LAND CONSERVATION AND ZONING COMMITTEE · 2/7/2017 · Land Conservation and Zoning Committee Members: James Seefeldt - Chair; Jacob Langenhahn - Vice-chair; Jean Maszk, Sandi Cihlar,

LAND CONSERVATION AND ZONING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Any person planning to attend this meeting who needs some type of special accommodation in order to participate should call the County Clerk’s Office at 715-261-1500 or e-mail [email protected] one business day before the meeting. FAXED TO: SIGNED News Dept. at Daily Herald (848-9361), City Pages (848-5887), Presiding Officer or Designee Midwest Radio Group (848-3158), Marshfield News (715 387-4175), TPP Printing (715 223-3505) NOTICE POSTED AT COURTHOUSE: Date: 2/2/17 Date: Time: 3:46 pm Time: a.m. / p.m. By: LJ Schultz By: County Clerk

Date & Time of Meeting: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 12:30 p.m.

Meeting Location: Large Conference Room, 210 River Drive, Wausau 54403

Land Conservation and Zoning Committee Members: James Seefeldt - Chair; Jacob Langenhahn - Vice-chair; Jean Maszk, Sandi Cihlar, Rick Seefeldt, Chris Voll, Kelly King - FSA Member

Marathon County Mission Statement: Marathon County Government serves people by leading, coordinating, and providing county, regional, and statewide initiatives. It directly or in cooperation with other public and private partners provides services and creates opportunities that make Marathon County and the surrounding area a preferred place to live, work, visit, and do business.

Conservation, Planning and Zoning Department’s Mission Statement: To protect our community's land and environment because the economic strength and vitality of our community is dependent on the quality of our resources. Through leadership, accountability, community engagement and collaborative partnerships we promote thoughtful and deliberate use of resources and innovative solutions to ensure Marathon County has healthy people, a healthy economy and a healthy environment today and tomorrow.

1. Call meeting to order

2. Request for silencing of cell phones and other electronic devices

3. 15 minute public comment

4. Approval of January 3, 2017 minutes

5. Public Hearings, possible action, possible recommendation to County Board for consideration A. Ken, Helen and Kenneth Tesch – G-A General Agriculture to L-D-R Low Density Residential – Town of Holton

6. Review and possible action, possible recommendation to County Board for consideration A. Town of Wausau – Zone change pursuant to §60.62(3) Wis. Stats. B. Town of Wausau – Text Amendments pursuant to §60.62(3) Wis. Stats. C. Text Amendment changes to Marathon County General Code of Ordinances – Chapter 17

7. Policy discussion and possible action A. POWTS Maintenance 2019

1. Response to legislation request 2. Agent status report and financial implications 3. Identification of income distressed citizens 4. Special assessments for POWTS 5. POWTS policy statement

8. Educational presentations / outcome monitoring reports, and possible action A. Citation Administration:

1. Administrative intent of citation ordinance 2. Documentation of anonymous complaints and violations (Corbett)

B. Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims – 1. 2016 Damage Claims: Party of 3 Determinations 2. Potential Permanent Fence Proposal: Update

C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) D. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) E. Department Update 1. Chapter 2 update 2. Staffing changes 3. Fenwood plan approval

9. Announcements and Requests

10. Next meeting date, time & location; Agenda items/future topics: Future agenda items Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 7, 2017, 12:30 p.m., 210 River Drive

11. Adjournment

Marathon County Land Conservation And Zoning Committee Minutes

Tuesday January 3, 2017 210 River Drive, Wausau WI

1

Attendance: Member Present Not present Chair James Seefeldt ................... X Vice-Chair Jacob Langenhahn ............. X (excused 3:30 pm) Sandi Cihlar ........................ X Kelly King ............................ X Jean Maszk ......................... X Rick Seefeldt ....................... X (excused 3:30 pm) Chris Voll ............................ X

Also present: Kurt Gibbs – County Board Chair; Arnie Schlei – County Board Supervisor; Rebecca Frisch,

Paul Daigle, Dean Johnson, Dale Dimond, Teal Fyksen, Chris Fieri, Jeff Pritchard – CPZ; Tom Radenz – REI; Tim Vreeland – Vreeland Surveying; Steve Kunst – T Rib Mountain; Jim Tharman – USDA-WS

1. Call to order – Called to order by Chair Seefeldt at 12:30 p.m. at 210 River Drive, Wausau, WI 2. Request for silencing of all cellphones and other electronic devices. 3. Public comment – None

4. Approval of December 6, 2016 minutes Motion / second by King / Cihlar to approve the December 6, 2016 minutes as distributed. Motion

carried by voice vote, no dissent.

5. Public hearings, possible action, possible recommendation to County Board for consideration A. Tim Vreeland on behalf of Lorraine Michalski – RE Rural Estate to RR Rural Residential – Town

of McMillan Discussion: Johnson was sworn in, noting the decision sheet had not been included in the meeting

packet; the request for the rezone was due to the reconfiguration of the parcel as shown on the CSM in the packet. He said the Town of McMillan is currently under the county’s old zoning code. Surrounding properties are zoned FP-Farmland Preservation but residential development has been in place for years west of the property. Future land use plan shows the area as residential; the site is not included in the 2013 Farmland Preservation plan. The town was sent a resolution on October 3, 2016. As no response had been received from the town, staff contacted the town on December 28, 2016. The town was holding a special meeting to discuss the resolution for the rezone prior to this hearing. Staff has been informed by John Bujalski that the request had been approved at a joint meeting of the town board and the town planning committee. No other comments have been received.

Vreeland was sworn in and said this was not to create new parcels but a realignment of the property line. The town had a proved the CSM.

No additional testimony was presented in favor, opposed, or as interest may appear. Testimony portion of the hearing closed at 12:46 p.m.

Action: Motion / second by Cihlar / Langenhahn to recommend approval to County Board, of the Lorraine Michalski zoning district amendment. Committee determined the rezone is consistent with the Marathon County and Town comprehensive plans, and is not in the Farmland Preservation Plan. Adequate facilities are present and providing public facilities will not burden local government. The rezone should not result in any adverse effect on natural areas. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Follow through: Forward to the County Board for action at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

6. Review and possible action, possible recommendation to County Board for consideration A. Town of Rib Mountain – Zone change pursuant to §60.62(3) Wis. Stats. Discussion: Town of Rib Mountain is independently zoned and submitted 2 Zoning Map Amendments: 1)

the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 16 from Rural Agricultural-1 (RA-1) to Estate Residential-1 (ER-1) and 2) 2804 and 2902 South Mountain Road from Rural Agricultural-1 (RA-2) to Suburban Residential-2 (SR-2) and Mixed Residential-4 (MR-4). The applicant is Royalty Homes, agent. The Zoning Map Amendments were approved by the Town Board at its December 2016 meeting. Although the town is independently zoning, County Board approval is still needed.

Action: Motion / second by Maszk / R. Seefeldt to recommend approval to County Board of the Town of Rib Mountain Zoning Map Amendments.

2 O:\Common\LCZ_comte\Minutes\2017\LAND_20170103_Minutes.doc

Follow through: Forward to the County Board for action at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

A. Royal Ridge Estates preliminary County plat – Town of Rib Mountain – Tom Radenz/REI 1. Tom Radenz/REI – Town of Rib Mountain Modification from standards of § 18.22(5)(b) for

greater than 850’ cul-de-sac Discussion: Committee action is required to approve a cul-de-sac greater than 850’ in length; the

proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 1100’ and was designed to avoid wetlands. Development is planned only to the south as the state park is north of this area. The area has sufficient access points to address safety issues. The DNR’s and Army Corp of Engineers’ conditions will be addressed in the final plat. The surveyor will initiate the process for final approval. A list of conditions to be addressed prior to approval of the final plat was distributed: 1) Approval of rezone of property from County Board, 2) Modification of Standards of § 18.22(5)(b), length of cul-de-sac approved by LCZ, 3) Copy of Wetland Delineation Report, 4) Copy of approval from town on the sewer extension approval, and 5) Copy of approved Stormwater and Erosion Control permit from DNR. If conditions are met, the final plat would be approved when it is presented to the committee.

