Baltus family to challenge clear-cutting citation from St. Germain

During the March 12 meeting of the St. Germain Town Board, town chairman Tom Christensen announced that a citation the town sent to a local landowner for clear-cutting of trees in violation of its zoning ordinance will be challenged in Vilas County Circuit Court on March 27.

Peter Baltus, his family, and his recently-acquired property in St. Germain have been the subject of extensive discussions in the town since November. His daughter, Ella Baltus, — who is also 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 November 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. Following the purchase, the land was cleared.

When asked by The Lakeland Times to describe the land in question, 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.”

“I believe he and/or his family own one or more of the local pumping services,” Ritter told the standing-room-only crowd at the November meeting.

“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.”

One unidentified audience member said “Quite honestly, I’d like to make his (Baltus’) life as difficult as possible. I don’t know if there’s anything else we can do to contribute to that.”

Ella Baltus received a threatening email via her official Three Lakes Supervisor account on December 4. The sender was listed as an Outlook account with the name Darrin DeYoung attached to it. The email read (in part):

“YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER!!!”

“People are coming for you, and they know where you live.”

“I highly suggest that you do whatever you can to mitigate the damages caused by the clear-cutting in Saint Germain and abandon your plans to apply for a septic dumping permit.”

That threat is being investigated by the Three Lakes Police Department in conjunction with another law enforcement agency.

In late December, Ritter and 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 re-zoned 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.”

During the December 28 meeting, Christensen had a letter from Peter Baltus read aloud to the St. Germain Town Board. It stated (in part):

“The assertion that I purchased this property for use as an ’80-acre waste dump' is delusional, economically illiterate and venturing deeply into the absurd. Furthermore, the harvest of forest products is a pursuit that our family has been engaged in throughout Northern Wisconsin for 6 generations. Apparently, that activity on a property zoned forestry is in direct conflict with the ever-expanding cohort of people who abhor anything that they deem an affront to their views and opinions concerning the environment. That subject is a contretemps for another day.”

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 a January 8 town board meeting, the supervisors discussed the particulars of the Baltus case, as well as their concerns with potential flaws in the existing ordinance.

“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,” Ritter said.  “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.”

Ritter told The Times he is aware the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (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 January’s 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.”

One 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.”

“I don’t think there’s any reasonable argument that says that land wasn’t clear-cut,” Ritter said in disagreement. “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 lane,” 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.”

An unidentified audience member said, “In Mr. Baltus’ response, he stated he was very familiar with zoning regulations. That implies to me that he knew what he was doing.”

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

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

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

Cooper pointed out the weaknesses in the current ordinance and questioned whether it would withstand a challenge in court, and said he would not be surprised if Baltus were to challenge a citation if he were to receive one. His words proved to be prescient.

The board voted unanimously to authorize Christensen to write the citation. 

During a conversation with The Times on January 11, Cooper explained why he voted in unison with his fellow supervisors. 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.”

On Jan. 10 Ritter explained to The Times 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.”

Following last week’s announcement of Baltus’ challenge to the citation, Ritter spoke with The Times about what happens next.

“When you’re issued a citation for speeding on a highway, you have the option to pay it before your scheduled hearing date and it’s a done deal,” he said. “If you choose not to pay it and don’t show up, there could be a bench warrant issued for your arrest. But if you choose not to pay it and you inform the court ‘I would like to discuss this with the judge’, the court will respond with ‘OK, here’s your time and date, we’ll see you then’.’

“And that’s what this is: Mr. Baltus is exercising his right to explain to the circuit court judge why he feels this citation is not in order. And the town will have an opportunity to respond to any questions the judge might have or explain why the town feels that the citation is in order. And then, as I understand it, the judge will make a decision one way or the other.”

Steve Garbowicz will be the attorney representing the town, and Ritter will appear on behalf of the board, as Christensen had a scheduling conflict.

“Whatever fees the attorney charges will come from town funds,” Ritter said.

The Times asked if the town is likely to come out of court in a losing financial situation regardless of the judge’s ruling. 

“The citation is $100, and with all the add-on fees, the total is $263. Of which — if the recipient of the citation simply were to have paid it — the town doesn’t get anywhere near like $263. I think it gets something more like $20,” he said. “You don’t write citations as a revenue source.”

“Almost all of it is absorbed by the court or the state, and a little, little bit of it comes back to the town. And that’s if it’s paid. So even if the judge were to say — and I’m not suggesting he will or won’t — ‘Mr. Baltus, pay the forfeiture for this citation’, Mr. Garbowicz’s representation would be significantly more than the 20 bucks or whatever it is we’re going to get. So, yes, we’re going to come out behind on this.”

The Times asked Ritter how confident he was in the ordinance’s ability to withstand a challenge.

“I’ll answer that by saying this is my first experience where a town citation has been challenged. I really don’t know what to expect.”

Ritter was asked how far the town board would be willing to back challenges to its ordinance beyond Vilas County Circuit Court. 

“That has not been discussed by the board,” he said, “so I really can’t even speculate on an answer.”

Ritter said regardless of the outcome of next week’s court date, the ordinance currently on St. Germain’s books needs to be improved upon.

“The zoning committee has been working diligently — in consultation with a professional forester — on preparing a draft to address the shortcomings in the ordinance,” he said. “That will be presented for first review at the town board meeting on March 28.”

While the Baltus case was not on the agenda for last week’s town board meeting, St. Germain resident Bob Olson voiced his opinions during the public comment session.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by the town board and should be removed from the ordinances completely,” he said in reference to the 200-foot rule.

“As a person who earned a bachelor’s (degree) in forest management from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, I am outraged at the ignorance and bias shown by this board during public meetings and in written articles,” Olson said.

“The property owner should have the right to clear cut and use his land as he sees fit,” he said.

“I own land with town roads bordering two sides,” Olson said. “And using a Vilas County GIS estimate, the town is telling me I cannot clear-cut 8.5 acres minimum of my land — which I pay taxes on — if I wanted to. The math equates to more than $3,200 of timber the town is now telling me actually isn’t mine.”

“You are holding thousands of acres hostage,” he said. “Stop telling property owners how they can use their land and their timber, the value of which was probably taken into account when they purchased their land.”

The Times requested comment from Ella Baltus, but she was unable to reply before this issue went to press.