To follow up on my December 10 post of the latest issue to land in the lap of the Manitowish Waters Plan Commission: Last night we had a special meeting of the Plan Commission to take up the agenda item of discussion and possible action on the "enforcement issue regarding Baer Property Developmenrt", i.e., issuing a citation for the creation of an agricultural operation on a parcel zoned R-1 (single-family residential), in violation of Article 4.1 of Manitowish Waters General Zoning Ordinance 2007-1. As you may recall from my previous post, the motion to direct the zoning administrator to issue the citation was tabled at the December 10 meeting pending review of the situation by the Town's attorney.
Several things have happened since the December 10 meeting. First, Vilas County issue a stop work order to Mr. Baer, which he is apparently honoring, but not a citation. Secondly, on December 17th Mr. Baer, via his LLCs, presented petitions to the town zoning administrator to re-zone the parcel on PIne Lane from residential to agricultural and the parcel on Hwy 51/Twin Pines from recreational to agricultural. He also is proposing entering into development agreements with the town as a form of compromise. A good portion of our meeting last night was given to discussion with Mr. Baer's attorney about the process and time-line involved in considering amending the land use plan, and following that, the zoning map. Both processes involve public hearings that require newspaper publication of the hearing notices. It was decided that we will schedule the land use plan hearing for January 18th, and if necesaary, the re-zone hearing for January 25th.
Following this, the matter of the ordinance violation was taken up. The Town's attorney provided a written opinion that an ordinance violation did indeed exist -- that an agricultural operation is in existence, even though nothing had been planted yet. I am still a bit bothered by this assertion for the reasons stated in my last post, but I am willing to accept the attorney's point of view as I assume that he is a whole lot smarter than me. But what I wasn't willing to accept was his recommendation -- to have our zoning administrator issue a citation, for reasons I will get to next.
Following reading of the attorney's letter, Hanson motioned, and Bauers seconded, to take the motion from the previous meeting (to issue a citation) off the table for a vote. During discussion Johns immediately gave voice to a point of view that mirrored my thoughts -- 1. We are presently in a negotiating phase, no new work is being performed, we have petitions for rezoning before us, and that perhaps issuing a citation is unnecessary and unhelpful, and 2. and even more important, is that issuing a citation puts the ball back in Mr. Baer's court -- according to our ordinance he may immediately take the matter to the Board of Appeals, and if he doesn't get the result he wants, then right to Circuit Court. As a matter of fact, due to some comments made by Mr. Baer's attorney, I got the impression that they wanted us to issue a citation as it would facilitate Mr. Baer's desire to settle the matter quickly. I believe that he has already come to the judgement that this matter will only be settled in court, either circuit court (unlikely), the Court of Appeals (also unlikely), or the state Supreme Court, and that the sooner that he gets moving on the process, the better it suits him. I also believe, given that this matter's present trajectory, that it is headed for court, but I want to do it on our time table, not his.
During discussion, I indicated my support for Johns's comments, and I believe that Sleight and Rayala also share this view. So, once again, Hanson tabled, and Bauers seconded, his motion. It was decided that our attorney will prepare a stop work order modeled on the county's and that our zoning administrator will sign it and send it on to Mr. Baer. Any violation of the stop work order will result in once again taking up the matter of the citation. In the mean time, the petition to amend the land use plan will be taken up on January 18th, and if the result is favorable to Mr. Baer, the rezone petition on January 25th.
Stay tuned for Part III.