Radenz reported a neighborhood meeting had been held to address residents’ concerns; approximately 30 of the 50 people in attendance stayed for the formal presentation. Only 2 people with concerns appeared at the public hearing. He would provide CPZ staff with a copy of Wetland Delineation Report, stated the sewer extension had been approved in December 2016, and reviewed the anticipated timeline for DNR approval of the sewer and water plans.

Kunst stated that the town and the developer had been working on this concept since 2015; it was in compliance with the town’s amended comprehensive plan and future land use map; discussed at 3 community and 2 town board meetings; the town is working with the Wausau School District on Safe Routes To School conditions; and future public access to the park is being considered and is encouraged by the town. Traffic concerns were addressed by reducing the number of lots to 8; the stormwater study will be addressed in the final plat.

Action: Motion / second by King / Voll to approve the modification from standards of § 18.22(5)(b) for greater than 850’ cul-de-sac to accommodate an 1150’ cul-de-sac for the Royal Ridge Estates preliminary County plat. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent. Motion / second by Langenhahn / Maszk to approve the Royal Ridge Estates preliminary County plat – Town of Rib Mountain, with conditions as presented. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Follow through: None needed at this time; to be placed on a future agenda when the final plat is completed with conditions met.

B. Royal View Estates preliminary State plat – Town of Rib Mountain – Tom Radenz/REI Discussion: The construction of a temporary road to provide sufficient emergency access to the

subdivision was reviewed; the 2 western most lots could not be sold to ensure sufficient right-of-way should the road become permanent. Traffic does not appear to be an issue, walking path to the school will be created; and the subdivision does not have any cul-de-sacs. A list of conditions was distributed: 1) Approval of rezone of property from County Board, 2) Approval from State Department of Administration, 3) Copy of Wetland Delineation Report, 4) Copy of approval from town on the sewer extension approval, and 5) Copy of approved Stormwater and Erosion Control permit from DNR.

Radenz reported a development agreement between the Developer and the Town would address the temporary road and other issues.

Kunst stated that the burden of meeting standards for the road fall to the town as it has village powers and anticipated that the town would hire a 3rd party engineering firm to develop the road to meet town standards. He expressed his appreciation for the process stating that the town, Developer and county staff had good meetings.

Action: Motion / second by Langenhahn / R. Seefeldt to approve the Royal View Estates preliminary State plat – Town of Rib Mountain, with conditions as presented. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Follow through: None needed at this time; to be placed on a future agenda when the final plat is completed with conditions met.

7. Policy discussion and possible action. A. Private Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: 2019 Maintenance Policy and Programming 1. Statewide Survey Results: Program Comparisons Discussion: The survey results were reviewed through a PowerPoint Presentation. Marathon County has


completed the POWTS inventory but has not developed/implemented a POWTS maintenance program that includes all inventoried POWTS. The county’s maintenance program currently does not have a related fee – to be discussed at a future date. The legislative changes to disallow inspections at time of a real estate transfer and its related impact were reviewed. The consequences of not complying with this mandate could include withholding of Wisconsin Fund (no funds in state budget) and taking the county’s agent status away.

Action: None needed, for informational purposes only.

Follow through: None needed at this time.

2. Financial Assistance Options: Overview Discussion: Funding mechanisms to provide financial assistance to residents for the replacement of

POWTS were reviewed through a PowerPoint Presentation. Discussion noted that the county does not have any census defined destressed communities, anticipated difficulties for residents to meet various program criteria, anticipated defunding of some programs, potential to fund a program with Environmental Impact Funds (EIF), and pros and cons of the various systems (mounds, holding tanks, conventional) including installation and maintenance costs.



3. Level of Services: Implementation Options Discussion: This PowerPoint Presentation continued the discussion started at the December meeting and

covered additional information on the level of service. Discussion noted that this was a state mandate and could result in financial distress for county residents; systems since 1980 are code compliant and are included in maintenance program; replacements were up when inspections were required as part of a real estate transfer (2010-2015); and inspections are done when systems are pumped with either a pumper or plumber reporting a surface discharge. It was noted that Option 1 is current practice; Option 2 was an accelerated version of Option 1.

Gibbs noted that the Wisconsin Fund no longer existed as an option as it was defunded, did not think inflation costs had been accounted for in the presentation, and the $1.2 million of the EIF funds to fund systems may not be available as $1.2 million of these funds have been earmarked for the Uniform Address project.

Frisch responded that inflation had been partially accounted for in the graphs as replacement was upped from $10,000 to $12,000. She also stated that to a small extent, locational information could be provided on systems needing replacement. The support of all supervisors, including those from the metro area, is needed as 7000 systems need to get into the maintenance system. As Marathon County was in the minority of counties that have not implemented a full maintenance program, she was uncertain how much political pressure could be brought to bear at the State level to get this changed. She briefly outlined the measures that may be available to assist residents with the financial costs of replacements. Staff could provide a report at a future meeting regarding the department’s agent status.

Other discussion themes included: Policy discussion regarding enforcement with criteria, scenarios, and possible inclusion of

corporation counsel Need to understand the state’s position regarding this mandate Use of a special assessment on property taxes for county to recoup the cost


Follow through: Staff will prepare a report on the department’s agent status for the February meeting.

B. Chapter 17 General Zoning Text amendments 1. Town survey results Discussion: The survey results were included in the meeting packet; 9 of 28 responses were received.



2. Summary of Proposed Text amendments Discussion: A summary of the text amendments was included in the meeting packet and included a link to the code’s website.



Follow through: None needed at this time. 3. Request for Public Hearing on Chapter 17, General Zoning text amendments Discussion: The committee was asked to review and provide input on the text amendments included in the summary and on the website. Notices will be sent to the town; the new zoning code includes a process regarding a town’s role. Staff was requesting that a public hearing be scheduled for the February committee meeting.

Action: Motion / second by King / Langenhahn to schedule a public hearing on the proposed text amendments to Chapter 17, General Zoning for February 7, 2017. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Follow through: The towns will be sent notice of the text amendments and a public hearing will be scheduled for February 7, 2017.

8. Educational presentations / outcome monitoring reports, and possible action A. Citation Administration: Review of history and administration activity

Discussion: Due to time, this item will be placed on the February agenda.

Action: None.

Follow through: This will be on the February agenda.

B. Wildlife Damage Abatement & Claims – 2017 Potential Permanent Fence Proposals (Tharman) Discussion: Two proposals for potential permanent fences will be presented in 2017. The fences would be cost shared (75% state / 25% property owner) and would have a 15 year contract. One of the proposals would be to fence row crops as the state believes the fence would be more cost effective than paying the maximum annual damage claims, averaging $8,000-10,000. The property owner will be contacted after the positions of the committee and the state are verified. If the property owner denies the recommended abatement (fence) any future claims would be denied making 2016 the last year claims would be paid.

The second fence was approved 8 or 9 years ago but not constructed due to lack of funding. It will be re-presented due to the lapse in time.

Action: Motion / second by Voss / Cihlar to recommend going forward with the two potential permanent fence proposals. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Follow through: The actual fence proposals will be presented at a future meeting. C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) – No report D. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – No report E. Department Update: (1) 2017 Meeting Schedule Discussion: Committee attendance is important given the committee’s discussions on policy and other issues; however the established schedule can make attending challenging for some. Changing the established schedule is also challenging given the members’ other committee and work obligations. The committee is free to establish its schedule and Administration has made it clear that staff is available to support the committees. It is possible to schedule 2 meetings a month, following the current schedule for public hearings and the second meeting for policy discussions.

Action: None.

Follow through: None.

9. Announcements and Requests – None.

10. Next meeting date, time & location Tuesday, February 7, 2017, 12:30 p.m., 210 River Drive, Wausau.

11. Adjourn – Motion / second by Voll / King to adjourn at 3:45 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote, no dissent.

