Special Plan Commission Meeting — Minutes

VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 1 SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 2 MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026 3 APPROVED 4 5 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 6 Chair Denise Bhirdo called the Special Plan Commission meeting to order on Monday, APRIL 20, 2026, 7 at 5:34 P.M., and roll call was taken. 8 9 Present: Commission members Chair Denise Bhirdo, Nate Bell , Laurel Harff, Skip Heidler, Patrice 10 Champeau and Steve Bacsi via Zoom. 11 12 Staff Member(s): Administrative Assistant Sarah Bertges , Village Administrator Benjamin Andrews 13 was absent. 14 15 Others: Kurt Harff, Jolene Brydon, Corey Brydon, Erin Peddle, Pam Ledesic, Kevin Ladesic, Louise 16 Howson. VIA ZOOM: Barbara, Jenn, Jake Forestville Builders, Dominick Zarcone, MKS, Alex Chemerys, 17 Dr. Jennifer Hall, Marjorie Grutzmacher, Ron Kane, Jill Wiebe, Dave, Julie Thyssen 18 19 2. Approve the Agenda 20 Bell requested to move item 4c (discuss the history of the sign permit process) after item 4e to 21 provide better context for the sign-related discussions. 22 Motion by Bell, second by Heidler to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried- all ayes. 23 24 3. Comments, Correspondence, and Concerns from the Public 25 Bhirdo opened the floor for public comments on non-agenda items. No public comments were 26 received either in person or via Zoom. 27 Before proceeding to action items, Bhirdo read a statement explaining the background of the 28 meeting. She noted that on April 13, 2026, she observed a sign that had not received proper plan 29 commission approval, prompting her to request an open records review of all permits from January 30 5, 2026 to present. During her review, she discovered permits had been issued without the plan 31 commission chair's approval, contrary to established procedure. She attempted to contact the 32 village president about this issue but received no response. 33 34 4. Action Items 35 a. Appeal the Decision of the Zoning Administrator Issuing a Zoning Permit on March 23, 2026 for 36 2613 South Bay Shore Drive, John Sawyer, 4,000 Sq Ft Garage. Parcel# 181080005 37 Bhirdo presented the appeal regarding John Sawyer's 4,000 square foot garage permit. She 38 explained that the administrator incorrectly told the applicant that plan commission approval was 39 not required, when all commercial property permits must come to the plan commission. The permit 40 application showed metal siding, which the village does not allow, and the structure's 100-foot 41 length would require architectural features to break up the wall. 42 Heidler noted additional code compliance issues, suggesting the structure might require conditional 43 use permit approval as a storage facility under section 166.032.03.i, which would necessitate 44 sprinkler systems and other requirements. Bell raised concerns about the village appealing its own 45 decision and the potential complications if the appeal process begins. 46 After a brief recess to consult with village attorney Randy Nesbitt, the commission agreed to pursue 47 a cooperative approach with the property owner. 48 Motion by Bhirdo, second by Champeau directing village attorney Randy Nesbitt to contact John 49 Sawyer to request replacement of the proposed metal siding with code-compliant materials. If the 50 property owner agrees to make the change, no appeal will be filed. If the property owner refuses to 51 April 20, 2026 Special Plan Commission Meeting- Approved 2 cooperate, the plan commission authorizes staff to proceed with the appeal process. Motion carried-1 all ayes. 2 3 b. Discuss and/or Appeal the Decision of the Zoning Administrator Issuing or Not Issuing a Zoning 4 Permit to 10855 North Bay Shore Drive, Zarcone, 16X20 Boathouse/Storage Shed. Parcel# 5 181270015 6 Bhirdo outlined the complex history of this property, explaining that the previous owner had 7 discussions with former administrator Julie Schmelzer about maintaining an accessory structure 8 while building a new house. The current owner, Dominick Zarcone, ultimately demolished both 9 structures but later applied for a new accessory structure. 10 The primary issue is that the proposed structure is within 20 feet of the ordinary high watermark, 11 violating the 50-foot setback requirement. Additionally, no formal zoning permit application was 12 found in the file—only email communications requesting a $200 fee payment. 13 Zarcone joined the meeting via Zoom and explained his understanding that boathouses were 14 allowable within the 20-foot setback. He clarified that the new structure would be 15 feet from the 15 property line (unlike the original structure which was 18-24 inches from the line) and would match 16 the architectural style of their new home. The concrete pad has already been poured at an 17 estimated cost of $10,000-$12,000 to remove and relocate. 18 Heidler researched DNR requirements during the meeting, finding that structures must be at least 35 19 feet from the ordinary high watermark, with most structures requiring 75-foot setbacks. The 20 commission noted that the structure doesn't meet the village's definition of a boathouse since it 21 won't be accessible by boats from navigable water. 22 After extensive discussion about moving the structure closer to the house (which would compromise 23 aesthetics and functionality), the commission reluctantly decided to allow the permit to stand given 24 the extenuating circumstances, including the village's error in the permit process and the precedent 25 set by a similar conditional use permit granted to neighboring property. 