Resource Planning Committee Agenda Packet (PDF)

Notice in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: 1) Any person needing assistance to participate in this meeting should contact the Office of the County Clerk at (920) 746-2200. Notification 72 hours prior to a meeting will enable the County to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2) Door County is committed to making its electronic and information technology (e.g., website and contents) accessible for all persons. If you encounter difficulty accessing the posted materials for this meeting, located on-line at https://www.co.door.wi.gov/AgendaCenter under the committee name, or have trouble accessing the virtual meeting, please call (920) 746-2323, or send a FAX to (920) 746-2387, or send an e-mail to Lriemer@co.door.wi.gov so that we may determine how to best assist you. AGENDA 1. Call business meeting to order. 2. Establish a quorum: roll call. 3. Adopt agenda/properly noticed. 4. Approve minutes for August 6, 2026, meeting. 5. Correspondence. 6. Public comment: Information may be received from members of the public, except information related to a pending hearing (e.g., zoning amendment or conditional use permit). Extensive discussion and all action must be deferred until and unless specific notice of the subject matter is included on the agenda. 7. Discussion items: a. Continued review/discussion/consideration of sponsorship for public hearing a possible Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance text amendment for shipping containers to be used as accessory structures. b. Temporary uses. 8. Matters to be placed on a future agenda or referred to a committee, official, or employee. 9. Next meeting dates: • September 3, 2026: No hearings. • September 17, 2026: No hearings. • October 1, 2026: Possible hearing. • October 15, 2026: ? 10. Adjourn. Deviation from order shown may occur. Notice of Public Meeting Thursday, August 20, 2026 Business meeting at 3:00 p.m. DOOR COUNTY RESOURCE PLANNING COMMITTEE Door County Government Center Chambers Room (C102, 1st floor) 421 Nebraska Street Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Oversight for Land Use Services Department Anyone wishing to speak must attend in person. Members of the public who wish to simply monitor/observe the meeting may attend in person or do so remotely by using the link below, or via the Zoom smartphone app, or by calling (312) 626- 6799. Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8327631964 3?pwd=LWpbFkbnSc8mj3Kb96QkWP QQuG4Rli.1 Webinar ID: 832 7631 9643 Passcode: 540872 Zoom Webinar ID: 894 1468 1074 Passcode: 113675 1 1 These minutes have not been reviewed by the oversight committee and are subject to approval or revision at the next regular committee meeting. MINUTES OF MEETING DOOR COUNTY RESOURCE PLANNING COMMITTEE August 6, 2026 1. Call business meeting to order. Zettel called a business meeting to order at 3:49 p.m. in the Door County Government Center Chambers Room (C102, 1st floor), 421 Nebraska Street, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. 2. Establish a quorum: roll call. Present: RPC Members Staff Hugh Zettel Tara McKeefry Claire Morkin Karyn Behling Jason Tlachac Nancy Goss Excused: Ken Fisher 3. Adopt agenda/properly noticed. After confirmation of proper notice and posting procedures, there was a motion by Goss, seconded by Tlachac, to adopt the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. Approve minutes for July 16, 2026 meeting. Motion by Morkin, seconded by Goss, to approve the minutes. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). 5. Correspondence. None 6. Public comment: Information may be received from members of the public, except information related to a pending hearing (e.g., zoning amendment or conditional use permit). Extensive discussion and all action must be deferred until and unless specific notice of the subject matter is included on the agenda. None 7. Zoning matters: a. Liberty Grove; James Leuzinger, on behalf of the Ronald and Kelly Leuzinger Revocable Trust; conditional use permit to install an addition to a unit within a Multiple Occupancy Development (MOD); 1110 Wagon Trail Circle; Recreational Commercial zoning district. Motion by Tlachac, seconded by Goss, that: 1. The applicant has demonstrated by substantial evidence that the application and all conditions and requirements relating to the proposed conditional use are or will be satisfied. 2. There was no substantial evidence to support the opposite conclusion. 