Rebecca Frisch, CPZ Director for James Seefeldt, Chair cc: (via email/web site) LCZ members; County Administrator; Deputy County Administrator; Conservation, Planning, & Zoning; Corporation Counsel; County Clerk;

County Board Members, DATCP, DNR, FSA, NRCS, USDA/APHIS RF/ljs

Kenneth S., Kenneth F. and Helen L. Tesch Petition to Rezone Land

Conservation, Planning and Zoning Committee Decision Form

Findings of Fact

Request: The petition of Kenneth S., Kenneth F. and Helen L. Tesch for a rezone from G-A General Agricultural to L-D-R Low Density Residential. The property to be rezoned is described as part of the SE¼ SW¼, Section 17, T29N, R2E, Town of Holton, as shown in the proposed survey as lot #1. The petitioners are dividing off the existing buildings and selling them while keeping the rest of the agricultural land. Existing uses: G-A General Agricultural. The purpose of the G-A district is designed to foster the preservation and use of agricultural land related uses and to provide for limited residential uses in a rural environment but not the division of land as classified in §18.07(2) and (3) into 5 or more tracts, parcels or lots within a 5 year period. This district provides for limited residential development of modest densities that require relatively large land areas that are compatible with the surrounding rural land use activities. The district is intended to provide towns with multiple options to guide growth and development in concert with the comprehensive planning efforts. Proposed Uses L-D-R Low Density Residential District. The purpose of the L-D-R district is to accommodate single-family residential use along existing streets and to promote single-family residential development (involving the extension of new streets) where sanitary sewer and municipal water may be available. The densities are intended to provide for areas of suburban character in the community and to prevent excessive demands on sewerage and water systems, streets, schools, and other community facilities. The districts are intended to avoid overcrowding by requiring certain minimum yards, open spaces, and site area while making available a variety of dwelling types and densities to serve a wide range of individual requirements and thereby providing a more orderly and efficient extension of public facilities. Surrounding Conditions The properties surrounding this area are zoned G-A – General Agricultural (gray), with some residential lots (Sand & Yellow Color) and one industrial site (pink).

The future land use map shows the area mapped as single family residential.

This site was placed into the Farmland Preservation plan in 2013. Placing the property in the Farmland Preservation Plan designated that this was an area of strong agricultural practice. The surrounding area is in active agricultural practices at this time, buildings are just being removed.

The Town of Holton met on December 7, 2016, reviewed the application, and recommends approval without any concerns stating the separation of the buildings and small area for private garden is not impeding the rest of the property from agricultural practices. No other agencies have submitted comments to our office.

Property Air photo Property Location Map

Proposed CSM

Conclusions of Law

Marathon County must consider all of the following standards in their decision. Please review and explain how the request does or does not meet each of these standards. To approve a rezoning, the county must answer ‘agree’ to each of these standards. If the county recommends approval, but answered ‘disagree’ to any of these questions, they should indicate plan/ordinance changes, and/or additional information required to satisfy the criteria. 1. The rezoning is consistent with the Marathon County and Town Comprehensive Plan. (Note how the proposal relates to

the future land use map and the vision, goals, objectives, and policies of the plan). agree disagree insufficient information

2. The rezoning is substantially consistent with the Marathon County Farmland Preservation Plan. agree disagree insufficient information

3. The location of the proposed development minimizes the amount of agricultural land converted. agree disagree insufficient information

4. Adequate public facilities to serve the rezone are present or will be provided. (Note impacts on highways, streets, water,

sewage, drainage, schools, emergency services, etc.). agree disagree insufficient information

5. Providing public facilities will not be an unreasonable burden to local government. agree disagree insufficient information

6. The applicant has demonstrated a need for the proposed development? agree disagree insufficient information

7. The applicant has demonstrated the land is better suited for a use not allowed in the farmland preservation zoning district? agree disagree insufficient information

http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/Departments/ConservationPlanningZoning/PlanningServices/ComprehensivePlanning/CountyComprehensivePlan.aspx

http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/Departments/ConservationPlanningZoning/PlanningServices/ComprehensivePlanning/MunicipalPlans.aspx

http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/Departments/ConservationPlanningZoning/FarmlandPreservation/FarmlandPreservationPlan.aspx

8. The rezoning will not cause unreasonable air and water pollution, soil erosion, or adverse effects on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.

agree disagree insufficient information

9. The rezone will not substantially impair or limit current of future agricultural use of other protected farmland. agree disagree insufficient information

10. The Town has approved the proposed rezone of the property. agree disagree insufficient information

11. All concerns from other agencies on the proposed rezone have been addressed? (DNR, Highway, DOT) What are the concerns?

agree disagree insufficient information

Land Conservation and Zoning Committee Decision On the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the record in this matter, the Marathon County Land Conservation and Zoning Committee finds that the rezoning is:

Approved Denied, for the following reasons Tabled for further consideration

Specify reasons for denial, or additional information requested:

An amendment to the county comprehensive plan is needed to approve this petition. An amendment to the county farmland preservation plan is needed to approve this petition.

Describe recommended amendments: Signature: Chairman: Date: _____________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) MARATHON COUNTY ) TOWN OF WAUSAU )

REPORT BY LAND CONSERVATION AND ZONING COMMITTEE

TO COUNTY BOARD ON REQUEST TO APPROVE THE ZONING AMENDMENTS OF THE TOWN OF WAUSAU

TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF MARATHON COUNTY:

The Marathon County Land Conservation and Zoning Committee, having considered the request

to review amendments of the Town Zoning Ordinance filed by the Clerk of the Town of Wausau, and

having heard comments in public session thereon, and being duly informed of the facts pertinent to the

changes proposed, having reviewed the staff's recommendations, and duly advised of the wishes of the

Town, hereby recommends that the County Board, pursuant to §60.62(3), approves the zoning ordinance

and/or zoning map of the Town of Wausau as attached. Dated this 7th day of February, 2017

Marathon County Land Conservation and Zoning Committee ___________________________________________________ James Seefeldt - Chairman M:\LCZ\IndepzonBB4.doc

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) COUNTY OF MARATHON ) SS TOWN OF WAUSAU ) RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, §60.62(3) Wis. Stats. provides that any Zoning Ordinance and/or map adopted by a Town Board and any amendment thereof shall be subject to the approval of the County Board in counties having a county zoning ordinance, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Wausau has amended their zoning as shown on the attached report, and

WHEREAS, the County Zoning Committee has duly considered the amendment in public session on November 7, 2016 and has recommended approval of the amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Marathon County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the amendment to the Town of Wausau Zoning Ordinance and/or Zoning map as attached and made part of this record, all of which to be filed with the Marathon County Clerk.


__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

M:\LCZ\IndepzonBB5.doc

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) MARATHON COUNTY ) TOWN OF WAUSAU )

REPORT BY LAND CONSERVATION AND ZONING COMMITTEE

TO COUNTY BOARD ON REQUEST TO APPROVE THE ZONING AMENDMENTS OF THE TOWN OF WAUSAU

TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF MARATHON COUNTY:

The Marathon County Land Conservation and Zoning Committee, having considered the request

to review amendments of the Town Zoning Ordinance filed by the Clerk of the Town of Wausau, and

having heard comments in public session thereon, and being duly informed of the facts pertinent to the

changes proposed, having reviewed the staff's recommendations, and duly advised of the wishes of the

Town, hereby recommends that the County Board, pursuant to §60.62(3), approves the zoning ordinance

and/or zoning map of the Town of Wausau as attached. Dated this 7th day of February, 2017

Marathon County Land Conservation and Zoning Committee ___________________________________________________ James Seefeldt - Chairman M:\LCZ\IndepzonBB4.doc

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) COUNTY OF MARATHON ) SS TOWN OF WAUSAU ) RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, §60.62(3) Wis. Stats. provides that any Zoning Ordinance and/or map adopted by a Town Board and any amendment thereof shall be subject to the approval of the County Board in counties having a county zoning ordinance, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Wausau has amended their zoning as shown on the attached report, and

WHEREAS, the County Zoning Committee has duly considered the amendment in public session on December 5, 2016 and has recommended approval of the amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Marathon County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the amendment to the Town of Wausau Zoning Ordinance and/or Zoning map as attached and made part of this record, all of which to be filed with the Marathon County Clerk.


