Plan Commission

1 VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 2 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026 4 APPROVED AS AMENDED 5 6 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 7 Chair Denise Bhirdo called the Plan Commission meeting to order on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 8 5:30 P.M., and roll call was taken. 9 10 Present: Plan Commission Chair Denise Bhirdo, and Commission members Steve Bacsi, Nate Bell, 11 Laurel Harff, Skip Heidler, and Patrice Champeau via Zoom. 12 13 Staff Member(s): Village Administrator Benjamin Andrews, Administrative Assistant Sarah Bertges. 14 15 Others: Kurt Harff. VIA ZOOM: Ellie Soderberg-Guger, Jonathan Leeb, Louise Howson, “JEG”, “RGAZL”. 16 17 2. Approve of Agenda 18 Motion to approve the agenda as presented was made by Bell, second by Heidler. Motion carried -all 19 ayes. 20 21 3. Approve Meeting Minutes: January 27, 2026 22 Two items of concern with the January 27, 2026 minutes were identified prior to approval. The first 23 concerned the language on page 3, line 33, where the minutes recorded a motion to "table." Bhirdo 24 noted that the Commission had moved away from tabling items, as doing so requires a subsequent 25 motion to take the item off the table. Andrews confirmed that the motion had in fact been one to 26 postpone, and that "table" may have been used as an informal synonym. The minutes were to be 27 corrected to reflect "postpone." 28 The second item concerned page 4, line 33, regarding the standard zoning permit application. Bhirdo 29 noted that additional information had been received on January 27, 2026, the day of the last Plan 30 Commission meeting, and questioned whether the 45-day clock ran from the original application date 31 of January 19 or from the date of the supplemental submission, which would have pushed the deadline 32 to March 13. Andrews clarified that per the village's ordinance, the 45-day clock is triggered by receipt 33 of the complete application, determined within 5 days of submission, and that the relevant date was 34 January 19, making the deadline March 5. 35 Motion by Bacsi to approve the January 27, 2026 minutes as amended. Second by Heidler. Motion 36 carried- all ayes. 37 38 4. Comments, Correspondence and Concerns from the Public 39 Bhirdo noted that an email had been received from Steve Musinsky pertaining to the zoning map to 40 be discussed later in the meeting. The substance of the email was already reflected in her notes and 41 would be incorporated into the official record. No members of the public present or joined via Zoom 42 raised their hands to comment. 43 44 5. Discussion/Action Items 45 a. Standard Zoning Permit Application; Review/Approve Modifications To Existing Tower; 2530 S 46 Bay Shore Drive 47 Andrews provided a follow-up report from the January 27, 2026 meeting, where the Commission had 48 postponed action on a zoning permit application for modifications to an existing cellular tower at 2530 49 S Bay Shore Drive, pending an opinion from village legal counsel. Andrews reported that the village 50 attorney confirmed two key points: first, that a decision must be rendered within 45 days of a 51 complete application—received January 19, making the deadline Thursday, March 5—or the  February 24, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved As Amended 1 application would be automatically approved; and second, that the village does have authority to 2 impose requirements beyond state law concerning panel size, which triggers the conditional use 3 criteria in the village ordinance and would allow for a public hearing. In preparation, a public hearing 4 had been scheduled for March 4, 2026, at 5:30 PM. Legal counsel recommended that the public be 5 given an opportunity to provide input and testify as part of the review process. 6 Bell provided technical background, noting that multiple entities were involved in the project— 7 Cellcom as the tower owner, Vertical Bridge as the company holding a 20-year lease on the tower, and 8 Terra Consulting acting on behalf of Verizon as the installer. Bell explained that this arrangement is 9 common industry practice. He stated that the upgrade would benefit Sister Bay, as Verizon customers 10 would connect directly to Verizon's network rather than Cellcom's, likely improving service quality. He 11 further noted that this would likely improve the functionality of the village's SCADA system, which 12 uses Verizon-based equipment and has experienced lower priority during busy holiday weekends on 13 Cellcom's network. Bell expressed a concern that the Lundquist tower serves as the backbone for 14 Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Cellcom communications, and that any failure of that tower would affect 15 all carriers simultaneously. He also observed that Cellcom retains reserved space on the tower under 16 the lease and that the tower would revert to Cellcom in approximately five more years. 17 Heidler questioned the practical significance of antenna size as a triggering criterion, noting that the 18 tower already carries antennas of comparable dimensions and that such equipment is barely 19 distinguishable at 150 feet. Bell acknowledged the tower's visual impact, noting that transmission lines 20 have a greater visual impact than the panels themselves, but clarified that aesthetics are not a 21 legitimate basis for approval or denial under applicable law. Andrews confirmed that under the 2018 22 ordinance and subsequent legal guidance, aesthetics are not among the listed criteria for evaluation. 