3. A conditional use permit valid for twelve months is hereby granted, subject to the following conditions and requirements: 2 MINUTES OF MEETING RESOURCE PLANNING COMMITTEE August 6, 2026 2 i. A regular zoning permit authorizing construction of the building(s) shall be obtained within 12 months; construction must begin within 12 months of the issuance of the regular zoning permit. ii. The project(s) shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, including obtaining all required approvals and permits prior to beginning construction. iii. The entire project shall be completed by August 6, 2028. iv. Any outdoor lighting erected in conjunction with this use shall utilize fixtures whose lens, hood, or combination thereof allow no direct beams to be seen from off the property or cast skyward, and the lighting elements of which shall not be visible from adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). b. Sevastopol; Gerald Nelson, on behalf of Northeastern WI Antique Power Association Inc; conditional use permit to expand the agricultural visitation facility and to establish an assembly hall use within existing buildings; 5005 N Country View Rd. Prime Agricultural zoning district. Motion by Morkin, seconded by Goss, that: 1. The applicant has demonstrated by substantial evidence that the application and all conditions and requirements relating to the proposed conditional use are or will be satisfied. 2. There was no substantial evidence to support the opposite conclusion. 3. A conditional use permit valid for twelve months is hereby granted, subject to the following conditions and requirements: i. A regular zoning permit authorizing construction of the building(s) shall be obtained within 12 months; construction must begin within 12 months of the issuance of the regular zoning permit. ii. The project(s) shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, including obtaining all required approvals and permits prior to beginning construction. iii. The entire project shall be completed by August 6, 2036. iv. Any outdoor lighting erected in conjunction with this use shall utilize fixtures whose lens, hood, or combination thereof allow no direct beams to be seen from off the property or cast skyward, and the lighting elements of which shall not be visible from adjacent properties. c. Baileys Harbor; Skyler Witalison, on behalf of PCJ Capital Management LLC; rezone approximately 12.62 acres from Countryside (CS) to Mixed-use Commercial (MC) in order to subdivide the property into smaller lots and increase the potential for commercial business in the area; the eastern 80 feet of 7886 CTH A, 7880 CTH A, and parcel ID 002- 01-26302723C; near the intersection of CTH A and CTH E in the southeast corner. Motion by Goss, seconded by Tlachac, to recommend to county board a modified version of the zoning amendment petition to only approve the request to rezone the northern two parcels from Countryside to Mixed Use Commercial, but not the southern parcel. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). 8. Matters to be placed on a future agenda or referred to a committee, official, or employee. 9. Next meeting dates: 3 MINUTES OF MEETING RESOURCE PLANNING COMMITTEE August 6, 2026 3 • August 20, 2026: business meeting • September 3, 2026: ? • September 17, 2026: ? • October 1, 2026: ? Morkin will not be able to attend the August 20th meeting. Meeting schedule discussed as noted. 10. Adjourn. Motion by Goss, seconded by Tlachac, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m. Reported by, Tara McKeefry Code Administrator Karyn Behling Assistant Corporation Counsel / Land Use Services Director 4 CORRESPONDENCE 5 TO: Door County Resource Planning Committee FROM: Linda D. Wait (resident Town of Sevastopol) 4466 Fairway Lane, Sturgeon Bay WI 54235 lindadwait@gmail.com 920-495-8129 DATE: May 5, 2026 RE: Shipping Containers as Accessory Structures – Proposed Text Amendments I am strongly opposed to the proposed text amendment allowing the use of shipping containers as accessory structures in any zoning district. Please do not allow this “niche trend” or its trending popularity to compromise the investments property owners have made in our neighborhoods and landscapes. Although the proposed text does exclude some zoning districts, the proposed text would allow this use in estate (E), small estate (SE), countryside (CS), heartland (HL3.5 & HL5) and rural residential (RR) districts. Allowing the placement of these unsightly and unattractive shipping containers seems to defeat the descriptions assigned to those zoning districts, namely residential. The proposed text indicates that if shipping containers were allowed as accessory structures, they would be subject to the existing provisions and requirements, such as: can contain living quarters but no sleeping quarters, less than 750 square feet of living quarters, height restrictions, etc. That would mean they cannot be considered for alternative housing or affordable housing or short or long term residential rental, correct? I’m guessing that it’s not that simple or inexpensive to just cut windows and doors into a heavy-duty corrugated steel box that weighs 2 tons, and then transform it to meet all the restrictions and requirements for living quarters. Please retain the current language at General Requirements 