couple things in mind - to ensure that the fees continue to be reasonable and take into account

staff time involved in permit issuance, and also to ensure that there is a fee for all the different services that are

provided by the Department. Given that we hadn’t really done any kind of whole sale amendment to it since

2004, a number of things that we do weren’t included in there. We also included in the back of your packet, for

your information, three different fee structures from different counties; St. Croix, Polk and Dunn. You can see

that they are all over the board with how complicated they are and how much the fees are. What we aren’t doing

is trying to make ours comparable to other counties. We are simply trying to make sure ours does an adequate

job and remains reasonable in a fee perspective and make sure to a certain degree that it is in line with what the

other counties are charging. The first page dealing with Private Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, State

Sanitary Permits; these are kind of the brunt of the things that he is proposing an increase in. He is proposing for

State Sanitary Permits to go to $400.00 basically a flat fee for those, increasing the holding tank replacement to

$250.00, the transfer to $100.00, and a renewal down from $150.00 to $100.00. County Sanitary Permits; the

only one he is proposing to increase is the System Repair from $125.00 to $200.00, to be somewhat consistent

with what the other counties are doing. Wisconsin Fund Application; the Wisconsin Fund is being sunset so

there is no longer going to be a need for that. In the Zoning Permit section under Agricultural Uses; a principal

structure will remain $100.00, proposing an accessary structure be bumped up to $100.00 and we will eliminate

and just say ag structures are $100.00. An addition will remain $50.00. Direct Market Ag that would be a road

side stand greater than 160 sq ft, he doesn’t foresee seeing anything like that but that will be a $50.00 fee.

Farmers Market would be a $100.00 permit because there are some siting issues for staff to address. Under

Commercial and Industrial, no changes proposed at all there. Institutional and Outdoor Recreational Uses, no

change there. You will notice as you go down the page, Outdoor Recreational Uses, Principal Structure Use is

two asterisks next to it; that would be a fee in addition to a public hearing. For some of these uses, there is a

little bit more of a fee, it’s for things that require more staff time and will almost undoubtedly be contentious.

Residential uses; he had considered looking at a flat fee for all principal residential structures but that probably

wasn’t the right way to go. The average fee for homes in 2018, was $393.00. So when looking at a principal

structure of about 3,000 sq ft, he had thought about going with a lesser fee but in order to maintain our revenues

and pay our share in the general fund, he proposed to leave that as is. Moving on to Accessory Structure less

than 100 sq ft, those are now exempt from fees since they no longer require a permit. Proposing to create a fee

for a deck, $50.00, for the last two decades we have been permitting decks as an addition and in a lot of cases it

seems like $100.00 for a deck is a little bit hefty. After-the-fact will remain the same. Down on the bottom of

the page, Miscellaneous Uses, Wireless Communication Service Facility, we are proposing to create a two-

tiered fee structure for cellphone towers. One being towers that are 35 – 110 feet in height, those would be

$500.00 permit fee, still have all the same requirements but a lesser fee given the shorter stature. Then the tall

towers would be $3,000.00, that is the maximum we can charge and we can only charge it once. That was

dictated in state statutes a few years ago. The thought behind these shorter towers is we don’t want the fee to be

an impediment to someone putting up short towers, like the WiFi Guy that was here a bit back. We added a fee

7

for Filling and Grading, we dealt with that under Other before. Under Temporary, proposing to create fees for

Temporary Camping during Construction as well as Temporary Contract or Real Estate Office, each of those

would be a $50.00 fee. Signs; on-site/off-site would be the same, Uniform Address Number sign and the

replacement, as you recall we went to the two-sided signs so the costs have gone up a little bit. It’s $19.31for

the sign and $4.50 for the letters so we are looking at around $25.00 a sign in parts just going in. So for the

initial UAN we are proposing $75.00 because we have to identify the address, then create the sign. The

replacement sign would be $30.00 which means we make about $4.00 on those. We’re not proposing any

changes in the CSM’s or Plat fees. The next page is headed with the public hearings. A public hearing for a

CUP would remain the same and a variance would remain the same at $500.00, a rezone is the same at $500.00

also. Miscellaneous fees; these are fees that are all new and are basically for things that weren’t covered in our

previous fee structure which we had largely used Other for; Site Plan Review in front of the committee,

$100.00, Site Plan Review Administrative, $50.00, Rule Exception, which is in the subdivision code, $100.00,

Height Exemption, $100.00, Wind Energy Systems – Small, basically a personal sort of permitted use would be

$100.00. A large system would be $500.00 and it would be a CUP also. Solar Energy Systems, small, basically

personal use would be $100.00 fee, large would be $500.00. Copies; photo copies would remain at 25 cents a

page, Tapes/CD’s $5.00. In asking about ordinances, no one could remember the last time anyone came in and

bought an ordinance from us. GIS Map Purchase, basically proposing to simplify this. We have the pre-printed

County Maps that everyone got a copy of some time ago and even folks on the County Board, $3.00 a piece for

those or 5 for $10.00. Sometimes we get folks that want to buy some and resell them, tourist shops or

something. Rather than differentiate between a town zoning map or a town map with or without an ortho; if we

are going to print a map for someone, if it’s an existing map, $3.00 for 8 ½ by 11, 11 x 17 would be $5.00, 24 x

36 would be $10.00 whether it’s got ortho photos, a zoning map or just an address map. It basically uses the

same amount of ink. For custom maps, digital data transfer, and other, if someone comes in and says I want you

to create a map for me of the ground I run, we would charge a base of $40.00 an hour for Kevin’s time and do it

in 15 minute increments. Now we also have a laminator. We only want to laminate our stuff for the general

public. If we start laminating for folks coming in we will be the default Kinkos in town. So we will do our own

stuff, that doesn’t mean we won’t do stuff for other departments. So we are proposing for the custom maps, the

smaller stuff would be $10.00, the 24 x 36 would be $20.00 to laminate. That is the extent of what we are

proposing. Sanden asked about the fees, are they meant to cover 100% of the cost of staff going out there or is it

some percentage of. Pichotta stated we used to look at doing 75% of the zoning function but the reality is our

four budgets are so interconnected that it’s really hard to isolate just the zoning part. We have tried to keep our

fees reasonable so it’s not a hindrance to someone that wants to do something entrepreneurial or build a house.