23 Heidler also noted that a coverage map, which is required as part of the application under village 24 ordinance section 66.0505-5-B-16 (page 99 of the packet), had not been included in the submitted 25 materials. Peter Schau, representing Terra Consulting, responded that state law preempts local 26 requirements in defining a complete application for this type of collocation, and that a propagation 27 map is not required under state statute. Bhirdo acknowledged the point but directed that the 28 discrepancy between the village's ordinance and state law be noted and placed in the Plan 29 Commission's tickler file for future review. Andrews confirmed the ordinance was last revised in 2018 30 and may not reflect subsequent changes to state or federal law. Bell suggested that a review involving 31 an FCC-specialized attorney may be warranted, given the complexity of the regulatory landscape. 32 Schau further addressed the Commission's broader deliberations, noting that state and federal law 33 classify this application as a class 2 colocation-permitted use—and that public hearings for such 34 applications are exceedingly rare. He stated that in his experience, a public hearing for a permitted 35 colocation use had not occurred in Wisconsin since 2014, and that any denial would need to be 36 supported by substantial evidence. 37 The Commission turned to a question raised by Bhirdo regarding page 24 of the packet, which stated 38 that Verizon must remove existing equipment at four heights—143.5 feet, 129 feet, 115 feet, and 39 156.5 feet—before installing the proposed equipment. Schau clarified that the equipment to be 40 removed is existing, non-operational equipment that the tower owner has tasked Verizon with 41 removing as part of their tower work. Bell also identified on page 114 that the existing Sprint platform 42 and associated equipment were to be removed as part of the installation. Heidler noted that, since 43 the full application serves as the basis of the agreement, the individual items within it are technically 44 already binding. However, the Commission agreed that drawing explicit attention to the removals in 45 the motion was worthwhile to ensure clarity. 46 The Commission debated the merits of proceeding with the March 4 public hearing. Bacsi observed 47 that no members of the public had appeared at the current meeting, despite the matter being publicly 48 available, suggesting low attendance. Bell stated he personally favored a public hearing as a matter of 49 good governance, but acknowledged it may not be practical given the narrow scope of permissible 50 considerations and the imminent 45-day deadline. Champeau noted the public's primary concern 51 would likely be the aesthetics criterion that cannot legally be considered in the decision, and 2  February 24, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved As Amended 1 suggested that most residents would welcome improved service. The Commission ultimately 2 concluded that forgoing the public hearing was the most prudent use of staff resources. 3 Motion by Bell to approve the zoning permit application as presented, subject to: (1) removal of 4 existing equipment at the levels identified on page 24 of the application (143.5 feet, 129 feet, 115 feet, 5 and 156.5 feet); (2) removal of the existing Sprint platform and associated equipment as identified on 6 page 114; and (3) to forego the scheduled public hearing. Second by Heidler. Motion carried- all ayes. 7 8 b. Ord. 2026-002; Adopting A New Zoning Map For The Village Of Sister Bay 9 The Commission reviewed the draft zoning map dated February 13, 2026. Several issues and proposed 10 corrections were raised during the discussion. 11 CBRF/Glen Estates Parcel (R1/R2 Designation): Bhirdo identified that a parcel currently labeled 12 "Proposed R1" on the map near Fieldcrest Road is incorrectly annotated. The parcel in question, the 13 Glen Estates property, should be designated R2. Bhirdo also indicated the Commission should verify 14 whether an adjacent rear parcel, for which a Phase 2 development had been proposed, should 15 similarly be redesignated to R2. Andrews confirmed that the correction would align with the future 16 land use map. 17 Fieldcrest Road Parcel – 10585 Fieldcrest (R1 Designation): Heidler identified a parcel at 10585 18 Fieldcrest that was designated CS1 on the draft map but should be changed to R1, consistent with the 19 future land use map's designation for that area. Heidler noted that the adjacent parcel fronting 20 Highway 42 should remain B1. 21 Woodland Overlay – Fieldcrest Road Area: Heidler raised concerns about the Woodland Overlay 22 District as applied to properties along Fieldcrest Road, noting that satellite imagery shows these 23 parcels to be largely unforested orchards with little or no tree canopy. He questioned the logic of 24 including half of a parcel within the overlay when the entire parcel lacks trees. Bell expressed broader 25 concern that the Woodland Overlay, as presented, is too arbitrary and inaccurate across the village, 26 citing areas with significant tree canopy that are not included, while open orchard land is included. 