January 30, 2024 at 5:30 a.m.

St. Germain Town Board votes to issue citation for clear-cutting

Conversation between supervisors becomes heated

By FRED WILLISTON
Special to the Lakeland Times

During a meeting of the St. Germain Town Board on Monday, Jan. 8, supervisors voted unanimously — despite a heated exchange of words — to issue a zoning violation citation to Peter Baltus.

Baltus, his family, and his recently-acquired property in St. Germain and have been the subjects of extensive discussions in the town since November. His daughter, Ella, — who is a Three Lakes Town Supervisor — received a death threat in December stemming from rumors regarding her family’s intentions for the land.

Those rumors were agendized and discussed by the St. Germain Town Board on three occasions. During a Nov.13 meeting, supervisor Ted Ritter explained that roughly 80 acres north of St. Germain on Wisconsin State Highway 155 and Found Lake Road were recently purchased by Peter Baltus’ family trust.

“He lives in Three Lakes,” Ritter said. “I believe he and/or his family own one or more of the local pump- ing services.”

“He’s in the septic-pumping business,” Ritter said. “At this point, there’s been nothing to substantiate that this is actually going to happen — or when.”

“The other thing I have to emphasize is that at this point, this — in my opinion — is just a rumor,” he said. “It’s probably a good rumor. It’s probably true that the owner of that land is looking to turn it into a septic field.”

When asked by The Lakeland Times to describe the land in ques- tion, Ritter answered: “It looks like 80 acres have been cleared. Stumps are still there. I don’t know if anything has gone beyond the logging. I don’t know if they’ve done anything beyond that or not, but it’s basically a stump-field at this time.”

In late December, Ritter and Town Board Chairman Tom Christensen had a sit-down meeting with Ella Baltus to discuss — for the first time — her family’s intentions for the land. Baltus and her father both stated in writing their plans for the tract center around having it rezoned and developing it for housing.

Following the discussion with Ella Baltus, Christensen formally quashed the septic-field rumor during a December 28 board meeting. He told attendees “What we have is his statement, what he is planning on the property. And as of right now, we don’t have anything that says he’s not going to do that. So, from this point on, I would trust that everyone would now back off.”

Ritter also told those in attendance he had confirmed with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — the only government agency in the state with regulatory power over septic fields — that no permit applications have been made to dump septage on the Baltus property and no official steps have been taken to establish a septic field there.

While the septic-field rumors were laid to rest, another issue pertaining to the Baltus property still remained in question: whether or not Baltus was in violation of the town’s ordinance prohibiting clear-cutting on properties zoned for forestry within 200 feet of the center-line of an adjacent road.

During their Jan. 8 meeting, the supervisors discussed the particulars of the Baltus case, as well as their concerns about what may be flaws in the existing ordinance.

Ritter said “The current ... town zoning ordinance prohibits clear-cutting of trees within 200 feet of the center-line of any roadway, I believe. Two hundred feet is a lot of property. And there is justified concern that that is excessive ... So it isn’t clear what the 200 should be. Should it be less than that? I’m confident that this is going to be hashed out in the next few weeks; maybe a couple of months; but before spring, I hope ... We’re trying to address clear-cutting, at least within properties zoned forestry.”

During a phone conversation with The Times on Jan. 10, Ritter explained his concerns about the setback in more detail.

“What bothers me about it, the provision for clear-cutting appears to apply across all zoning districts, not just forestry districts,” he said. “In residential districts, we have properties that aren’t 200 feet deep...It’s bizarre to me, and I do suspect that it will probably be adjusted to something a bit more reasonable in the future, but I can’t say that for certain.”

Ritter also told The Times he is aware the DNR frequently prescribes clear-cutting as a best-management practice for lands enrolled in the state’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) program. In MFL, landowners follow timber-management orders from the DNR in exchange for significantly reduced property-tax rates. Clear-cutting is often used to mitigate damage done by invasive species and tree blights, as well as to encourage regeneration of young trees by culling areas of forest which have reached the end of their life-cycles.