We try to keep up with what the neighbors are doing but don’t necessarily use that as the yardstick by which we

decide we are charging enough. If the committee wants us to try and capture a certain proportion of the general

fund outlay, certainly we could do that. Sanden stated he wasn’t suggesting, he was just wondering and the next

question was going to be, do these proposed increases cover whatever percentage that was. Pichotta stated he

doesn’t know that it’s necessarily going to. We will see some additional revenues based on it, probably 10 or

15%. We are not taking in nearly what we were in ’05, ’06, and ’07. We were taking in $100,000.00 more than

what we are now. Things are a bit quieter and that was largely platting and new homes. Gulbranson asked if the

County charges any kind of an impact fee for parks or anything. Pichotta stated no, we don’t have the ability to

do that. We used to have a payment in lieu of a land dedication when you created buildable lots by a CSM. We

lost that ability, he believes in ’06 or ’07. That was the time all the towns started doing impact fees. Holst stated

not all of the towns, some of the towns. Gulbranson stated the Village just dropped them this year. Pichotta

stated if the committee is comfortable with these fees or if you want to give me some direction to bring

something back, otherwise we will work with Corporation Counsel to develop a resolution to move forward.

We don’t have to bring it back to the committee, just move it forward to F & P and ultimately to the County

Board. Holst stated it looks good since we haven’t increased them since 2004, compared to the rest of the

County we’re not keeping up, but sometimes we have to provide public services and we’re not in it to get rich.

Your department shouldn’t be expected to be a revenue department when nobody else is. Sanden stated that is

why people pay taxes. Holst stated the services that they demand from this department are wanted by the public.

8

Aubart asked if the department uses any flash drives for copies or just CD’s. Pichotta stated we just use CD’s.

One thing we didn’t really talk about is there was data listed in there at $250.00 per megabyte which is a really

small amount of data. With the Land Information Program what they have done is we have to provide our data

to the State and then the State puts it out for free on their website so we are going to do the same thing. Data

that was developed using Land Records Modernization dollars is going to be available to folks for their use but

if they want us to do anything value added that is where the $40.00/hour comes in we would charge folks if they

want us to do something with it or included in that was the data transfer. If somebody shows up and wants to

buy LiDar for the whole County, basically they just have to pay for Kevin’s time for him to transfer it onto their

device. We have to be careful and don’t want to be poking strange flash drives in our equipment. Aubart was

just thinking about the amount of data you can get on CD’s and the way data is going, 32 GB flash drives for

stuff. Pichotta stated years ago you use to have a big book drive and now you can fit it on a little card. Sanden

stated the opposite may be for the department to buy flash drives and that would be part of the price. That way

you would know there isn’t malware on it. Aubart stated that is what he was thinking because it goes from a

tape to a CD, what’s the next medium that you will use. Holst moved to approve the proposed amendments

to the Land Management Department Fee Schedule and forward to the County Board of

Supervisors/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.




Pichotta proposed that the committee meet on May 1st at 6:00pm. We will have the public hearing for the

proposed Agricultural Uses amendment.

Motion to adjourn at 6:55pm by Aubart/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, April 3, 2019 – 6:30 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: April 17th

, May 1st & 15

th, June 5

th & 19

th, all

in 2019.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the February 26, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


permit for a Resort in the General Rural Flexible and Commercial

Districts, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-39G, for

John Grabrick, Big Dog Daddy’s Roadhouse LLC, owner on

property located in part of Government Lot 3, in Section 7, T24N,

R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI.

Roy

5 Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses.

Adank

6 Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Land Management

Department Fee Schedule.

Pichotta







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, February 26, 2019 Present: Jon Aubart, Neil Gulbranson, Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden Absent: Joe Fetzer Others: Andy Pichotta and Shari Hartung Acting Chairperson Jeff Holst called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:30pm in the County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Next meeting dates: March 6th & 20th, April 3rd & 17th, all in 2019. Approve Minutes: Gulbranson moved to approve the February 6, 2019 Land Management Committee minutes/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed. Discuss take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District for Monarch Paving Co, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 28, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: This is a request for renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for Nonmetallic Mining in Section 28, Town of Trenton. This operation was originally permitted in 2001 and is currently the site for the storage of dredge materials taken from Corps Island in about 2009 or 2010. The property is zoned Industrial. There have been no complaints or concerns raised since the last renewal. We did get ahold of the town chair and he had no comments or concerns. Pichotta noted that the applicants are present if there are any questions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee renew this conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from other agencies. 2. Hours of operation are from 6:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 6:00pm on

Saturday during the construction season. 3. The haul route for commercial trucks is from the pit entrance of County Road K to Hwy 35. 4. Reclamation financial assurance information shall be reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel

and kept current. 5. A 50 foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for all mining activities. 6. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Office if groundwater is encountered. 7. Applicant shall comply with PCC Chapter 241 Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation. 8. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans. 9. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the county. 10. The approved Groundwater Response Plan shall be adhered to. 11. This CU P shall be reviewed for renewal in two years. 12. Any future use of this site for hydraulic dredge material placement shall not be allowed until such time

as information is presented that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the LM C, that the impacts of said placement will not be contrary to the public interest, nor detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area.

Sanden moved to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for Nonmetallic Mining for Monarch Paving Co, with conditions #1 - #12/Gulbranson seconded. All in favor. Passed.

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

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has no travel/training requests for consideration tonight. Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items Pichotta stated we haven’t had a lot of agenda items as of late. We don’t have too many moving forward so what he would propose is our next meeting will be April 3, 2019 and we will have at least three things on the agenda; one will be the renewal of Big Dog Daddy’s conditional use permit, the other will be proposed Fee Schedule which we haven’t reviewed in a long time and proposed language regarding keeping of chickens in residential districts. Motion to adjourn at 6:33pm by Aubart/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung


MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, February 26, 2019 – 6:30 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: March 6th

& 20th

, April 3rd

& 17th



Committee meeting.

Chair


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District for

Monarch Paving, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the SW

¼ of Section 28, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI.

Roy







*February 20, 2019 meeting rescheduled because of inclement weather.


MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, February 20, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: March 6th

& 20th

, April 3rd

& 17th



Committee meeting.

Chair


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the Industrial District for

Monarch Paving, owner on property located in the NE ¼ of the SW

¼ of Section 28, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County,

WI.