26 Motion by Bhirdo, second by Heidler requiring Zarcone to submit a complete zoning permit 27 application for the accessory structure, with the relevant portion of tonight's meeting minutes 28 attached to provide historical context. Motion carried- all ayes. 29 By consensus, the commission agreed to take no further action on the appeal, effectively allowing the 30 structure to remain as permitted. 31 32 c. Discuss the History of the Sign Permit Process and Reaffirm or Change 33 This item was moved to after item 4.e as agreed during agenda approval. Bhirdo explained the 34 historical evolution of sign permit approval from full plan commission review to delegation to the 35 plan commission chair and zoning administrator to expedite the process. The current criteria 36 requires wood materials or wood-look, dimensional features, and prohibits flat metal signs to 37 maintain the community's aesthetic character. 38 39 d. Discuss the Sign Permits Approved by the Zoning Administrator 40 d.i. 10590 Country Walk, Unit 4, Bay Birch Gallery 41 Bhirdo detailed her concerns with this permit, which was approved despite her identifying multiple 42 code violations including incorrect size calculations, missing dimensional requirements, and material 43 non-compliance. The administrator approved the sign without addressing her concerns or sharing 44 them with the applicant. 45 The business owner, Pam Ladesic, joined the discussion and clarified that she had submitted 46 corrected dimensions and confirmed wood composite materials per the administrator's request. She 47 confirmed the sign would have dimensional letters and provided the "little rad house" sign photo as 48 an example of similar style. The commission was satisfied that the final sign met code requirements. 49 April 20, 2026 Special Plan Commission Meeting- Approved 3 d.ii. 10663 North Bay Shore Drive, Savor (approved February 11, 2026) 1 Bhirdo noted this permit was never submitted to her for approval. She questioned the application's 2 missing dimensions for the projecting sign and the administrator's incorrect calculation listing it as 3 4x4 when it was clearly oblong. The linear frontage measurement was confirmed as accurate at 39 4 feet. After discussion with the business representative, the commission confirmed the sign included 5 proper dimensional features and met code requirements. 6 7 d.iii. 10635 North Bayshore Drive, Juicy Burgers 8 This permit involved changing signage from “Savor” to "Juicy Burgers" using the same sign structure. 9 Bhirdo confirmed the sign was made of 100% oak with routed raised letters, meeting dimensional 10 requirements. The permit was approved without her review, though she had no substantive 11 objections to the compliant sign. 12 13 e. Discuss and/or Appeal the Decision of the Zoning Administrator Issuing a Permit to 2363 Mill 14 Road Unit 1, Sweetlana's Gelato, Approved March 27, 2026 Parcel# 181520001 15 Bhirdo identified multiple deficiencies in this permit application, including describing the sign as 16 "wood polymetal" (which doesn't exist—it's actually polymetal with aluminum sheets), missing 17 dimensional aspects, incomplete illumination details, and no administrator's review checklist. The 18 sign lacked required wood texture and dimensional features. 19 Alex Chemerys, the business owner, joined via Zoom and explained he originally considered 20 polymetal but was willing to use wood with 3D cut letters as requested. He confirmed the sign had 21 not yet been manufactured. 22 Motion by Bhirdo, second by Heidler that if Sweetlana's Gelato and Coffee surrenders their current 23 sign permit and resubmits a complete application, the commission will not appeal the original 24 permit. The new application will be expedited and reviewed by the village administrator and plan 25 commission chair. If they do not resubmit, staff is authorized to begin the appeal process. Motion 26 carried- all ayes. 27 28 c. Discuss the History of the Sign Permit Process and Reaffirm or Change (continued) 29 Bell noted that the village code only explicitly grants sign approval authority to the plan commission 30 chair in the B2 historic overlay district, despite the long-standing practice of chair approval for all 31 signs. He suggested the code should be amended to formalize this practice if the commission wishes 32 to continue it. 33 The commission discussed the need to improve sign permit applications to require complete 34 information and include building frontage calculations. Bhirdo emphasized that incomplete 35 applications should be returned rather than processed with missing information. 36 37 5. Matters to be Placed on a Future Agenda or Referred to a Committee, Official or Employee 38 -Bell requested staff provide an estimate of costs and timeline for a complete rewrite of the village 39 zoning code, including the plan commission time commitment required. The commission discussed 40 their experience with previous code revisions and the benefits of doing the work internally versus 41 hiring consultants. 42 -Heidler requested that the commission receive current copies of the zoning code and that staff 43 default to providing digital copies rather than printed versions unless specifically requested. 44 -The commission agreed to place sign application review and revision on a future agenda. 45 46 6. Next Meeting 47 The next regular monthly meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2026, at 5:30 P.M. in the Large Meeting 48 Room at the Sister Bay-Liberty Grove Fire Station. 49 50 7. Adjournment 51 Motion to adjourn at 7:48 PM. 52 April 20, 2026 Special Plan Commission Meeting- Approved 4 Motion by Bhirdo second by Champeau. Motion carried -all ayes. 1 2 Respectfully submitted by Sarah Bertges, Administrative Assistant 3 4