3.12(5) that shipping containers are prohibited as accessory structures, in all zoning districts. Since the average shipping container is in excess of 120 square feet, it also appears they can never be considered as an accessory building, nor as an accessory residence. In addition to the proposed amendment, please add the language that shipping containers are prohibited for use as onsite or offsite storage of any kind, prohibited for use as alternative garages, or use as personal, residential or commercial storage, in all zoning districts. In other words, let’s keep shipping containers out of our landscapes and neighborhoods. They should be used only for the purpose for which intended, namely, the transport or transfer of goods using trucks, ships and trains. I look forward to attending a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Received LUS 5-6-26 6 1 Date: August 5, 2026 To: Door County Resource Planning Committee From: Town of Clay Banks Resident, Julie Schmelzer Re: Temporary Use Text Amendment Thank you for agreeing to take a closer look at the county ’s temporary use provisions. This letter offers some potential amendments as well as suggestions for administration and enforcement. Currently a temporary use is defined in the code as “a use which is conducted for a limited period of time within a calendar year”. Compared to your definition of principal use, and that of other jurisdictions, the temporary use definition appears weak, and, makes no reference to the temporary use regulations, like the principal use definition does. One suggestion is to revise the definition to read as follows (deletions have a strikethrough; additions are underscored): Use, Temporary: A use which is conducted for a limited period of time incidental to the principal use on the lot and limited in duration or frequency within a calendar year. Examples of temporary uses are yard sales, family reunions, and limited private auto sales. (See Section 2.07 for further information.) Section 2.07 regulates temporary uses. One of the concerns in 2.07(1) is that the use is limited to 10 days (except in Liberty Grove, where they are limited to 6 days in a year, not to exceed 3 consecutive days). In my opinion, the ten-day standard leads to misunderstandings and potential violations. For example, per Wisconsin Act 73, an event venue that is rented, such as a wedding barn , that does not have a liquor license can get a permit to allow carry in beer and wine (no hard alcohol), but is limited to 6 days of operation, and a maximum of one per month. As another example, private auto sales are allowed in Wisconsin, but per the DMV , if you sell more than five vehicles in a twelve-month period, you need a dealers license (and consequently should be zoned and permitted as a dealer). Knowing there are stricter timeframes, why does Door County allow ten events? Would the public be better served if the code read, “or as further restricted by state law”? And include a “once a month” provision? As a side note, if an event venue holds a state permit for a “no sale event venue”, even if the event is three days, for example, they still can only consume alcoholic beverages one day of that event, so to avoid confusion, and conflict with state laws, it appears logical to limit temporary uses to one day per month. If this is not logical to the RPC, then please consider 7 2 the limitation specifically for Clay Banks. (I realize some towns may want more dates of availability, and they can propose that as a footnote like Liberty Grove has done.) Currently sub (1) reads: 2.07(1) Uses which are conducted on a lo t for not more than 10 days total, including not more than 7 consecutive days, in a calendar year shall be known as temporary uses and may be conducted in any zoning district, except the Wetland district….All temporary uses conducted on a lot within a calendar y ear count toward the number of days. Uses which are conducted for more than the allowed number of days shall be regarded as principal uses and regulated accordingly. Although I believe ten days is arbitrary and excessive, I ’m assuming the county did not randomly select the number and there is a reason for it; I believe Liberty Grove ’s six day limitation is more practical understa nding there are six months of good weather, which is when a temporary use is more apt to occur. Consider: 2.07(1) Uses which are conducted on a lo t for not more than 10 6 days total, unless further restricted by state law, including not more than 7 consecutive days, which do not to exceed one day a month, in a calendar year shall be known as temporary uses and may be conducted in any zoning district, except the Wetland district….All temporary uses conducted on a lot within a calendar y ear collectively count toward the number of days allowed to be considered a temporary use. Uses which are conducted for more than the allowed number of days shall be regarded