Roy







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, February 6, 2019


Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund, Adam Adank and Shari Hartung



Next meeting dates: February 20th

, March 6th

& 20th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Sanden moved to approve the January 2, 2019 Land Management Committee


Public hearing to consider and take action on a request for a conditional use permit for a Kennel in the

General Rural Flexible 8 District, pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-36I, for Jerry & Debra

Hallis, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 11, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak

Grove, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Mr. & Mrs. Hallis have been raising dogs as a hobby and operating a kennel on

their property since May 24, 1999. They began breeding and selling golden retrievers, but now only breed and

sell tea cup poodles that range between 3-6 pounds each. The American Kennel Club has completed inspections

in the past and the report states they were in compliance. The owners were apparently not aware that a kennel

permit was required until the American Kennel Club Inspector mentioned it during a recent inspection. The

property is in Section 11, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County. Current land use is agricultural and residential.

Neighboring land uses are agricultural, commercial, and residential. The applicants own 35 acres in the General

Rural Flexible 8 District. Pierce County Code (PCC) Table of Uses allows ‘kennels’ in the General Rural

zoning district with the issuance of a CUP subject to the provisions in §240-36I:

1. All dogs shall be housed indoors during the hours from 9:00pm to 6:00am.

2. Minimum side and rear yards for all structures associated with kennels shall be 200 feet.

3. Except as exempted here, all kennels shall be screened from public highways by vegetative screening as

described in §240-31D. Structures located at least 200 feet from the centerline of public roads are

exempt from the screening requirements.

4. There shall be no more than two adult dogs in a single enclosure unit.

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.” The applicant built an addition onto the north side of their home that

they use to house the dogs. The addition is located within 200 feet of the centerline of the town road but is

shielded from public view by the applicants’ home. The addition is located more than 200 feet from side and

rear yard lot lines. Applicants indicate that they have dedicated that mud room to raising tea cup poodles and

have ceramic tile on the floor for easy clean-up. To the northeast of the house, the applicants have a fenced in

area so dogs have outdoor accessibility and so they can be exercised. This fenced in area is located within 200

feet for the centerline of the town road. The fence facing 570th

Avenue has two layers. The inside is chain

linked and the outside has tall wooden fence panels for security and screening. Adult dogs are separated from

puppies and males are separated from females. This spring they plan to install artificial turf on the ground to

help prevent digging and promote cleanliness. Driveway access is off 570th

Avenue. Pierce County Code §240-

54 does not specify parking requirements for this type of operation. There are several off-street parking spaces





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

available. Applicants don’t employ anyone else and don’t plan on hiring additional help. Applicants currently

have 20 tea cup poodles and would like a maximum of 23 poodles. When the owners retire, they plan to

eventually stop breeding the dogs and reduce their number of dogs as each pass away. The Oak Grove Town

Board recommended denial of this request on 8-20-2018 because “….it does not meet the distance requirement

in the Town’s kennel ordinance….” The applicants proposed operation complies with the zoning requirement of

240-36I Kennels. The Zoning Office does not enforce the Town Kennel Ordinance. However, it is a standard

condition that an applicant must acquire all necessary permits and licenses from applicable agencies (DSPS,

DNR, and Towns). The approval of this CUP requested by the LMC would not eliminate the need to comply

with the Town of Oak Grove’s Kennel Ordinance and dog licensing requirements. An approval would rather

certify compliance with Pierce County Zoning Code standards and provide the applicant with time to work with

the Town to resolve kennel permitting issues. If a solution with the Town cannot be reached within the initial

term of the conditional use permit, the applicant would likely be in violation of the CUP and enforcement

action/revocation would be commenced if required.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends 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 a dog

kennel with the following conditions:


2. All dogs shall be housed indoors during the hours of 9:00pm to 6:00am.

3. There shall be no more than two adult dogs housed in a single enclosure unit.

4. Vegetative screening shall be installed to screen the fenced-in exercise area if activities are determined

by staff to be readily visible from the adjacent public road during leaf on conditions.

5. Any buildings or advertising signs shall comply with the zoning code standards and applicant shall

obtain any necessary permits.

6. One off street parking space shall be delineated.

7. This conditional use permit shall expire in one year.

8. The applicant shall comply with all applicable State and local rules and regulations, and shall acquire all

necessary permits and licenses from other applicable agencies (DATCP) and the Town of Oak Grove.

9. An inspection of the facility by DATCP shall be conducted annually and the report submitted to the

Zoning Office and the Town of Oak Grove. If a DATCP inspection of the kennel is not required, a

written explanation of that determination shall be provided and an inspection of the facility by the

American Kennel Club shall be conducted annually and a report submitted to the Zoning Office and to

the Town of Oak Grove.

10. Applicant understands that expansion or intensification of this use will require modification to this


Chairperson Fetzer opened the public hearing. Jerry Kosin, Town of Oak Grove Chairperson, one thing that

they didn’t comply with in Oak Grove was the 1500 feet from the back door of the kennel. They only went and

got two signatures and that was just down the road. We have talked to these people quite a few times at

meetings. At the one meeting they told us they would just keep doing this regardless of what our code says. He

doesn’t know where we are at. They haven’t asked to come to Oak Grove to a meeting for quite a while but they

have been dealing with this since probably a year ago. None of the dogs are licensed which is our problem, not

yours. Chairperson Fetzer closed the public hearing. Chairperson Fetzer invited Jerry & Debra Hallis

forward: Mr. Hallis stated they do agree to abide to whatever they need to do, like getting the dogs licensed.

Chairperson Fetzer asked if they just raise dogs? Mr. Hallis stated it’s a business. Chairperson Fetzer asked if

they are registered. Mr. Hallis stated every one. Chairperson Fetzer asked how many pups they have a year,

typically? Mr. Hallis stated it depends. Mr. Hallis stated they are not all breeding dogs, some are pets, some are

older and spayed, you fall in love with them. Chairperson Fetzer asked if the committee has any questions.

Gulbranson asked on condition #1, Activity shall be conducted as submitted in the application, does that restrict

them to the Tea Cup Poodles so they can’t change it to Shepherds or Huskies or Saint Bernards’. Lund stated

3

yes that’s what that means. Sanden asked also other than what is listed on the first page in the staff report, the

table of uses, is there anything else in the Pierce County Code that this is in violation of? For example you have

looked at the side and rear yard setbacks and they are in compliance with the County, maybe not the Town.