__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

M:\LCZ\IndepzonBB5.doc

MEMORANDUM

O:\CPZ\ZONING\2017_Zoning_Revisions\text admendments2-2-17.doc

TO: Land Conservation and Zoning Committee (LCZC) Members FROM: Dean Johnson, Zoning Administrator DATE: February 2, 2017 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MARATHON COUNTY GENERAL CODE OF

ORDINANCES – CHAPTER 17 At the February 7, 2017 LCZC meeting the proposed text amendments to Chapter 17 of the Marathon County General Code of Ordinances will be reviewed. Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ) staff will document any comments/questions about the proposed text amendments from the committee and the public to enable staff to finalize the code language for a public hearing and County Board action in March. Along with taking comments I would like to review the following 5 items with the committee:

1) Update on current participation in the County Zoning Program 2) Review the Text amendment timeline 3) Review the Towns’ and LCZC’s responsibilities regarding text amendments 4) Review of the proposed text amendments (see attached). The code with text amendment

changes can be found at: https://goo.gl/XUfnHl 5) Introduction and discussion of 4 additional text amendments. (See attached, additions are

marked with a red arrow) If you have any questions or concerns regarding these text amendments, please contact me at 715-261-6000.

https://goo.gl/XUfnHl

Summary of Proposed Text Amendments 2017

Following is a summary of proposed text amendments to the Marathon County General Code of Ordinance Chapter 17. The ordinance with proposed code changes can be found on the Marathon County Website: http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/Portals/0/Departments/CPZ/Documents/ZoningCodeChapter17ProposedTextAmendments.pdf Code Section Change Requested Reason for Change Table of Contents Addition and renumbering of

Sections in the code As changes are made the table of contents will need to be updated to ensure accuracy of links and page numbers.

17.101.10 Effective Date Change of the effective date of the ordinance.

Reflect the date of the text amendment approval in the code

17.202.02 Standard Methods of Measurement (Table # 2)

Minimum Lot Regulations - Addition of Easement Acreage Note

References easement note in code

17.202.03 Footnotes to the Schedule of Regulations (B)

1) Addition of Setbacks to Private Onsite Waste Treatment Systems (POWTS)

POWTS are structures that require setbacks set by the State. CPZ wants to ensure that homeowners do not compromise their POWTS.

17.202.03 Footnotes to the Schedule of Regulations (F)(1e)

1) Adding the requirement that all new structures shall meet road, side and rear setbacks even if an existing structure was built at 63 feet from centerline. 2) Changing class of road from Class B to Class C

1). All new structures must meet the new setbacks. 2) This was a typo and should have been Class C (town road)

17.202.03 Footnotes to the Schedule of Regulations (I)

No permanent easement shall be recorded which reduces the lot size below the minimum acreage requirement.

Zoning districts require lot size or acreage depending on the land use. If an easement is required, the lot size/acreage may be reduced to the point that a variance may be required. This language will prevent the reduction of the lot size/acreage to a point where it is not compliant with the current zoning district requirements.

17.202.11Minimum Floor Area per Dwelling Unit

Replacing of “floor area” with “living area”

Change terminology for consistency within code.

Code Section Change Requested Reason for Change 17.203.05 Table of Permitted Uses (Table # 3)

1) Allowing Single family residents as conditional uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) and Commercial (C ) districts

2) Addition of Archery Ranges as a permitted use in the Rural Estate (R-E), General Agriculture (GA) and Farmland Preservation (F-P) Districts.

3) Deletion of Campers (Private) in use chart

1) Some property owners have businesses on the same property as their principal residence. This amendment would allow the Board of Adjustment to allow single family homes in districts not normally designed for single family homes in some cases. 2) Archery ranges are not addressed in the code except under Ranges. This would open opportunities for this sport which is less disruptive than Gun Ranges. 3) This was a duplicated area and placed under recreational vehicles

17.204.01 Agricultural Buildings and Uses (F)(1)

Addition of an exception for chickens

Clarifies that in a Low Density Residential (L-D-R) District all livestock are prohibited except for chickens.

17.204.07 Kennel and Pet Boarding Facility

1) Change enclosure setbacks for housing animals from 200 feet to 100 feet from the property line.

The 200 foot setback seemed overly restrictive and limiting, especially for smaller parcels. By reducing the setback, more buildable area will be available on the smaller parcels

17.204.11 Ponds Addition of Section D – Exempt Activities

Addition of this section will eliminate the requirement for Non Metallic Mines to obtain Pond Permits in addition to DNR, and Non Metallic Reclamation Permits.

17.204.22 Manufactured and Mobile homes

1) Separated Manufactured and Mobile homes in this section

2) Added definition of Manufactured Homes

3) Updated State code references

1) Provides clarity with the two different uses and types of homes. 2) Provided clarity as to the difference between a Manufactured Home and a Mobile Home 3) Updated to match appropriate State and Federal codes

17.204.40 Archery Ranges Addition of Archery Range standards for permitted and conditional uses within districts

Archery ranges were not addressed in the code except as Ranges. This would allow for opportunities for this sport which is less disruptive than gun ranges.

Code Section Change Requested Reason for Change 17.204.48 Places of Assembly

Addition of standards that would have to be met for Wedding Barns

The Department of Safety and Professional Services has established guidelines for this type of use, so the minimum requirements have been added.

17.204.51Nonmetallic Mining (C)(5)

Deleted the “Removal of asphalt plant” from list of equipment required to be removed after extraction operations are completed.

Asphalt plants (Temporary) are a separate use. Eliminates confusion related to their use within Non-Metallic Mines

17.204.55 Hunting and/or Fishing Shelters

Modification of standards for Hunting Fishing Shelters in the General Ag district

1) Adding that only one hunting fishing shelter is allowed on each property.

2) Allowing plumbing and POWTS systems as an option for the structures.

17.204.59 Concrete and/or Asphalt Plants (Temporary)

Addition of standards for temporary concrete and asphalt plants

Added language that defines temporary concrete and asphalt plant standards. Also, gives the Board of Adjustment authority to set standards for these temporary plants.

17.301.07 Conditional Residential Uses

Modification of standards for Hunting Fishing Shelters in the Farmland Preservation District

1) Adding that only one hunting fishing shelter is allowed on each property.

2) Allowing plumbing and POWTS systems as an option for the structures.

Code Section Change Requested Reason for Change 17.401.02 Accessory Buildings

1) Addition of “by a common wall” in the definition of Attached Accessory Buildings

2) Changes to allow detached accessory structures in the front yard

3) Increasing the maximum size allowed in the Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Estate (RE) districts

4) Removal of length to width ratio on a building

5) Removal of the requirement for overhead type doors only.

1) This gives standardization to the code and defines an attached building.

2) Change made per discussions with the Land Conservation and Zoning Committee. Issues arose specifically on waterfront lots.

3) Increased max size in the RR District to 1,500 sq. ft. with no maximum size in the RR district.

4) Removal of the length to width ratio allows more building options on narrower lots.

5) Removes overhead door requirement and allows other door options (swinging, hinged, etc.) for property owners based on the use of the storage building.

17.401.05 (B) Increasing maximum height of fences in non-residential districts from 3 feet to 4 feet in the front yards

Creates consistency in the code for height of fences in front yards

17.802.02 –Zoning Application requirements

Adding the requirement that temporary buildings be shown on the plot plan

This requirement was missing from the list of items to be shown on plot plans. Provides staff with documentation of all structures to ensure compliance with setbacks and other standards.

17.807.05 Other Enforcement Provisions

Addition of WI Statue 59.692(1t) stating that Marathon County may not commence enforcement of a structure that has been in place for more than 10 years.

This state statue was missed during the initial drafting of the general code and is a requirement that Marathon County must abide by.

Code Section Change Requested Reason for Change 17.902 General Definitions 1) Reformatting of Table 17

Animal Units

2) Addition of examples of how to calculate acreage needed and number of animals permitted by animal unit calculations

3) Addition of definitions for Migrant Worker and Migrant Labor Camp

4) Clarity to Single Family Dwelling – Attached

5) Clarity to Minor Structure Definition

6) Clarity to “Yard Terms”

1) Made the Animal Unit table easier to understand.

2) Additional examples added on how to calculate animal units using smaller district examples.

3) Adding clarity to Migrant Worker Camps by defining a Migrant Labor Camp and Migrant Worker.

4) Clarifies that an attached Single Family Dwelling can be for 2 families. (Duplex)

5) Removal of certain small items from the definitions for clarity and consistency.

6) Made the definition for the yard easier to understand and follow for clarity to the code.

Title 4: General Provisions

77

Table of

Contents

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen.

Provisions

Title 5

Parking

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

signs

Title 8

Administration

Title 9

Definitions

Title 4: GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 17.401 Accessory Structures and Fences

Section 17.401.01 GENERAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES

A. Principal Building Required. In residential districts, accessory structures or buildings may only be constructed on a lot that contains a principal building.

B. Appearance. To the extent possible, the exterior façade materials and architectural design of all accessory structures shall match the character of the use to which they are accessory. It is strongly encouraged that the overall appearance of the structure shall be in accordance with the purpose of the district where it is located.