as principal uses and regulated accordingly. And, to avoid conflicting with Sec. 2.04, Types of uses, the county (the RPC has oversight on policy) needs to address whether a temporary use can be allow ed in a district it normally would not be allowed (would you allow an adult entertainment venue in your neighborhood provided it was only open ten days a year). In zoning, if a use is listed in a zoning district, that is the only place it is allowed, regardless of the number of days the use occurs. And, in a county with many seasonal businesses, there are a lot of businesses that could circumvent zoning by saying they are “temporary”. Is that the intent of the code, or is the intent to have a well-planned community where compatible land uses neighbor each other? A simple amendment could address the concern. Consider, under Sec. 2.04, Types of uses, amending sub (3), Temporary uses. (3) Temporary uses, provided the use does not result in allowing a use in the zoning district to which it is not assigned. (I don’t like how this is worded but it is consistent with the verbiage in sub (1)). 8 3 Next, I believe there needs to be a l engthy conversation about if or when permits are required. In Clay Banks, a nonconforming structure (barn) was structurally altered . If a permit had been required, the county would have realized it was in a Flood Hazard area and done further research (if indeed in a flood area modifications would have been required). If a permit had been required, the Building Inspector would have been alerted. In the Clay Banks example mentioned in July, according to the contractor wo rking on the home , the owner did the work himself, and per the Building Inspector, no permit or inspections were made to ensure the work was to code. Clearly if the public is to be entering the building, the lack of proper permits and safety inspections should be a concern, especially since zoning is to look at health and safety. Additionally, 2.07(4) explicit ly says “a temporary use shall not involve the construction or alteration of any permanent structure”. Had the county required a permit, they would have known a nonconforming structure, in a flood hazard area, was being altered , and the temporary use would not have been allowed. And, let’s face it, whether a temporary use was being proposed or not, the code requires a permit for structural alterations (Sec. 11.01 requires a regular zoning permit for a structural alteration; the code is silent on alterations to nonconforming structures). To help visualize the concern in Clay Banks, the following are pictures showing the nonconformity of the building (setbacks), and alteration work done: Distance to Lake Michigan 9 4 Distance to Lake Michigan and Bear Creek Barn before structural alterations 10 5 Barn as it sits today The barn example could happen anywhere – the code needs to be enforced. Per the code, if a structural alteration is proposed, it needs a permit. That permit triggers a flood review and also notifies the Building Inspector work is being done. That permit should also alert staff to ask about the intended use (in this situation staff alerted the town the property was going to be a wedding venue and the county would not be requiring a permit). This also triggers other questions, such as days of use, parking, etc. ( per the code assembly halls require parking, and parking has to be onsite). At our last meeting staff indicated they didn ’t support issuing temporary use permits, and I understand their concern -- it would be exhaustive. However, there could be a threshold of when permits are required and what the process is. I ’m sure no one supports issuing a permit for a garage sale or for someone selling a car. But, music concerts, wedding venues 11 6 other places of assembly (which I argue should only be allowed in the zoning district they are permitted), should have a formal review and should have to meet the same standards as a use listed in the code (i.e. meet parking and other health and safety requirements). What is the trigger though to require a permit —if set up and take down cannot be done the day of the event ? If more than 20 people are expected in attendance ? (The state does not allow the service of beer or wine at an event where 20 or more people are in attendance unless the beer or wine is served by a person holding an operator’s license). Or, are permit s required when the use is considered public? Wis Stats 125.09, which addresses alcohol sales at event venues, defines a “public place” a venue, location, or open space, room, or establishment that is any of the following: accessi ble and available to the public for rent for an event or social gathering ; held out for rent to the public for an event or social gathering; made available for rent to a member of the publ ic for an event or social gathering. Suggestions: o Only allow event venues where assembly halls are listed in the code. o Consider enhancing the definition of assembly hall to include places of public assembly aka event venues, and be consistent with Wis. Stats. 