Lund stated that is correct. Holst asked if the 1500 foot setback is a Town Ordinance. Lund stated yes it is in the

Town’s Ordinance. Holst noted that it’s up to the Town to enforce that. Mr. Kosin asked to speak again. It is

1500 foot, according to their attorney that is like a circle from the back door of their house where they keep the

dogs. They only brought us two signatures. But there are a lot of homes involved. Chairperson Fetzer asked if

they had more signatures they would be ok? Mr. Kosin stated maybe, at our public hearing they would have had

to have signatures to convince some people. Chairperson Fetzer asked if Kosin was ok with the use. Mr. Kosin

stated he isn’t ok with it. Chairperson Fetzer stated they will still have to deal with you if it goes through us. Mr.

Kosin stated 1500 feet, they will have to get a signature from every homeowner in that area, then they will start

dealing with them. Chairperson Fetzer stated our biggest thing is public health and public safety. Those are the

big things that we have to look at. Holst stated if they have been running a kennel since ’99 and the town just

found out about it, apparently they do a good job of hiding things because the dogs weren’t an issue.

Chairperson Fetzer asked if given the length of time there is there the potential that the use is grandfathered in.

Mr. Kosin stated it’s been in the code for quite a while he would have to look. Gulbranson asked if there have

been complaints, like barking or anything? Mr. Kosin stated no. Deb McClure, Town of Oak Grove Supervisor,

stated they had one escape. Mr. Kosin stated the 1500 feet was just one thing in the code they didn’t meet, there

were some other things also. Holst stated the way this looks to him is if they don’t come into compliance with

the Town within a year, then their CUP goes away. Is that the understanding of the rest of the committee?

Pichotta stated we would have to bring it back to the committee for that. Chairperson Fetzer asked if this would

come back in front of the committee if everything is taken care of. Pichotta stated that would be our intention.

Renewal would be by this committee and he would hope at that point even if they haven’t got things resolved,

we would hear what efforts have been made.

Sanden moved to approve the conditional use permit for a Kennel for Jerry & Debra Hallis, due to the

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

public safety or the character of the surrounding area, with conditions #1 - #10/Aubart seconded. All in

favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses. Staff Report – Adam Adank: The raising of backyard fowl in residential areas has become quite popular in

recent years. Some cities and villages within and nearby Pierce County have created ordinances to allow a

limited number of fowl to be kept within their municipal boundaries. Staff is proposing to allow limited

domestic fowl and structures in Rural Residential zoning districts. The proposed amendments would be

regulated under Agricultural Uses in §240-35. While deliberating how to incorporate the regulation of domestic

fowl into the Agricultural Uses section, staff discovered some inconsistencies in the code. Pierce County Code

§240-35A(3) states: General agricultural practices except for barnyards, feed lots, and uses involving

agricultural structures, shall be allowed in all nonagricultural zoning districts. However, the Pierce County

Table of Uses chart only reflects “general agriculture” as a permitted use in agricultural districts. This means

that the ordinance and table of uses chart are contradicting. In addition to the inconsistency described above, the

current definition of general agriculture appears to be blended with language relating to intensive agriculture.

This makes it hard to decipher which activities (for example animal husbandry) can be viewed as general

agriculture and which activities should be viewed as intensive agriculture. The current definition of “general

agriculture” is: any agricultural use, except those listed for intensive agriculture, including apiculture; animal

husbandry; dairying; floriculture; forage crop production; forest crop production; grain production; grazing ;

horticulture; orchards’ specialty crop production’ such as maple syrup, mint and willow; viticulture; and truck

farming. “Intensive agriculture” is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance and not referenced in the Pierce County

Table of Uses chart. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to re-define “general agriculture” and create a

new definition for “intensive agriculture” to better regulate specific agricultural uses in certain districts

(specifically animal husbandry). The new definition of general agriculture would describe/list agricultural uses

4

that would be allowed in all zoning districts. The new definition of intensive agriculture would describe/list

higher impact agricultural uses only allowed in agricultural districts. Staff asks the committee to consider the

following questions when discussing the proposed amendments:

1. Should domestic fowl be allowed in residential zoning districts and if so, how many domestic fowl

should be allowed on a residential parcel? Staff thought 6 may be an appropriate number based on the

examples listed below:

City of Prescott allows 6 (2012)

Village of Ellsworth allows 10

Dunn County allows 4 in residential

Buffalo County allows 12 in residential districts

City of Hudson allows 5

City of River Falls does not allow chickens (2010)

2. Does the committee feel comfortable using the terms “general agriculture” and “intensive agriculture” to

separate the regulation of different intensity agricultural uses?

Staff would propose activities such as animal husbandry, grazing, dairying, and apiculture to fall under

“intensive agriculture.”

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee discuss the proposed concepts,

and if appropriate, direct staff to draft ordinance amendments for future LMC consideration. Holst stated this

has been a real controversy in some areas. He has seen some of these ordinances where they talked about male

chickens are disallowed. He feels that is prejudiced against the male. Adank stated he will take that into

consideration. Holst commented on animal husbandry and intensive agriculture; I believe chicken ranching

would be animal husbandry. Sanden stated that is the way he would look at it too. Sanden asked what the

committee thinks about the term intensive agriculture. Sanden suggested that it implies a lot of offsite impacts.

He stated he was thinking production agriculture but he is assuming some people could sell their eggs and that

could be production in terms of doing it for profit. Pichotta stated basically the keeping of chickens is proposed

to be an exemption from all of this. You are right that keeping of chickens for their eggs would be considered

production agriculture, but we are proposing to exempt it in residential districts. Aubart asked why we were

trying to fix this. Aubart stated for the record he could take you to at least three different chicken coops in the

City of River Falls. To him, when you put a number like six across the County that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

He will argue that the sale of eggs wouldn’t even come close to paying for the food. Aubart stated then we get

into that whole argument. If you just do it for your friends or neighbor or whatever, now that is production

agriculture. Sanden stated it would have to be some kind of terminology where agriculture is their main income.