C. Temporary Accessory Structures. In residential districts, temporary accessory structures that do not require permanent attachment to the ground but have similar characteristics as an accessory structure and are intended to serve the same purpose as an accessory structure with permanent attachment, such as moveable carports, shall meet district yard setback requirements.

Section 17.401.02 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS An accessory building may be erected upon a lot on which a principal structure already exists. The use of the accessory building must be secondary and incidental to the principal use.

A. Attached Accessory Buildings. An accessory building which is attached to the main building by a common wall and roof shall comply with all the requirements and regulations that are applicable to the principal building.

B. Detached Accessory Buildings. Detached accessory buildings shall comply with the requirements of the following Table 6:

C. Accessory Structures housing Livestock: Reference 17.204.01 (A)(3)

D. Construction of Detached Accessory Structure outside of the building standards: A conditional use permit can be applied for the construction of a detached accessory structure with floor area and components differing from the standards listed in 17.401.02,

Table 6. Detached Accessory Building Standards

Requirement

Residential Districts

(U-R or L-D-R) Districts


(RR & RE)

Residential District

(RE)

Agricultural Districts

(GA & FP)

Any Other Zoning District

Location Rear or , side yardor front

yard

Rear, side or front yard

Rear, side or front yard Rear, side or

front yard Rear, side or

front yard

Principle Structure must exist prior to YES YES NO NO YES

Setback Requirements from principal structure

15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet

from side property line 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet

Minimum setback

required in zoning district

from rear property line 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7feet Minimum setback

required in

Formatted: Font: Bold



Formatted Table

pldnj1

Line


78

Table o

f

Conten

ts

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen

eral

Provisio

ns

Title 5

Parkin

g

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

Signs

Title 8

Administratio

n

Title 9

Defin

itions

zoning district

Lot Coverage

(based on usable building space) (*)

25% 10% 10% -- 25%

Maximum Size 1200 sq ft 1800 sq ft NONE NONE NONE

Maximum Height (**) 24 feet 24 feet 35 feet *** 35 feet ***


79

Table of

Contents

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen.

Provisions

Title 5

Parking

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

signs

Title 8

Administration

Title 9

Definitions

* “Useable building space” as used in the proceeding Table 6 means that area of the yard that remains after allowing for the side yard and rear yard requirements and the setback requirements for the main building and any existing accessory or other type buildings in the yard, excluding swimming pools located within residential districts and shall meet the following requirements:

1. No accessory buildings may be used as a separate dwelling unit.

2. Any structure having more than 1 wall forming an enclosure shall have less floor area than the principal structure and shall not exceed 1200 square feet.

3. The length of the structure shall not be more than 2 times its width.

4. Side walls shall not exceed 14 feet in height, from the top plate to the finished floor.

5. The maximum building height, refer to Table 46.

6. Garage doors shall be of the overhead type with a maximum height of 12 feet.

7. Existing and new accessory buildings shall comply with Marathon County shoreland regulations and provisions.

** “Maximum height” in Shoreland areas: refer to Chapter 22 Marathon County Shoreland, Shoreland-Wetland, and Floodplain Regulations.

*** For height exemptions refer to Section 17.202.07.

Section 17.401.03 DECKS AND LANDINGS A. Setbacks.

1. The outer perimeter of a deck shall not extend into a setback area.

2. Decks and Landings in shoreland areas refer to General Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 Shoreland, Shoreland-Wetlands, and Floodplain & NR 115.

B. Deck height. The surface of any attached deck that extends more than 10 feet from the face of the building to which it is attached shall not be higher than the first floor elevation of the principal structure.

Section 17.401.04 SWIMMING POOLS Public or private in-ground or above-ground swimming, wading or other pools containing over 1½ feet of water depth shall be considered as structures for the purpose of permits, shall not be located in front yards but may be located in side and/or rear yards subject to location regulations pertaining to accessory structures.

Section 17.401.05 FENCES/WALL REGULATIONS Any fence or wall shall be well maintained, harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing character of the immediate area in which it is to be located, and shall not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.

A. Residential Districts.

1. Location in Front Yards. In residential districts, a fence, wall, hedge, or shrubbery may be erected, placed, maintained, or grown along a lot line on residentially zoned property or adjacent thereto to a height not exceeding 6 feet above the ground level, except that no fence, wall, hedge, or shrubbery which is located in a required front or corner side yard shall exceed a height of 4 feet.

2. Materials. Barbed wire and other similar hazardous materials are prohibited in residential districts, except for agricultural uses.

3. Fences in shoreland areas refer to Chapter 22 Marathon County Shoreland, Shoreland-Wetland and Floodplain and NR 115.

Title 8: Administration

158

Table o

f

Conten

ts

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen

eral

Provisio

ns

Title 5

Parkin

g

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

Signs

Title 8

Administratio

n

Title 9

Defin

itions

Chapter 17.808 Hearing Application Fee Refund Policy

Section 17.808.01 REFUND POLICY A. Applicants for Committee or Board of Adjustment hearings may request a refund of the application fee

within one year of Committee or Board action if the application for hearing was necessitated by either or both of the following circumstances:

1. A mistake of material fact by a county employee. A mistake of material fact means an inadvertent error by a county employee with respect to any fact (e.g. measurement, distance, physical location, etc.) which is essential to the ultimate determination of the Committee or Board.

2. A misapplication of zoning ordinance by a county employee. A misapplication of zoning ordinance means an inadvertent error by a county employee with respect to the applicability of a specific code section to a given fact situation (e.g. category or usage, etc.), and does not include a good faith dispute with respect to the interpretation of zoning code sections.

3. A Change in regulations during application process: If a hearing application is processed during a revision to the code and the regulations change prior to the hearing resulting in no need for the hearing.

B. Notice of this policy shall be provided to all applicants for hearing by the Zoning Administrator. Refund requests shall be made, in writing, to the office of the Zoning Administrator

C. Upon receipt of a request for refund of application fees, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule the matter for determination by the Committee.

D. The Committee shall take up the matter upon proper notice to the requestor and is empowered to grant a refund of the application fee if the Committee finds that either or both of the circumstances set forth above exist.

E. Said decision by the Committee is subject to Administrative Review procedure set forth in Chapter 24 of the General Code of Ordinances for the County of Marathon.

Formatted: Underline

pldnj1

Line

Title 2: Zoning Districts and Uses

19

Table of

Contents

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen

.

Provisions

Title 5

Parking

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

signs

Title 8

Administratio

n

Title 9

Definitions

Key: P Permitted Use C Conditional Use (Blank) Use Not Permitted

USE



Nonresidential Districts

Development Standards

U‐R

L‐D‐R

R‐R

R‐E

F‐P

G‐A

C‐V/R

‐C

N‐C

C

B‐R

L‐I H‐I

Facility Providing Agricultural Supplies P P

Facility Storing and/or Processing Agricultural Products P P

Section 17.204.03 Note: See Title 3 for specific Farmland Preservation Regulations

Facility used for the centralized bulk collection, storage, and distribution of agricultural products to wholesale and retail markets

C C

Facility used to provide veterinarian services C C

Saw Mill C C Section 17.204.04

Forest Management, Nursery, Sod, or Christmas Tree Production, Silviculture, Floriculture,

P P P P

Fur Farming P P

Keeping Livestock P P P P P P Section 17.204.01

Kennel and Pet Boarding C C C Section 17.204.07

Livestock collection and Transfer Depots C C P Section 17.204.08

Manure Storage Facilities P P Section 17.204.09

Maple Syrup Processing P P P P

Migrant workers Housing P P Section 17.204.10

Ponds P P P P P P P P P P P P Section 17.204.11

Processing and Production of Biomass Materials C C

Section 17.204.03 Note: See Title 3 for specific Farmland Preservation Regulations

Roadside Stand P P P P Section 17.204.12

Slaughterhouse C C C Section 17.204.13

Stable, public (riding academies), and Stable, private C P P C Section 17.204.14

Stockwater Ponds P P Section 17.204.15

Winery P P P

RESIDENTIAL USES Mixed Residential Development Option C C C Section 17.204.16

Manufactured Home and Mobile Home P P P P P P P Section 17.204.22

Manufactured Mobile Home Park (existing areas only)