125.09. o Or, require a temporary use permit for any event venue or place of public assembly on private land with an anticipated attendance in excess of twenty or more persons. And require the event venue to meet the same standards as a place of assembly (parking on site, sanitary provisions, etc.). At the last meeting staff suggested that if the towns want to regulate temporary uses, they issue the permit. To be honest, that’s not why towns adopted comprehensive zoning – they wanted the county to handle all permitting. But aside from intent, the law does not allow a town that has adopted county zoning to issue land use permits (the town verified this in July with the legal counsel for the Wisconsin Towns Association). Simply, if the county wants the towns to iss ue the permits, then the county needs to release the towns from county comprehensive zoning. No doubt signage will become an issue, and the county needs to address temporary signage for such events as well. No one wants large, or long-term signage in residential areas. Same day signage only? Limited to 4 square feet? This needs to be thought ou t during the amendment process. Thank you for the opportunity to offer comment on this controversial issue. My town’s intent is to continue to support comprehensive zoning, but find a code that meets the needs of the towns, albeit some towns have differing needs and may require special exceptions. 12 Proposed Text Amendment by LUSD 13 Proposed Text Amendment (8) Shipping Containers. The use of shipping containers as accessory structures shall be permitted only in Exclusive Agricultural (EA), Prime Agricultural (PA), General Agricultural (GA), Mixed Use Commercial (MC), Recreational Commercial (RC), General Commercial (GC), Village Commercial (VC), and Light Industrial (LI), and shall not be permitted if the only principal use on the parcel is a residential use, shipping containers are subject to the following: (a) Shipping containers shall be deemed accessory structures subject to all applicable requirements of Section 3.12 and other applicable requirements of this Ordinance. (b) A zoning permit is required prior to placing any shipping container on a parcel. (c) Shipping containers shall not be permitted until its associated principal structure is present or under construction. (d) Shipping containers shall not be located closer to any public road than its associated principal structure and shall meet all setback and yard requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. (e) Shipping containers shall not be stacked on each other or on any other structure which is six (6) inches or greater in height above preconstruction grade elevation. (f) A maximum of two (2) shipping containers are allowed on a parcel. (g) Shipping containers shall not be used as a commercial storage facility. (h) Shipping containers shall not be used as a sign face or sign supporting structure. 14 Responses from Towns Regarding Proposed Shipping Container Text Amendment 15 16 Received LUS 5-5-26 May,5,2026 RPC Members, As I am unable to express my opinion in person at this month’s meeting, I wanted to share my strong opposition to permitting shipping containers to be used as backyard storage buildings or dwellings within our town. While I understand the desire for residents to seek affordable storage options, allowing shipping containers raises several concerns that I believe outweigh the potential benefits. 1. Shipping containers are not designed for residential use, and their appearance is inconsistent with the character and aesthetic standards of our town. Introducing these industrial structures into residential areas risks diminishing overall neighborhood appearance and could negatively impact nearby property values. 2. Shipping containers pose safety challenges. They are not constructed to meet building codes for accessory structures or dwellings, including ventilation, structural modification. 3. Allowing shipping containers as storage units presents the challenges of enforcement if converted to dwellings at a later time. Once permitted, it becomes difficult to regulate the condition, placement, and number of units. 4. Finally, there are acceptable and visually compatible alternatives already available, including purpose-built sheds and accessory buildings that can be designed to match residential aesthetics while meeting zoning and safety standards. I believe the board should reject the proposed text amendment by Land Use Services. Maintaining the character and long-term integrity of our neighborhoods and towns should remain a priority. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Woelfel Chairman Town of Sevastopol 17 Received LUS 7.28.26 18 Town of Jacksonport Plan Commission Recommendations on Shipping Containers The Plan Commission met on July 9, 2016, to review the proposed text amendment submitted by Door County to the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow the use of shipping containers as accessory structures in commercial, agricultural, and industrial zoning districts. Following its review, the Plan Commission makes the following recommendations for revisions and clarification, which were approved by the Town Board on July 28, 2026: Paragraph 1 – Shipping Containers 1. Recommend expanding the list of permitted zoning districts to include Small Estate, Estate, Rural Residential, Heartland, and other appropriate zoning districts. See the recommendation under Item f regarding the number of shipping containers permitted based on parcel size. 2. The sentence, "...and shall not be permitted if the only principal structure use on the parcel is residential use..." is ambiguous and resulted in differing interpretations among Commission members. Although the intent may be clarified in subsequent provisions, we recommend that the language be clarified within this paragraph to eliminate any uncertainty. Item a: No recommendation. Item b: No recommendation. Item c: No recommendation. Item d: Recommend removing the requirement that a shipping container "shall not be located closer to any public road than its associated principal structure." The principal structure may be located near the rear of a parcel, and the property may be large enough for a shipping container to comply with all required setbacks while still being located closer to the road than the principal structure. In addition, there are existing properties within the Town where accessory storage buildings are located in front of the principal residence or principal structure. Shipping containers should be permitted in similar locations, provided they meet all applicable setback requirements. Item e: Request clarification regarding the prohibition on stacking shipping containers. What is the rationale for this restriction? Additional justification would assist the Commission in evaluating and commenting on this provision. Item f: We recommend allowing two shipping containers for parcels five acres and less and two more shipping containers for every additional five acres, with a maximum of six shipping containers Item g: No recommendation. Item h: No recommendation. Received LUS 8.4.26 19 Date: 7/27/26 From: Jeff Feuerstein To: Land Use Department Subject: Comments On Proposed Text Amendment Regarding Shipping Containers Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to comment. The Town of Sturgeon Bay appreciates the departments attention to this matter. Can the county clearly clarify in what zoning shipping containers are allowed and for what purposes? 1. Currently non-compliant structures. a. Retroactive zoning permits required within 30 days b. Restricted from use until compliant c. 3 month time limit for compliance d. Removal after 3 months 2. 3. Shipping containers used as primary structures a. Must meet all building codes and setbacks b. Must meet all min sq ft and height requirements c. Must meet any local zoning requirements d. 4. Shipping containers used as accessory structures a. Must meet all building codes and setbacks b. Must meet all min sq ft and height requirements c. Must meet any local zoning requirements 5. Shipping containers used as shipping containers a. No modifications to container such as windows or doors b. No electric or heat c. Not to be used as dwelling 20 RECOMMENDATION WASHINGTON ISLAND ZONING & PLANNING COMMITTEE June 22, 2026 At a publicly posted meeting of the Washington Island Zoning & Planning Committee held on June 22, 2026, it was the unanimous recommendation of the committee members present that the Town of Washington NOT APPROVE the proposed change to the Door County Zoning Ordinance which would allow shipping containers to be used as Accessory Structures (garages, sheds, outbuildings etc.) Motion by Kickbush, 2nd by Smith to recommend to the Town of Washington that they NOT APPROVE the zoning text amendment regarding the use of shipping containers as accessory structures. Motion passed unanimously. The ordinance would allow shipping containers to be used as storage buildings in Mixed Commercial (MC), General Agricultural (GA), Light Industrial (LI) & Recreational Commercial (RC) zoning districts if passed as written. These four zoning districts are all in use on the island. The island downtown and ferry dock areas are MC zoning, WIZAP feels strongly that this is not an image we want to portray in those areas. In addition, there are a number of non conforming GA lots that would only make existing junk issues even worse. WIZAP would recommend an update to the “Island Overlay” should the county decide to adopt this ordinance to disallow shipping containers as accessory structures in all zoning districts. Respectfully submitted, Michael G. Kickbush AIA Secretary Washington Island