Pichotta stated as far as why we are looking at this, two things, the keeping of chickens in residential districts

has repeatedly come up and our code doesn’t allow it so he has difficulty looking the other way on it. When we

have inconsistencies or we finds issues in our code, the policy has been to address them. Aubart stated it does

allow it, it says general agriculture practices except for those things. Holst stated in the ag district but he wants

it in the residential district, RR20 and Ag Res. Pichotta stated there is not a definition for intensive ag and some

things are considered intensive that shouldn’t be. Gulbranson stated so if you allow six chickens, then are there

rules that are going to go with that, if they start flying all over the neighborhood. The neighbors complain or

they are running all over. Pichotta stated he isn’t sure what new language would look like yet. We would look at

what other folks have. In some of the residential areas like in Prescott; you have quarter acre lots. A lot of our

residential lots, zoned residential are ten acres or more. Chairperson Fetzer stated he is thinking the same thing.

ok, he can have six chickens on his quarter acre lot, the guy that has ten acres, I should be able to have more,

no, sorry that is the rule. Pichotta stated this is why we are having this discussion. Pichotta stated perhaps if you

have minimal acreage you can have the minimal number and for additional acres, it goes up. That is why we

brought this to you. We want to know what you think before we start drafting language. Adank stated they

would be allowed in any ag district but limits would just apply in residential districts. Chairperson Fetzer stated

there are residential districts that are five acre lots people are buying, a lot of that. Holst stated Intensive

agriculture sounds to him like an animal feed lot. That bothers him. He thinks we do have the definition for

controlled animal feed lot in our ordinance someplace or not. That one we maybe need or maybe we don’t need.

5

Pichotta stated that the county has a manure storage ordinance, so we regulate through that versus through the

zoning code. Chairperson Fetzer stated right now the terminology is intensive agriculture? Pichotta stated it is

but it’s not defined. He agrees; it’s a loaded term. Sanden suggested what if we went the other direction and

rather than trying to redefine general agriculture, keep that term the same for what we all know it is and for

these ones that have hobby farms, call it something like accessory ag or ancillary ag. If we were to come up

with some term that meant someone that was not in the business of agriculture as their primary income, a hobby

farm or dabble in some of these things. Leave the term of general ag as we know. Pichotta asked if the new term

is just going to reflect allowable ag uses in residential districts or in all districts. Holst stated in all districts

including residential districts. Pichotta stated let us work on that. How about chickens, do you want us to look

into that? Should it be some sliding thing or carte blanche allowed with no number restrictions? That could be

an option because most lots are not small. Most towns out there have a two and a half to three acre minimum lot

size. So almost every lot is at least that big and in fact most cases they are bigger. Holst stated our minimum lot

size allowable on a new one is one acre. Two acres on RR20, but the minimum lot size is one acre. Gulbranson

asked if we allowed them in a residential development, if they put a covenant on that they can’t have it, then

they couldn’t? Chairperson Fetzer stated that supersedes us. Pichotta stated that is not up to us to enforce

covenants. Holst stated it’s no different than what we did here tonight. Let the town enforce their 1500 feet

cause that one time we spent a lot of money and when it came time to get paid, we didn’t get anything and the

town took all the money. Pichotta stated that was the dog kennel situation in the Town of Gilman. Sanden stated

his inclination is if it’s not a problem, not put a number on it and trust that they will keep things reasonable.

Give them the latitude but then someone is going to come back with 3000 chickens on their acre. Gulbranson

asked you want a number? Pichotta stated or direction to not bring forth a number and to come up with some

language for your consideration. Chairperson Fetzer stated he is guessing that you have to have a number. You

have to be black and white because somebody is going to abuse it. Pichotta stated here is an idea, perhaps the

number, whether it be six or ten, that applies to lots less than one and a half or two acres. Everything else there

is no limitation and in that way where you have your built up areas, those folks are limited slightly. Holst stated

you see a lot of these guys raising range chickens now and they will have their little hut and drag their little hut

around the yard. They can have 50 or 60 birds and it doesn’t bother anybody and it keeps the wood ticks down.

Pichotta stated we have a breakdown of lot size in the County. Seventy percent of residential zoned lots are four

acres or less. Thirty percent are less than an acre. An additional 19 percent are between one and two. He likes

the idea of six for small lots less than two acres and then if it’s bigger than two acres, there is no limitation.

Sanden said look at those numbers and decide what the cutoff is. Holst asked what the Village of Ellsworth’s

number for chickens is. Gulbranson stated ten and he didn’t think they have had a complaint on it. Pichotta

stated maybe the number ought to be ten because your lots in town are typically small. So I think where we are

at is: two acres or less, six or ten, should we be consistent with Ellsworth and then as far as general ag and

intensive ag we’re actually going to swap meanings. General ag is going to become basically, production ag, ag

that we are used to. We will come up with a new term for agricultural uses that are also allowable in residential

districts and move forward. Chairperson Fetzer stated that works for him and asked if everyone else was ok

with that. Committee agreed. Chair asked if a motion was needed. Pichotta stated just direction. We will come

up with some draft language now that we have some guidance.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has two travel/training requests. The first

one is for Tracie Albrightson to attend a Skillpath Conference located in Bloomington on February 22, 7:00am

to 5:00pm just there for the day and we have funds budgeted for this. The next one is for Kevin Etherton to

attend the WLIA Conference in Appleton on February 20th

– the 22nd

. There will be a hotel required. We get a

grant for this. The last one came up between committee meetings so he wasn’t able to bring it to the committee.

He did attempt to talk to Mr. Fetzer but he was unable to reach him he did talk to Mr. Holst who approved it.

It’s for Adam Adank to attend a FEMA Floodplain Training in Emmitsburg, MD. It’s a four day course from

March 18th

through the 21st. Focus is on concepts of floodplain management maps, studies, and ordinance

administration. All costs are reimbursed by FEMA except for meals. If we want to take action on this as part of

6

the other two that would be fine or we wouldn’t necessarily need to. He just wanted to bring it to the

committee’s attention.

Gulbranson moved to approve the travel/training requests for Tracie Albrightson, Kevin Etherton and

Adam Adank/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.


Pichotta stated we have a renewal of a conditional use permit for Monarch Paving for their gravel pit in the

Town of Trenton. He hates to have a meeting just for that but if we don’t take action on it, that CUP will expire.