C C Chapter 17.302

Mixed Use Building – Residential with Non‐residential C Section 17.204.17

Multi‐Family Dwelling C Section 17.204.18

Conservation Development Option P P P P Section 17.204.19

Single‐Family Dwelling, Detached P P P P P C C Section 17.204.20

Two‐Family Dwelling P C C C P P Section 17.204.21

Farm Residence (Farm Preservation District)

P Section 17.301.06

pldnj1

Line

Title 2: Zoning Districts and Uses

20

Table o

f

Conten

ts

Title 1

Purpose &

Scope

Title 2

Districts &

Uses

Title 3

Special

Districts

Title 4

Gen

eral

Provisio

ns

Title 5

Parkin

g

Title 6

Landscap

ing

Title 7

Signs

Title 8

Administratio

n

Title 9

Defin

itions

Key: P Permitted Use C Conditional Use (Blank) Use Not Permitted

USE



Nonresidential Districts

Development Standards

U‐R

L‐D‐R

R‐R

R‐E

F‐P

G‐A

C‐V/R

‐C

N‐C

C

B‐R

L‐I H‐I

COMMUNITY, CIVIC, and INSTITUTIONAL USES Campgrounds and Recreational Vehicle Parks C C Section 17.204.23

Cemetery P P P P P P Section 17.204.24

Charitable or Philanthropic Use C C C C C C Section 17.204.25

Day Care C C P P C Section 17.204.26

Community Gardens P P P P P P C

Community Living Arrangement (1‐8 residents)

P P P P P P C C Section 17.204.27

Community Living Arrangement (9‐15 residents) C C C C C Section 17.204.27

Community Living Arrangement (16 residents and greater) C C Section 17.204.27

Essential Services and Utilities C C C C C C C C C C Hospitals, Medical Clinics, and Human Care Institutions C P P P Section 17.204.29

Institutions for Higher Education, Parochial, Technical School, Colleges, and Universities

C C C C Section 17.204.30

Municipal, Cultural, or Public Use P P P P C P P P P P P P Section 17.204.28

Place of Worship P P P P C

P P P P P P P P Section 17.204.31

K‐12 School, C C C C C C Section 17.204.32

Wildlife Refuge or Game Preserve C P Recreation, Public P P P P P P P P Facilities for a Private Club, Fraternal Organization, or Community Group

C C C C C C C C C Section 17.204.33

Transportation and Utilities, Governmental, Institutional, Religious, or Nonprofit Community Uses (Farm Preservation District)

C Note: See Title 3 for specific Farmland Preservation Regulations

COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, and SERVICE USES Adult Entertainment C Section 17.204.34

Bank or Financial Institution P P P

Bar, Tavern, or Micro‐Brewery C P P P

Bed and Breakfast C C C C Section 17.204.35

Business Service Establishment C P P P

Car Wash C C C C Section 17.204.36

Drive‐Through Facility (accessory to a principal use) P P Section 17.204.37

Gas Station C C Section 17.204.38

Motel or Hotel C C C

Office, Research, Professional Services P P P P P

Personal Service Establishment C P P P

Gun Ranges C C C Section 17.204.39

Archery Range P P P XXXXXXXXXX

pldnj1

Line

MEMORANDUM

O:\Zoning\POWTSmaintenance2019\ImplementatioMemo2017.docx

TO: Jim Seefeldt, Land Conservation and Zoning Committee (LCZC) Chair FROM: Paul Daigle, Land and Water Program Director Conservation, Planning, and Zoning Department DATE: February 7, 2017 SUBJECT: PRIVATE ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (POWTS) 2019

MAINTENANCE

The LCZC requested the following information at the January meeting:

1. Is there any proposed State legislation to move the POWTS 2019 maintenance requirement?

Senator Jerry Petrowski replied saying: He has not heard of anything. Nor does he anticipate that it will be moved again since it was extended several times. Furthermore from what he has heard most counties are implementing the mandate and no one that he knows of is looking to extend it again.

Other areas legislators have been contacted and no replies have been received.

2. POWTS agent status report and financial implications: Please see report in packet.

3. Can income distressed citizens that might be affected by this mandate be identified?

Currently CPZ staff does not have a mechanism to identify the economic status of individuals that may be affected as a result of this maintenance requirement. Staff works to offer program assistance to citizens and help citizens, upon request, find financial assistance whenever possible.

4. Can the county add special assessments for the installation of a POWTS to a landowner?

The State allows the county to add a special assessment for the costs related to the pumping of a septic or holding tank in the same manner that a city, village or town makes an assessment Wis. Stats. 145.20 (4)

The POWTS staff, with planning and zoning staff, has since September 2016, provided the Land Conservation and Zoning committee the background and information on the 2019 POWTS maintenance mandates along with current and alternative options for prioritizing implementation. Specific aspects and challenges of the mandate were provided and discussed over the last several months. In order to plan a public engagement process and develop a prioritization implementation plan, we request committee action as follows:

1. Acknowledge current POWTS administration efforts:

Beginning May 2018: send notices to 1969-1980 POWTS owners on maintenance requirements

Beginning May 2020: send notices to Pre-1969 POWTS owners on maintenance requirements

2. Accept Final policy statement

3. Direct CPZ staff to develop priority implementation plan for LCZC review and action

4. Direct CPZ staff to develop Public Engagement plan for LCZC review and action

Marathon County

POWTS PLAN REVIEW

AGENT STATUS February 7, 2017

The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) delegated authority to review plans for certain types of POWTS to the Marathon County Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ) Department. This authority is referred to as “agent status.” This review authority was expanded in 2016 to include mound, at‐grade, and pressurized in‐ground systems.

Marathon County currently has agent status to review POWTS plans:

Since 1‐1‐01 for: Holding tanks: design flow 3,000 ‐ 4,500 gallons per day (gpd) Conventional systems: public/commercial uses <3,000 gpd

Since 1‐1‐16 for: Pressurized in‐ground: 1 & 2 family dwellings At‐grades: 1 & 2 family dwellings Mounds: 1 & 2 family dwellings

Without agent status, state (DSPS) approval of these plans would be required.

Fees for these plan reviews are as set by DSPS (charged in addition to the sanitary permit fee).

Responsibility for review of the following POWTS plans is delegated by code to all counties (agent status not required):

Holding tanks: 3,000 gpd Conventional systems: 1 & 2 family dwellings

There is not a separate plan review fee for these holding tanks and conventional systems above as the fee is included in sanitary permit fee.

Miscellaneous review includes certain repairs or alterations, such as tank replacements.

No “additional” fee is charged due to county agent status. Without agent status, plan review fees collected by CPZ in 2016 would have been paid to the state (DSPS).

Agent Status Report 2016:

123 POWTS design reviews ($250.00 review fee) = $30,750.00 6 miscellaneous reviews ($80.00 review fee) = $480.00

Total 2016 Plan Review Revenues $31,230.00 Average time from receipt of plan/fee to plan approval = 2.7 business days

O:\Zoning\POWTS_AnnualReport&Audits\Agent_Status_Report_withComments_2016.docx

Marathon County

Plumber and POWTS Designer Survey Results

After one year of providing agent review services to our customers, CPZ conducted a survey of seven frequent agent status customers (plumbers and POWTS designers) to determine the level of their satisfaction. Below are the summarized comments, which represent 38% of the plans reviewed under agent status in 2016.

1. How has the permitting process been in 2016?

Very good, very well, good, satisfied, quicker, much easier, mound systems very well, works fine.

2. How has the review time duration been?

Quick, great improvement, really good, much faster, fine, satisfied, good, rush jobs good.

3. How has the additional agent status choices (mound, in ground pressure, at grade) helped or

not helped?

Helped speed of review, good communication if problems arise, helped a lot, better than state,

better by 5 to 7 working days, better communication, helped, helped no guessing, helped less

than two weeks turn around, quicker.

4. How would your process be affected without our agent status (1&2 family conv/H.T.<3000 gal.

est. flow)?

Slow time line down substantially, huge inconvenience for our customers, three times worse,

longer time for permits & customer satisfaction, hate to see it, not a stable time frame, take

longer, go back to the dark ages two to four weeks.

5. How can we improve our ability to serve you?

Not sure, been doing good, additional inspection slots, doing good, no complaints, very helpful

not much to complain about, hours extended into the afternoon and an earlier inspection slot

say 8:00 am.