Zoning & Planning Committee Received LUS 7.23.26 21 Wisconsin County Regulations Regarding Temporary Uses 22 Wisconsin County Ordinance Standards for Temporary Uses Door County: Definition: Use, Temporary: A use which is conducted for a limited period of time within a calendar year. 2.07 Temporary uses. (1) Uses which are conducted on a lot for not more than 10 days total, including not more than 7 consecutive days, in a calendar year shall be known as temporary uses and may be conducted in any zoning district, except the Wetland district. Only those uses shown in s. 2.05(4), uses pertaining to the Wetland district, are allowed in the Wetland district. All temporary uses conducted on a lot within a calendar year count toward the allowed number of days. Uses which are conducted for more than the allowed number of days shall be regarded as principal uses and regulated accordingly. (Amended: 15 April 2014, Ord. 2014-05; Effective 27 May 2014) (a) In the Town of Liberty Grove, temporary uses may be conducted for not more than 6 days total, including not more than 3 consecutive days. (Added: 15 April 2014, Ord. 2014-05; Effective 27 May 2014) (2) Temporary uses shall not require a regular zoning permit. (3) Temporary uses shall meet all setback and yard requirements of sections 3.02(3)(a) and (b), tables of general requirements, 3.05, roads, and 5.10, wetlands, of this Ordinance. (Amended: 24 March 2015; Ord. 2015-02) (Amended: 27 March 2018; Ord. 2018-07) (4) Temporary uses shall not involve the construction or alteration of any permanent structure. Vilas County: Definition: Temporary or Temporary Use: Any period of time or use not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Florence County: Definition: TEMPORARY USES: Uses such as real estate sales field office or shelters for materials and equipment being used in the construction of a permanent structure may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Kenosha County Definition: A temporary use is a use of land, buildings, or structures not intended to be of permanent duration and not located on a parcel for more than 12 months. Some temporary uses require approval by the BOA 23 Columbia County: SEC. 12.130.05 TEMPORARY USE AND STRUCTURE DESCRIPTIONS AND STANDARDS (1) Description and Purpose. (a) A temporary structure is a structure without a foundation or footings that is present on a property for a limited period of time and is removed when the designated time period, activity, or use for which the temporary structure was erected has ceased. (b) A temporary use is a land use that is present on a property for a limited period of time and is discontinued upon the expiration of the time period. (c) The temporary use regulations in this Subsection are intended to permit such occasional temporary uses and structures when consistent with the overall purpose of this zoning ordinance and when the operation of the temporary use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. (2) Authority to Approve. (a) Except as expressly stated in this Subsection, all temporary structures and uses are subject to County zoning permit requirements and, if applicable, town permits. (b) The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve temporary structures and uses that comply with the provisions of this Subsection and to impose conditions on the operation of temporary structures and uses to ensure that such structures and uses do not create unreasonable adverse impacts on surrounding properties and that they operate safely, consistent with the general purposes of this chapter. 24 (c) The Zoning Administrator may consult with the Planning and Zoning Committee chair to determine if an unlisted temporary structure or use requests will require a conditional use permit in addition to a zoning permit for a temporary use. (d) Establishment of a temporary festival, concert, carnival, races, assemblage of campers, or similar activity on any site may require a conditional use regardless of the zoning of the property and shall be made to comply with all applicable public assembly and sanitary standards as well as with any conditional use standards (3) Exemptions. The following temporary structures and uses are permitted without complying with the permit requirements of this Subsection. (a) Garage sales in residential districts or on parcels occupied by residential dwellings for no more than four days in any calendar year. (b) Temporary structures and uses in place for no more than three consecutive days and located on County or town parkland or other public property, provided such uses have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Committee, the affected town board, or authorized County or town officials. (c) Temporary structures and uses sponsored by the County or town and in place for more than three consecutive days, provided such uses have been authorized by the County Board or affected town board. 25