Motion to adjourn at 6:41pm by Holst/Aubart seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, February 6, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: February 20th

, March 6th

& 20th


3 Approve minutes of the January 2, 2019 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair


conditional use permit for a Kennel in the General Rural Flexible 8

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

& Debra Hallis, owners on property located in the SW ¼ of the SE

¼ of Section 11, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce

County, WI.

Lund

5 Discuss take action on proposed amendments to Pierce County

Code Chapter 240-35, Agricultural Uses.

Adank







1

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting, January 2, 2019


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



Next meeting dates: January 16th

, February 6th

& 20th

, March 6th

& 20th

, all in 2019.

Approve Minutes: Gulbranson moved to approve the December 19, 2018 Land Management Committee


Discuss take action on Concept Plan for Cory & Gena Huppert, owners, by Dan Kugel, agent, on

property zoned General Rural Flexible 8, located in the entire NE ¼ and the fractional NE ¼ of the SE ¼,

all in Section 9, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI.

Staff Report – Emily Lund: Dan is here and will be bringing out the plat for everyone to see. He works for

Ogden Engineering and applicants are requesting concept plan approval for a 164.9 acre, 33-lot, and 2-outlot

subdivision in the Town of Clifton. They intend to complete the plat in phases. The property is located in

Section 9, Town of Clifton. Current land use is agricultural and recreational. Surrounding land use is

agricultural, recreational and residential. This land is not in any Farmland Preservation programs as per the

Land Conservation Department. The property is in the General Rural Flexible 8 Zoning District. This plat

conforms to the surrounding land and meets the zoning density. With all the contiguous land the applicants own

included, the calculation is (164.9 ac) x (8/40) = 32.98 33 residential lots. Proposed lots 22-24 are located

within Kinnickinnic River Blufflands and comply with Section 240-45B. The Wisconsin Wetland Inventory

Map indicates no wetlands in this project area. The FEMA FIRM maps indicate no floodplain in this project

area. Most of the proposed lots have slopes less than 12%, except exterior lots 3-9, 14-18, and 22-24 to the west

and south. The 12% slopes have a dark yellow line and 20% slopes have a dark pink line. The acreage of each

lot is not shown on the proposed concept plan. To determine suitability of the site for subdivision, staff

reviewed the site for hazards of like, health or property, no such hazards were apparent. Town of Clifton

approved this concept plan on December 4, 2018.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this concept plan with

the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall secure preliminary plat approval prior to beginning construction of roads or installation of

erosion control and stormwater measures.

2. The County minimum lot size of 1 acre and the Town of Clifton minimum lot size of 3 acres, excluding

right-of-way and easements shall be met.

3. The proposed Town roads shall be numbered in accordance to Pierce County Code Chapter 115 (Numbering

of Building & Roads) and shall be determined by the Pierce County GIS Specialist.

4. Applicant shall obtain all necessary sign permits.

Chairperson Fetzer asked Dan if he would like to add anything. Mr. Kugel stated that pretty much does it. The

picture showing the concept of the entire area but they plan to do it in phases, depending how the conditions are,

how the market goes. Chairperson Fetzer asked how much of this land is currently farmland? Mr. Kugel stated,

acreage wise, he is not sure. Its visible what is not wooded is farm land. Chairperson Fetzer stated over half of it





Fax: 715-273-6864

2

was farmland. Pichotta stated there should be a map inside of your folder which identifies prime soils and you

will see that this piece is almost entirely prime soils. Chairperson Fetzer asked if the Town of Clifton doesn’t

have any language, some towns do. Pichotta stated, if you recall when we did the update to the comprehensive

plan, we have language in there discouraging folks from subdividing prime ag land but it is all based on Town

Comprehensive Plans and what they have in place. What we didn’t want to do is necessarily dictate to the

towns. If this was a rezone, we would be looking at soils and the Town of Clifton’s Comprehensive Plan in

relation to what they have for the agricultural preservation section of it. This land was zoned this way all the

way back since 1998 so it’s basically the owner’s right to subdivide it as he sees fit, as long as he does so

consistent with any town subdivision ordinance and our subdivision ordinance. Gulbranson asked about the

town roads, he asked if they will be turned over to Clifton? They aren’t going to be private, so then how are the

standards when they build these roads. Is somebody out there looking at that? Lund stated we will be looking at

the standard and in the past when we had a plat come through, the last one that was approved was in 2006 so it’s

been several years, we had an engineer on staff that reviewed the plans from the Land Conservation

Department. But the Town of Clifton does have a Town Road Standard and a Town Private Road Standard.

Usually, once it’s built, we hire the Highway Department to go out there and check it. That is billed to the

applicant to make sure it’s been built properly. Holst stated there is nothing better than a cul de sac to piss off a

town patrolman. He also noted that it looks like a pretty good chunk of farm ground. Sanden agreed with that.

Aubart asked Andy to explain the whole process of the plat since he hasn’t been here for one. Pichotta stated a

plat is a three-step process. You can create two lots over-the-counter by submitting a Certified Survey Map

(CSM). But if you are going to create three or four in a five year period, you need to first come to the Land

Management Committee to present it and ultimately, approval is administrative. But if you are going to create

five or more lots in a five year period, there is a three-step process; the first step is concept plan, where basically

the whole project is presented as a big picture sort of a look. Then once concept is approved, the next step is

preliminary. In order to receive preliminary plat approval, they will have to submit soil tests for each of the lots,

the surveyor will draw out and they will be platted out and staked, then it is reviewed by the State. The makeup

of the roads is identified. The layout of the roads is identified. It will have to go back to the town also. Once

preliminary plat is approved, final plat can only be granted once the roads are constructed and everything is in

place. Sanden asked if he could add that vested rights kick in after preliminary plat. Pichotta stated yes. Aubart

stated because then they put in all the roads. Sanden stated then they put all that effort into it, you’re right.

Pichotta stated basically as long as someone complies with all the conditions of preliminary plat, they are

guaranteed final, so you can’t switch the game three-quarters of the way through. Gulbranson asked what the

Kinnickinnic River Blufflands is. Pichotta stated there is a section of our zoning code, that is kind of like the St

Croix Riverway where it’s more restrictive and larger setbacks associated with the bluff lines. You don’t want

disturbance of slopes. It’s a lot less onerous than the St Croix Riverway and it is aimed at protecting the

Kinnikinnic Watershed. So there is a little bit extra stuff relating to setbacks, typically. You may recall in the

past we have had folks come in and seek a CUP for cutting of brush and burning of stuff along those

Kinnikinnic hills, so there are some things other than setbacks that are required as part of that overlay district.