6. Have you felt that we have treated you with honesty, kindness, and respect?

Yes, yes 100%, definitely yes, absolutely yes, yes, absolutely, yes.

7. What is your overall rating of your experience with the permitting process? 1‐5, 1 being the

lowest.

5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4.5, 4

PRIVATE ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

(POWTS)

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES

Policy Statement: Service

Marathon County will administer the Private Sewage System Ordinance to promote and protect public health and safety by assuring the proper siting, design, installation, inspection and management of private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS) and non-plumbing sanitation systems. Administration of this program includes:

Soil & Site Evaluation report review Plan review, permit issuance and installation inspections Tracking & regulation of POWTS Maintenance Administering the Wisconsin Fund Grant program Enforcement Education

Authority to adopt Chapter 15 of the Marathon County General Code of Ordinances, Private Sewage Systems, is provided by 59.70(1), 59.70(5), 145.04, 145.19, 145.20 and 145.245 Wisconsin Statutes.

Service to Whom

POWTS assistance, design review and approval, construction inspection and verification is provided to owners of structures requiring a POWTS within all geographic areas of the County. All POWTS systems must follow current codes statute requirements. Maintenance of POWTS systems are currently required of all systems installed after 1980. As of October 1, 2019 all POWTS systems will be required to adhere to the mandate for POWTS maintenance requirements.

At What Cost The Land Conservation and Zoning committee is responsible for providing guidance for program costs as well as setting fees to offset program costs. In 2016 the committee adjusted fees to have applicant fees cover approximately 75% of operating costs and county tax levy cover 25% of program costs.

O:\Zoning\POWTSmaintenance2019\Policy_Statement\Powts_maintenance_Draft2.docx

Policy Guidelines: Chapter 15 of the Marathon County General Code of Ordinances will be referred to as the “Private Sewage Systems Ordinance.” 1. The County Board of Supervisors will be assigned the responsibility to enact, amend, or repeal this

Chapter 15 of the General Code of Ordinances according to County Board rules. 2. The Land Conservation & Zoning Committee (LCZC) will serve to oversee the administration of the

Marathon County Private Sewage Systems Ordinance to ensure compliance with State Statutes, Administrative Codes, and customer satisfaction.

3. The LCZC and Corporation Counsel will ensure that the Private Sewage Systems Ordinance

complies with authority provided by appropriate Wisconsin State Statute.

4. The LCZC will establish a schedule of fees which will be reviewed annually to generate revenues to support program activities.

5. The Private Sewage Systems Ordinance will promote, sustain, and create an environment that

supports public health and safety.

6. The Environmental Resources Committee will develop outcomes of the POWTS program along with indicators that track progress of the program’s goals. A scorecard report will be presented annually to the County Board of Supervisors.

Administrative Guidelines:

1. The Conservation, Planning, and Zoning Department (CPZ) will designate an Administrator for the purpose of effecting proper administration of the Private Sewage Systems Ordinance. The CPZ director will supervise the Administrator.

2. CPZ will maintain records of applications, inspections, and POWTS maintenance and the original Private Sewage Systems Ordinance and its amendments.

3. CPZ will develop an priority implementation plan for increased mandated activities that will

include the following items: a) Education b) Public engagement plan c) Prioritization of implementation d) Financial assistance to low income, distressed e) Timeline of implementation

4. CPZ will develop prioritization strategies for implementation and enforcement of POWTS

programs.

5. CPZ will provide appropriate educational programs or materials to POWTS professionals, elected officials and the public.

6. CPZ will inform property owners of the opportunity to apply for financial assistance available to assist in the installation of a POWTS.

02/02/2017

1

Conservation, Planning,& Zoning Department

Citation OrdinanceLand Conservation and Zoning Committee, February 8, 2017

This image cannot currently be displayed.


Why Code Enforcement?

Land and Water Codes adopted to: Protect land and water resources Balance sustainable land uses with

economic opportunities Promote health and safety Protect public infrastructure Minimize land use conflicts

02/02/2017

2



Administration of Codes

Encourage Compliance by: Communication (verbal and written) Education Technical Assistance Customers:

• Landowners• Contractors, professionals• Local, state, federal officials



Citation Ordinance History2013• Challenges and shortcomings of

existing enforcement process recognized

• Lack of CPZ cohesive, uniform approach to enforcement

• Inconsistent prioritization of alleged violations



Citation Ordinance History2013• Section 25.04 Penalty Provisions

allowed Zoning Administrator to issue citations ONLY for

Zoning (general, floodplain, airport) Subdivision POWTS Nonmetallic Mining

02/02/2017

3



Citation Ordinance History2013• Section 25.04 Penalty Provisions did

not include: Shoreland Zoning Animal Waste Storage and Nutrient

Management Livestock Facilities Licensing



Citation Ordinance History2013• Citation method never utilized• Long form summons and complaint

was utilized



Summons and Complaint

02/02/2017

4





Summons and Complaint:Old way of Life

• Violation recognized• Land owner notified of violation• Staff followed an inconsistent

process to gain compliance with code

• If compliance not achieved referral to Corporation Counsel for summons and complaint



Old way of Life

• Corporation Counsel prepared long form summons and complaint

• Sheriff Department served owners with summons to appear at court. (6 months to a year after summons written)

• Initial hearing for intake(minimum of 1 month)

• Scheduled hearings before a Judge • 1-2 years after summons and

complaint filed may have a judgement

02/02/2017

5



New culture of enforcementGoal: Fair Consistent Efficient (LEAN recommendation) Cost Effective Honest, Kind, Respectful Compliance



Typical Progressive Enforcement tools First contact One on one meetings First letter Final letter Referral to court

Varying communications, interactions,and compliance schedules



Citation

02/02/2017

6



Citation Time Line

• Violation recognized• Staff follow a consistent process to

gain compliance with code• Progressive notifications to land owner• If compliance not achieved citation

written (In court as early as 2 weeks)• Pretrial conference with landowner in

less than a month.



Citation Advantages

Gain compliance with violations in a timely fashion. (Court date is scheduled for 3 weeks after issuance of citation.)

Reduce Corporation Counsel & CPZ staff time (Summons and Complaints, serving the owners, Court time)

Continue a positive working relationship with our customers



Citations: Egregious ViolationsPriority examples: Sewage and manure discharges to

surface water, groundwater, or bedrock or ground surface

Removal of vegetation within 35’ of lake or river

Construction in or filling of wetland Deliberate/intentional/continued

violator

02/02/2017

7



Schedule of DepositsFull schedule handed out



Citations issued for…

• Failure to submit a Nutrient Management Plan

• Failure to follow a Nutrient Management plan

• Direct runoff of animal waste posing a threat to public safety due to mismanagement or alteration of an animal waste storage facility.



Citations issued for…

• Failure to submit a POWTS maintenance report

• Failure to bring into code compliance, replace or discontinue the use of a failing POWTS

• Use on property not allowed by zoning district

• Construction, relocation, alteration, reconstruction and/or fill without permit

02/02/2017

8



Who is receiving a citation?

99%

1%

2014 POWTS Maintenance

Owners that Complied‐2565

Owners that received Citation‐26

98%

2%


Owners that Complied‐2704

Owners that received Citation‐59




97%

3%


Owners that Complied‐2700 Owners that Received Citation‐80




95%

5%

2015 Submittal of Nutrient Management Plans

Owners that complied ‐ 332

Owners that received Citations ‐ 16

96%

4%

2016 Submittal of Nutrient Management Plans

Owners that complied ‐ 344

Owners that received Citation ‐ 14

02/02/2017

9



Pros vs Cons of CitationsPros• Timely response to

violations• Greater compliance

with citation process• Reduction of staff time

on enforcement (CPZ staff and Corporation Counsel)

Cons• Citation does not

guarantee compliance.• Owners sometimes

ignore citation received in mail vs. being served by a Sheriff’s deputy



What we hoped to share today• Citation process is effective and

compliance, which is our main goal is being accomplished.

• Citation process is efficient and time saving

• Citation process is “fair and consistent” to all property owners that comply, not just violators.

Thank you!


