Approved minutes
Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
(Hearing recessed from 10/30/07)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 7:00 PM
Lakewood Town Hall
The purpose of the public hearing was to continue the recessed public hearing from 10/23/07 regarding the conditional use permit (CUP) for Lipe Bros. Construction.
Call to order: Planning and Zoning Commission chair Bob Wolfe called the recessed Public Hearing for the Lipe Bros. Construction CUP to order at 7:05 PM on November 13, 2007, at the Lakewood Town Hall.
Present: Chair Bob Wolfe, Town Attorney Tim Strom, Inese Holte, Chris Roningen, Robin Downs, Kerry Leider, Peter Miller, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, and Recorder David Gerhart. Town Board member Phil Halverson, Lipe Bros. attorney Shawn Reed, and members of the public were in the audience (see attached register).
Wolfe brought to the attention of the Commission an email dated November 8, 2007, from Town Attorney Tim Strom that included, among other things, some changes to the “Findings, Conclusion, and Order” document as well as a recommendation to use the term “Business Activity Area” instead of “Lot Coverage.” Wolfe first asked the Commission to act on two changes to the Findings. The first change was to the definition of construction contractor business on page 20. Motion by Leider, second by Miller to approve the change. Carried unanimously. The second change was to the second condition on page 25 to clarify that the definition was the one stated in paragraph 1. Motion by Holte to approve the change, second by Miller. Carried unanimously.
Wolfe then gave Lipe Bros. attorney Shawn Reed an opportunity to address the Commission. Reed presented a letter from Lipe Bros. attorney Steve Overom, dated November 13, 2007, and asked that it be added to the record of the hearing. The letter stated that Lipe and his attorneys would not participate in any future hearings of the Lipe CUP. This decision apparently resulted from a meeting requested by Reed and Overom on the morning of November 13th to comply with a previous Commission request to have Mears and Strom work with Lipe and his attorneys to discuss lot coverage and related issues. Present at that morning meeting were Supervisor Halverson (appointed by the Town Board to be a liaison between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Board), Jerry Lipe, Mears, Reed, and Overom, who expressed frustration that Strom was not present. When contacted that morning by Mears, Strom indicated that he had previously contacted Reed by email and voicemail explaining that a meeting to discuss lot coverage was not necessary at this time because of the contemplated change to the “business activity area” terminology.
At the meeting tonight, Strom indicated that he was, therefore, not prepared for a meeting that morning. Also tonight, Reed acknowledged receiving Strom’s email and voicemail before the morning meeting. Mears, who at the time of the morning meeting had not seen Strom’s email, said tonight that he felt that the scheduled morning meeting was a misunderstanding. In any case, Reed, Jerry Lipe, and Dean Lipe exited the public hearing after the Overom letter was presented to the Commission.
Downs said she thought the Commission was making progress on the Lipe CUP and wondered if Overom was adequately informed. Halverson stated that he had been asked by the Town Board to work with the Commission on the Lipe CUP and stated that Town officials were prepared to discuss the issues with Lipe and his attorneys. He felt that Reed and Overom left the morning meeting with the inaccurate impression that certain issues had already been decided. He also indicated that Reed knew that the morning meeting had been cancelled. Motion by Holte, second by Leider, that Overom’s letter of 11/13/07 be accepted for the record but that the Commission does not agree with its content. Motion carried 4-1 with Roningen voting nay.
The Commission then proceeded to discuss the concept of “business activity area.” Strom stated that this term would include lot coverage but would also encompass business activities of a temporary nature. Wolfe said that a trade-off for allowing renting to other businesses would be to restrict the area of the parcels that could be used for business activities. Mears felt that the normal CUP process was adequate to address any violation of the lot coverage requirement. Strom recommended that the Commission not decide issues that don’t need deciding, such as the amount of lot coverage that is grandfathered in. Miller, however, felt that this would lead to uncertainties down the road, particularly if the land was sold. Miller also felt that the use as an auto salvage yard had been relinquished because it has not been used as such. Leider thought that the last paragraph of Strom’s email adequately dealt with the salvage yard.
Wolfe said that he thought that the business activity area concept was reasonable. He said that the Commission must agree to a definition of this concept, that the salvage yard issue could be discussed after the CUP for a construction business was granted, and that timelines must be set for compliance with the CUP and the zoning ordinance, beyond which the CUP would become void. Miller, however, thought that the salvage yard issue should be dealt with now so that it does not come back to the Commission. Wolfe asked whether the Commission could agree to replace the lot coverage issue with the business activity area concept. Miller replied, “Yes, if the salvage yard issue is dealt with.” Halverson said that the Commission cannot grant a CUP for a use that is not permitted. Holte felt that the Commission must be as explicit as possible in writing the conditions.
Miller asked Mears whether there is currently an active salvage yard on the property. Mears replied that he has not seen evidence of one. Miller stated that the Findings should state whether the property has been used as a salvage yard in the recent past and that the CUP should not be finalized before this has been done. Holte said that if there is an ongoing salvage business, there should be written records of salvage business activity, e.g., sales receipts. Further discussion ensued regarding the salvage yard, particularly whether the salvage yard referred only to auto salvage, which was the business that was grandfathered in. There seemed to be consensus that the Findings should be written so that the term salvage refers only to auto salvage.
Addressing the issue of historical lot coverage or business activity, Mears presented aerial photos of the property from 1991 and also a more recent photo from Google. (These photos are part of the meeting record). In 1991, junk cars were being stored in the upper 10-acre parcel, presumably for auto salvage, but the more recent photo shows a 2.6-acre clearing that is now used for horse pasture. A third photo shows area delineation for the lower parcel and a calculated area cleared for business activity of about 3.3 acres. Jerry Lipe’s survey of the area indicates a similar area of 3.55 acres. Mears said that another road has been added recently to access the upper parcel. Leider suggested that the Commission allow an area of 3.55 acres for business activity on the lower parcel. Wolfe asked whether 3.55 acres should be allowed on both parcels. Miller thought that the standard MUNS-4 lot coverage of 10% should apply to the upper parcel. Holte expressed concern that new buildings on the upper parcel could lead to an industrial park-like development. Wolfe then asked whether leasing to other businesses should be restricted to the existing buildings and suggested that the upper lot should be restricted to outside storage. There seemed to be consensus that the upper parcel could be used for outdoor storage only and that no business-related buildings or structures would be allowed. It was decided that Strom will modify the written Findings and Mears will do additional map work to present at the regular Commission meeting on November 27th.
The definition of business activity area was discussed, specifically whether, when referring to landowner activity, the language should read “landowner business activity.” Also discussed was the need for dates for compliance. Strom noted that compliance dates have been set for Great Lakes Stone to vacate the property and for screening the property.
Motion by Leider, second by Holte, to direct Mears and Strom to define the business activity areas and to suggest compliance dates. Carried unanimously.
Motion by Leider, second by Downs, to recess until November 27th. Carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 10:16 PM.
The next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting is Tuesday November 27, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
David Gerhart