Roy stated those will come into play later, not at lot creation. When someone applies for a house we will have

to look at those extra requirements. At this point, there isn’t much to consider. It would be more for the home

owner to consider. Chairperson Fetzer asked, assuming everything goes through, in your three phases how are

you expecting to do it, so many in the first phase and then after how many years are you looking at more? Mr.

Kugel stated right now phase one would be lots 1 – 13, the upper part and then beyond that depends on how

well they sell or how fast they fill up. Holst moved to approve the concept plan for the plat for Cory &

Gena Huppert in the Town of Clifton with conditions #1 - #4/Aubart seconded. Chairperson Fetzer stated it

is sad to be losing about 100 acres of good land there. It’s sad to see good farmland go downhill or into

buildings because you don’t get that stuff back. But that is the townships way of looking at things and I guess

we can’t overrule how they want to run their townships. Holst asked if there is any part of that township that is

in the Ag Enterprise Zone, did that ever get established? Pichotta stated that this farm is not participating in any

Ag Enterprise programs. All in favor. Passed.

3

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

General Rural, General Rural Flexible and Primary Ag Districts, pursuant to Pierce County Code

Chapter 240-37A for Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company, agent for Kathleen & John Thayer, My

Course LLC, Cynthia Hanson and MOAP LLC/TROLL KING LLC, owners on property located in part

of Sections 33, 34 and 35, all in T25N, R17W, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI and for Wisconsin

Specialty Sands Inc, owner and agent for Nellie Anderson, My Course, Charles & Lynn Brown, Lynn

Brown, Dennis Potts, Florness Farms LLC, Gregory & Debra Anderson and Margaret Chesley, on

property located in part of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 10, all in T24N, R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County,

WI. Staff Report – Brad Roy: The underground mining operation began in 2006; in 2008 the hours of operation

were expanded to 24 hours a day. In 2013, the LMC approved an expansion of the mining area into the Town of

Hartland. Activities on the site include blasting, screening, washing and sizing underground in the mining

tunnels. Washing is done in clay-lined ponds within the tunnels. The washed sand is then trucked to the

processing facility in the Town of Trenton. Trucks enter and exit the site directly onto STH 35. The permitted

mining area encompasses approximately 1300 acres. The primary use of the land is either agriculture or forested

and undeveloped. Other area uses include low-density residential. The entire mining process takes place

underground using room and pillar mining. Mining is accomplished by drilling and blasting. The tunnels allow

for the internal washing, sizing, and storage of the sand. The blasted sand is screened and taken to an

underground classifying area where the sand is sized and dewatered. Approximately 90% of the water is

recycled. Water is supplied by two high capacity wells which are permitted by the DNR. The lower level of the

mine is approximately 60 – 80 feet above the groundwater table. The use of flocculants is permitted by the WI

DNR which monitors the type and limits the amount used. The facility has a Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan and a Spill Pollution Control and Countermeasures Plan. These plans identify potential sources of storm

water pollution and spills of oil-related materials and other chemicals, and establish controls to minimize any

potential impacts to surface waters. A Fugitive Dust Plan has been developed for the operation. The plan details

the measure to be taken to reduce dust from roadways during periods of dry or windy conditions. The site is

currently not in production, but activities are taking place to keep the permit active. The following actions

are/have been completed.

1. Monthly in-house Inspections for SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan).

2. Monthly in-house Inspections for SPCC (Spill Plan Control and Countermeasures).

3. Quarterly Storm Water Discharge in-house Inspections.

4. Regular in-house Primary and Secondary Escape Inspections along with any needed scaling or cleaning

of tunnels.

5. Quarterly MSHA Regulatory Inspections (MSHA inspects our underground and surface areas for

compliance).

6. Annual in-house continuity and Ground Checks of electrical components.

7. Fire Extinguisher in-house Inspections.

8. Maintaining Electrical systems inside and outside of mine for capacitor chargers, lights and electrical

components.

9. Maintaining water management system within underground workings to keep water away from electrical

equipment.

10. Semi-annual AED and Oxygen in-house Inspections.

11. Allowing Annual Bat counts with WDNR.

12. Allowing Continuation of Scientific studies related to Bat Vaccines for WNS (White Nose Syndrome).

Staff has not received any complaints about the operation since the expansion in 2013. The applicant has

received a permit from WisDOT to mine under Hwy 35. Staff contacted the Towns of Hartland and Isabelle

regarding this renewal. We heard from Isabelle, they have no concerns. Did not hear back from the Town of

Hartland but he doesn’t think they started mining in the Town of Hartland yet so he doesn’t expect for there to

be any concerns. The existing conditions associated with the mine are listed in the staff report #1 - #27.

4

Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether any changes

or additions to the existing conditions are necessary. If no changes or additions are warranted, staff recommends

this CUP be renewed with the following conditions #1 - #27 with no changes:

1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from WI DNR,

Department of Safety and Professional Services, Mine Safety and Health Administration and other

agencies if required.

2. Applicant shall submit written verification from all real property owners granting access to the

abandoned tunnels of which WSS/WISC will be accessing pursuant to this CUP.

3. Applicant shall submit verification of lease agreements before mining is conducted and before mining is

conducted within the 100 foot setback to parcels of which WSS/WISC does not hold the mineral rights,

subject to condition number 5.

4. Applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the Town of Isabelle. The Town of Isabelle

recommended approval of this request on March 22, 2006, subject to the following conditions.

1. A map of the facility and underground tunnels shall be posted conspicuously at the site.

a. This same map shall be provided to the Town Clerk of the Town of Isabelle and emergency

officials.

b. This map shall be updated semi-annually.

2. A site stability study shall be completed by a professional engineer qualified for such work.

a. The stability of the site shall be monitored by a qualified professional engineer annually.

b. A copy of the engineer’s report shall be made available to the Town of Isabelle.

3. The groundwater shall be monitored by professionals qualified to perform such work.

a. Check all wells within 1000 feet of company wells. This is the same as county requirements.

b. The groundwater shall be monitored annually as well as any time the Town of Isabelle deems

appropriate.

c. A copy of this report shall be made available to the Town of Isabelle.