During the Jan. 8 meeting, supervisor Brian Cooper said he had been researching the legality of the town’s existing ordinance.

“I did speak to the Wisconsin Towns (Association) Attorney,” he said. “She said she wasn’t so sure that that was going to be a legit ordinance, because it does encroach on private property ... I called the town’s attorney (Steve Garbowicz), and he did say you can have whatever ordinances you want ... but whether or not it stands up in court is a whole other matter.”

Another potential flaw with the current ordinance is that it does not contain a definition of “clear-cutting.”

“Two meetings ago, we discussed this at the zoning level,” Cooper said. “The question was ‘What is clear- cutting?’. The zoning administrator looked it up and said clear-cutting is cutting all the trees. While I will state for the record that what they (the Baltuses) did up there was an abomination, there are still trees standing; it’s not clear-cut.”

Ritter disagreed. “ I don’t think there’s any reasonable argument that says that land wasn’t clear-cut,” he said. “Yeah, there’s still some little trees standing here and there, and if you read the literal definition as clear-cutting is the removal of all trees, that’s ridiculous. It was clear- cut.”

“So the question still stands that when these 80 acres were cleared along Highway 155 and Found Lake Road, they were clear-cut much closer to the road than 200 feet from the center line,” he said. “And that makes it a violation of the current ordinance. As such, the zoning committee voted to recommend to the town board that a citation be issued to the landowner for cutting too close to Found Lake Road.”

In reply, Cooper said “I think that you and Tom met with a representative; you got a letter that — albeit, was kind of racy — but everyone got what they wanted and wanted to hear. I think that we should just leave it alone.”

The letter to which Cooper was referring was the missive from Peter Baltus to the St. Germain Town Board in which he stated his intention for the land was to develop housing. Also in the letter, Baltus defended his rights as a property- owner and criticized the board for its response to the septic field rumor.

“But it is also true that the zoning committee — with a vote of four-to- one — recommended that the town pursue the ordinance, so it’s up to the town board,” Ritter said. “The 200 feet? What constitutes clear-cutting? ... That’s really not the issue here tonight. We’re going to be looking at all of that moving forward. The issue here tonight is should the town proceed with a citation based on the current language in the zoning ordinance 1.405, and the zoning committee has requested that you do.”

“Well, we’ve also made exceptions for storage containers that had been on properties, and we had an ordinance and we had a drop-dead date, and they came in and said ‘Oh, jeez. I didn’t know about that’, or what-ever the case was, and we made exceptions for them,” Cooper noted. “I don’t know why you’d want to go in this direction and upset this person.”

Ritter answered “The zoning committee voted 4-1 to move this to the board.”

“You’re right,” Cooper said, “but that doesn’t mean they’re right. They’ve been wrong in the past.”

An unidentified audience member spoke up.

“In Mr. Baltus’ response, he stated he was very familiar with zoning regulations,” the individual noted. “That implies to me that he knew what he was doing.”

“Or maybe he felt as though what he did was correct, maybe because we didn’t have a definition of clear- cutting in there,” Cooper replied. “That’s going to be his way out.”

“Just as economics, it’s going to cost him more than $260 to take this to court,” the audience member said.

“In the letter that I heard (read aloud at the Dec. 28 meeting), it would seem that the man is a little more principled than the average person,” Cooper responded.

Cooper pointed out the weaknesses in the current ordinance and questioned whether it would withstand a challenge in court.

“Is he in violation of the ordinance? Certainly, the way some people are interpreting it; the way the zoning committee is interpreting it, yes, he is in violation of the ordinance,” Ritter said. “Would it be challenged? Maybe; maybe not. That’s true of any time we write a citation: it could be challenged. You don’t back away from ordinances because you fear that it could be challenged. You’d never put an ordinance on the books.”