Contact information:

[email protected]

SCHEDULE OF DEPOSITS Marathon County Conservation Planning and Zoning Department

Animal Waste Storage and Nutrient Management Code Violation - Chapter 11 Code Reference State Statue Fine/day or event

Construction, alteration, enlargement, or closure of manure storage facility without a permit 11.02(3)(a) $300 Fine Total Forfeiture: $515.50

Failure to follow or meet a permit condition(s) and/or requirement(s) 11.02(5)(f) $90 Fine Total Forfeiture: $250.90

Failure to follow nutrient management plan requirements 11.02(3)(f) $90 Fine Total Forfeiture: $250.90

Direct runoff of animal waste that poses a threat to public health or safety, or surface and/or groundwater resources as a result of alteration or mismanagement of an animal waste storage facility

11.02(3)(d) $300 Total Forfeiture: $515.50

Direct runoff that poses a threat to public health or safety, or surface and/or groundwater resources because of over application of manure to cropland or pasture. 11.02(3)(d) $90 Fine

Total Forfeiture: $250.90 Failure to file annual Nutrient Management plan and/or nutrient management plan checklist by April 1st due date 11.02(3)(f) $50 fine

Total Forfeiture: $150.10 Failing and leaking waste storage facility not brought up to, and maintained in a safe and sanitary condition within identified time frame of ordinance 11.02(3)(b) $300

Total Forfeiture: $515.50

Failure to close idle waste storage facility to a safe and sanitary condition. 11.02(3)(c) $90 Fine Total Forfeiture: $250.90

Failure to install or maintain safety devices on storage facility 11.02(3)(e) $90 Fine Total Forfeiture: $250.90

Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance Violation - Chapter 13 Code Reference State Statue Fine/day or event

Failure to obtain Livestock Facility license or exceed license limits 13.04 Ch 93 Adm Code 53

$300 fine Total Forfeiture: $515.50

Failure to file checklist/report Livestock Facility Licensing 13.15 $50 Total Forfeiture: $150.10

Failure to follow Livestock Facilities Licensing compliance requirements. 13.14 $300 fine Total Forfeiture: $515.50

Note: The maximum daily fine allowed is $500 which would result in a $767.50 forfeiture for the individual.


POWTS Violation – Chapter 15 Code Reference State Statue Fine

Failure to submit required private sewage system maintenance report. 15.08

15.36(1) 15.37(5)

59.70(5) 145.20(5)

145.13 $200.00

Deliberate/negligent and/or repeat/continued discharge of sewage, domestic wastewater or private sewage system effluent to the ground surface. 15.08 59.70(5)

145.13 $400

Failure to obtain a sanitary permit prior to establishment or construction of a structure which requires a private sewage system or non-plumbing sanitation system 15.14 (2) $50.00

(Total forfuture$200.50)

Failure to obtain a sanitary permit before a private sewage or non-plumbing sanitation system is installed, replaced, repaired, reconnected or modified. 15.14(3) & (4) 145.19 $50.00


Failure to bring into code compliance, replace, or discontinue the use of a failing private sewage system. 15.16(6) $300

(Total Forfeiture: $515.50)

Occupancy of a structure or premises without a code compliant POWTS or non-plumbing sanitation system. 15.07 $50.00


Failure to comply with ordinance requirements such as failure to: pay re-inspection fees; submit revised plans; complete an installation; or make corrections to the installation

15.07 15.08 $50.00


Zoning Code Violation – Chapter 17 Code Reference State Statue Fine

Use on property not allowed by zoning district 17.203.03 59.69 $225.00 (Total Forfeiture: $421.00)

Non-compliance installation or construction of a structure (permit has been issued) 17.809.02 59.69 $50.00 (Total Forfeiture: $200.50)

Construction, alteration, relocation, reconstruction and/or fill within floodplain without permits 22.302.04 WI Admin Code NR116 $500.00 (Total Forfeiture: $767.50)

Construction, alteration, relocation, reconstruction within shoreland area and/or wetland without permit 22.202.04 WI Admin Code NR115 $250.00

(Total Forfeiture: $452.50)

Construction, relocation, alteration, reconstruction and/or fill without permit? 17.802.01 59.69 $65.00 (Total Forfeiture: $219.40)

Removal of vegetation within 35’ of Ordinary High Water Mark beyond viewing corridor 22.205.03 WI Admin Code NR115 $500.00 (Total Forfeiture: $767.50)

Grading , earth disturbance and/or fill within 100’ of Ordinary High Water Mark without a permit 22.206 WI Admin Code NR115 $500.00 (Total Forfeiture: $767.50)


Grading, earth disturbance and/or fill within Shoreland area w/out permit 22.206 WI Admin Code NR115 $100.00 (Total Forfeiture: $263.50)

Failure to mitigate or removal of mitigation required projects 22.209 NR 115 $500.00 (Total Forfeiture $767.50)

Land Division/Surveying Violation – Chapter 18 Code Reference State Statue Fine

Failure to submit a Certified Survey map for land division 10 acres or less. 18.06 $25.00 (Total Forfeiture: $169.00)

Failure to submit a County or State plat for review and approval 18.07 $500.00 (Total Forfeiture: $767.50)

Nonmetallic Reclamation Violation – Chapter 21 Code Reference State Statue Fine

Nonmetallic mine operation without reclamation permit. 21.10 295.12(2)(d) $50.00 (Total Forfeiture: $200.50)

Chronically mining beyond permit boundaries 21.11(1)(c) 295.12(3)(d) $50.00 (Total Forfeiture: $200.50)

Nonmetallic mining financial assurance not renewed 30 days before expiration 21.13(2)(b) 295.12(2)(g) $5.00 (Total Forfeiture: $143.80)

O:\CPZ\Citations\ScheduleOfDeposits-CPZ-ALL.docx Revised June 2016

NAME # OF APPRAISALS CROP SPECIES QUANTITY LOST APPRAISED DAMAGE

CLAIMS AFTER DEDUCTIBLE DMU

ACRES APPRAISED

Ryan Bushman* 10 Potatoes Deer 0 $0.00 62A

6 Sweet corn Deer 44.36 T $3,017.16 62A

4 Corn silage Deer 1147.02 bu. $3,739.30 $5,100.00 62A 1015.00

Arthur Fredock* 4 Corn Grain Deer 593.28 bu $1,934.11 62A

2 Soybean Deer 30.28 bu. $271.61 $1,705.72 62A 150.00

John Hoffman 2 Alfalfa Deer .46 T $32.00 62A

1 Corn Grain Geese 280.77 bu $604.14 62A

1 Corn Grain Deer 561.57 bu $1,226.58 62A

1 Soybean Deer 2121.39 bu $19,028.87 $5,700.00 62A 82.00

Patricia Hoffman 1 Corn Grain Deer 386.82 bu $1,261.03 62A

1 Soybean Deer 1841.94 bu $16,522.20 $10,000.00 62A 82.00

Jeff Kamenick 3 Soybean Deer 47.75 bu $428.36 33

2 Corn Grain Deer 221.40 bu $721.76 $650.12 33 102.00

Tom Klug 11 Corn Grain Deer 554.57 bu $1,807.89 33

2 Soybean Deer 32.11 bu $287.96 $1,835.85 33 127.00

Larry Schulist 2 Corn Grain Deer 1333.90 bu $4,348.52 $3,754.82 62B 67.00

Mark Suchon* 1 Soybean Deer 97.26 bu $872.42 62A

1 Corn Grain Deer 476.70 bu $1,554.04 $1,926.46 62A 81.00

Ron Yenter* 4 Rye Deer 92.77 bu $371.10 62A

2 Soybean Deer 123.72 bu $1,109.77 62A

4 Straw Deer 2.66 T $159.60 $1,140.47 62A 165.00

*= claim denied

**= didn't meet deductible

Total 65 $59,298.42 $31,813.44 1871.00

Total (Turkey) 0 $0.00 $0.00

Total (Deer) 64 $58,694.28 $31,813.44

Total (Geese) 1 $604.14 $0.00

Total (Bear) 0 $0.00 $0.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

$0.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

$160,000.00

$180,000.00

$200,000.00

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

YEAR

BEAR APPRAISED DAMAGE BEAR CLAIMS AFTER DEDUCTIBLE DEER APPRAISED DAMAGE

DEER CLAIMS AFTER DEDUCTIBLE TURKEY APPRAISED DAMAGE TURKEY CLAIMS AFTER DEDUCTIBLE

GEESE APPRAISED DAMAGE GEESE CLAIMS AFTER DEDUCTIBLE Enrollees