4. A reclamation plan shall be prepared –

a. In compliance with the requirements of the County of Pierce.

b. Including a performance bond to insure that reclamation work can be completed after operations

cease or the operating entity ceases to exist.

5. Hours during which blasting operations can be performed will be unrestricted unless official

complaints are registered with the Town of Isabelle.

a. Upon receipt of an official complaint to the Town of Isabelle, the Town of Isabelle will advise

the operators of the facility of the hours of blasting restrictions.

b. Within 24 hours of notification, the operators of the facility shall not perform blasting between

the hours of 9:00pm to 5:00am.

6. Town of Isabelle does not control driveway permits onto a State of Wisconsin Highway and

therefore cannot approve or deny any such driveway. However, the Town of Isabelle is very

concerned about trees on either side of the driveway blocking the view of the drivers on the

driveway and the State Highway. The Town of Isabelle strongly recommends that sufficient trees be

removed to promote safe vehicular traffic.

5. A 100-foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for which Wisconsin Specialty

Sand/Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company does not hold the mineral rights, except for any areas which

were granted an exception to this requirement. An exception was granted on the west property boundary

of the parcel subject to this CUP. Mining is permitted 57 feet from this boundary.

6. Applicant shall identify blasting frequency and all blasting shall be done by a certified state licensed

blaster.

7. Real property owners located within 1000 feet of the parcels subject to this CUP shall be notified of the

blasting schedule and be given the option of having notices sent to them by phone, text or email before

any blasting. Blasting shall be restricted to six days a week.

5

8. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all wells located

within 1000 feet of the parcels subject to the CUP.

9. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans and shall be completed within one year of ceasing

mining operations.

10. After the asphalt and road gravel is removed, following mine closure, the road bed shall be graded so

storm water will run laterally off the old road bed and not longitudinally down the old profile grade of

the road bed.

11. The financial assurance for reclamation shall be reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel before

mining commences and kept current.

12. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues that arise during or after construction shall be

addressed to the satisfaction of the county.

13. 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.

14. This CUP shall be renewed every two years.

15. 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.

16. The applicant shall submit written verification from the Department of Natural Resources that a binding

agreement between the DNR and WSS/WISC is in place to preserve the conservation values of the

existing DNR State Natural Area and associated tunnels. Such agreement shall also address access.

17. Verification of an agreement with the Wisconsin DOT shall be submitted before mining extends under

Hwy 35.

18. Outdoor storage of any equipment and/or mining materials shall only occur on the parcel with the mine

entrance.

19. Mining shall not encroach within 200 feet of any existing residence unless owner authorization has been

obtained.

20. All loaded trucks shall be tarped.

21. A fugitive dust plan that utilizes industry standards and best management practices shall be developed

and adhered to.

22. The operator shall provide notice to the County of any orders to cease and desist from MSHA.

23. Any polyacrylamide flocculants must be used consistent with WI DNR permit requirements.

24. WISC will be subject to control methods deemed adequate by the Land Management Committee for

silica emissions if current or future studies suggest a significant public health threat exists from such

emissions.

25. A groundwater response plan, including accurate determinations of the groundwater elevation 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.

26. A map of the facility and underground tunnels shall be submitted to the Town of Hartland semi-

annually.

27. No ventilation shafts or secondary access portals shall be developed until after such time as the proposed

location is reviewed by the applicable town and approved by the LMC.

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

Wisconsin Industrial Sand Company with conditions #1 - #27/Gulbranson seconded. Holst recused

himself due to the fact there could be a conflict of interest. All in favor. Passed with Holst not voting.

Discuss take action on Travel/Training Requests. Pichotta stated he has one travel/training request for Kevin

Etherton, our GIS Specialist, to attend the Wisconsin Land Information Association annual conference. This is

something we actually get grant funds for. It will be February 20th

through the 22nd

at the Red Lion Hotel in

6

Appleton, WI. Aubart moved to approve the travel/training request for Kevin Etherton to attend the

Wisconsin Land Information Association conference in Appleton/Sanden seconded. All in favor. Passed.


Pichotta stated we don’t have any agenda items for the next meeting. We have some things we are working on

in-house but we think a little more time would be prudent on those. It does seem like we are not having a lot of

meetings and the reason for that is, we are seeing less of CUP’s, but if you recall we’ve taken some of the site

plan review stuff and doing more of that on the staff level instead of bringing it before the committee. Because

there has typically not been issues with our CUP’s, more and more of the renewals are handled administratively

so it’s really just the new stuff that’s complicated that comes to you guys. He hasn’t decided if it’s good or bad

that we are having less meetings. Chairperson Fetzer stated he thinks we did the right thing, it simplifies our

meetings and as long as there aren’t issues on things, why come in and have more six and ten minute meetings.

Pichotta stated we will meet that first meeting in February.

Motion to adjourn at 6:25pm by Aubart/Holst seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.



MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.



# Action Presenter


2 Next meeting dates: January 16, February 6th

& 20th

, March 6th

&

20th

, all in 2019.

Chair

3 Approve minutes of the December 19, 2018 Land Management

Committee meeting.

Chair

4 Discuss take action on a Concept Plan for Cory & Gena Huppert,

owners, by Dan Kugel, agent, on property zoned General Rural

Flexible 8, located in the entire NE ¼ and the fractional NE ¼ of

the SE ¼, all in Section 9, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce

County, WI.

Lund


permit for Nonmetallic Mining in the General Rural, General Rural

Flexible and Primary Agriculture Districts, pursuant to Pierce

County Code Chapter 240-37A for Wisconsin Industrial Sand

Company, agent for Kathleen & John Thayer, My Course LLC,

Cynthia Hanson and MOAP LLC/TROLL KING LLC, owners on

property located in part of Sections 33, 34 and 35, All in T25N,

R17W, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI and for Wisconsin

Specialty Sands Inc, owner and agent for Nellie Anderson, My

Course, Charles & Lynn Brown, Lynn Brown, Dennis Potts,

Florness Farms LLC, Gregory & Debra Anderson and Margaret

Chesley, on property located in part of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 10, all

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

Roy







pierce county wisconsin...county code chapter 240-36d, for zeverino investments llc, david zeverino,...

Documents