Ritter and the zoning committee has taken the first steps towards redrafting the ordinance in question and will seek input from the Vilas County Forester (who is also a DNR employee) as to how it can be improved.

In light of the new working draft of the ordinance, Cooper suggested tabling matter “until we can come up with what our new draft is going to be, to see if he falls under that, as well.”

“It won’t change the fact that, at the time the clear-cutting occurred, this is what the ordinance said,” Ritter responded.

“So, again, we’re talking about 200 feet,” Cooper replied. “In your draft ordinance for clear-cutting, it has no mention of how close you can be to the road. So if I was going to listen to this in a court, and I would have a guy saying ‘Hey, they told me I cut too close to the road, but they’re actively looking at this ordinance because I feel as though they think they have done something wrong’.”

“What you’re looking at is a draft ordinance,” Ritter noted.” It’s in draft form. It’s not even a public record at this point.”

“It is now,” Cooper said.

“It’s not ready for release,” Christensen said. “The board hasn’t approved it yet, Brian. He (indicating Supervisor Jim Swenson) hasn’t even seen it yet. That’s wrong, on your part, to do something like that.” 

“You’re not getting your way right now, and it’s very obvious that you’re not,” Christensen continued. “So now, you’re starting to do whatever you can dream up to try and blackmail us into doing whatever you want.”

“I’m not trying to blackmail you,” Cooper insisted. “I resent that, Tom. My gosh!”

“Well, you’re out-of- line,” Christensen said. “I’m not out-of-line,”

Cooper retorted. “That’s an email that got sent to us. It’s a matter of public record.”

“No, it’s not,” Christensen said. “It does not have to be released yet. It’s a working draft. That’s why it isn’t re- leased to the public until it’s in it’s final form, and once it’s in final form and approved.”

“But that (email) was sent out to two other people that are a member of the public; not just the zoning committee,” Cooper noted.

On Jan. 11 he told The Times he had consulted the Wisconsin Towns Association’s attorney, Lara Carlson, for clarification as to whether document is a public- record. He read from her emailed response.

“Yes, once a draft of a town document is circulated to others, it becomes a public record. If someone makes a records request of a document that is still in draft form, the best practice is to include a water-mark or other indication showing the document is a draft; that it is subject to change.”

Cooper told The Times he planned to forward the attorney’s email to his fellow supervisors for their edifi- cation “And just leave it at that”.

The day after the meeting, The Times made an open-records request to Ritter for a copy of the draft. He complied within 45 minutes of the request being made and said while he was not ab- solutely certain he was legally obligated to do so, he preferred to err on the side of transparency.

Ending the discussion in last week’s meeting, Swenson made a motion to authorize the chairman to send a citation for violation of chapter one zoning, 1.405. That motion passed unanimously.

During his conversation with The Times on Jan. 11, Cooper explained his vote in favor of the citation. He said if he were to have done otherwise, it would have put him in dereliction of his duty. “I swore an oath to uphold all the laws of the land,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them as they’re written in our ordinances, but at the end of the day, I had to vote to send that (citation) because he did violate by 200-feet clear-cutting.”

Ritter explained how the fine charged to Peter Baltus would be assessed.

“The town portion of it is $100,” he said. “By the time you add all the county and state add- ons, it’s $263.”

Ritter said he looks forward to taking input from the Vilas County Forester as the draft ordinance evolves. When asked whether the original ordinance — drafted and adopted in 1996 — was based on forestry science or aesthetics, he replied, “I would only be guessing if I offered an explanation for the language. Sorry. As far as justifying it, I won’t even attempt to do that.”


Comments:

You must login to comment.

Sign in
RHINELANDER

WEATHER SPONSORED BY

Latest News

Events

August

SU
MO
TU
WE
TH
FR
SA
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUN
MON
TUE
WED
THU
FRI
SAT
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6

To Submit an Event Sign in first

Today's Events

No calendar events have been scheduled for today.