27 After discussion, the Commission reached a consensus to pull the overlay boundary back to the 28 property lines along Fieldcrest, removing areas that are clearly unforested, while retaining coverage 29 on a single elongated rectangle parcel (parcel 18100073128-41C) that satellite imagery confirms is half 30 forested and has no assigned address. 31 Woodland Overlay – 2536 Fieldcrest Road (Don Howard Property): A small exclusion box had been 32 drawn within the Woodland Overlay at 2536 Fieldcrest Road around an existing residential structure. 33 The Commission determined this exclusion was unnecessary and that the parcel should be shaded 34 within the Woodland Overlay, as homes may exist within the overlay district. 35 Bayshore Drive Condominiums (R2 Designation): Heidler noted that a property on South Bay Shore 36 Drive near the marina, which contains four individually owned condominium units for which a fourth 37 unit had recently been permitted, was shown as multifamily on the future land use map. Heidler 38 expressed the view that the property should remain zoned R2, consistent with its existing use and 39 recent permitting history. Discussion followed regarding whether changing the designation would 40 constitute spot zoning. Bhirdo indicated that the property's grandfathered status is likely why it has 41 remained as-is, and the item was flagged for a future land use map discussion. Andrews was directed 42 to note this item for future consideration. 43 Sister Bay Yacht Club PUD: Bhirdo raised the question of whether the Sister Bay Yacht Club had 44 originally been established under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation during its 45 development under prior ownership. Bhirdo requested that staff clarify the yacht club's status before 46 the public hearing. 47 2629 South Bay Shore Drive (R1 Designation): Heidler identified parcel 2629 South Bay Shore Drive, a 48 1.1-acre property, as currently designated CS1 on the draft map but noted it does not meet the 49 minimum acreage requirements for CS1 zoning. He recommended redesignating it as R1, consistent 50 with the future land use map's residential designation for that property. 3  February 24, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved As Amended 1 2649 South Bay Shore Drive (R3 Designation): Heidler identified parcel 2649 South Bay Shore Drive 2 (parcel 18100073128-13B, owned by Charles Wood) as a 5.2-acre property currently designated CS1, 3 which also does not meet the dimensional requirements for that district. He recommended it be 4 redesignated R3. 5 Following the discussion, the Commission reached consensus on all proposed corrections. A motion 6 was made to amend the draft zoning map to incorporate all identified changes. 7 Motion by Bhirdo to amend the draft zoning map dated February 13, 2026, to include the following 8 corrections: (1) seek clarification on the Sister Bay Yacht Club PUD status prior to the public hearing; 9 (2) reduce the Woodland Overlay boundary along Fieldcrest Road to align with property lines, 10 excluding unforested orchard parcels, while retaining the half-forested rectangle parcel without an 11 address; (3) include 2536 Fieldcrest Road (Don Howard property) within the Woodland Overlay; (4) 12 redesignate 10585 Fieldcrest Road as R1; (5) redesignate the Glen Estates parcel and its access 13 easement as R2; (6) redesignate 2629 South Bay Shore Drive as R1; and (7) redesignate 2649 South 14 Bay Shore Drive as R3. Second by Heidler. Motion carried 5-1 with Bell opposed. 15 Andrews advised that he will coordinate with Bay Lakes Regional Planning to update both the zoning 16 map and the future land use map following the meeting and distribute updated drafts to Commission 17 members for review prior to the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding whether the public 18 hearing for the future land use map should be scheduled concurrently. Bell expressed a preference 19 for both documents to proceed to the village board together. The Commission agreed that scheduling 20 both items for the same public hearing would be the most efficient approach and that the notice could 21 cover both. Andrews confirmed there is no procedural prohibition on combining the hearings. 22 Andrews also noted he would send follow-up correspondence to the property owners who received 23 public hearing notices for the tower application, advising them that the public hearing had been 24 canceled. 25 26 6. Matters To Be Placed On A Future Agenda Or Referred To A Committee, Official Or Employee 27 The following items were identified for future action: 28 ● Review of village ordinance section 66.0505-5-B (application content requirements) for 29 consistency with current state and federal telecommunications law, potentially with involvement 30 of an FCC-specialized attorney. 31 ● Determination of the Sister Bay Yacht Club's PUD status. 32 ● Future land use map inconsistencies identified by Heidler are to be communicated to Andrews for 33 incorporation into the updated draft prior to the public hearing. 34 ● The nonconforming use implications for the South Bay Shore Drive condominium property 35 (grandfathered R2) are to be placed on a future agenda in connection with a future land use map 36 review. 37 38 7. Next Meeting 39 The next regular monthly meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026, 40 at 5:30 PM, in the Large Meeting Room of the Sister Bay-Liberty Grove Fire Station. 41 42 8. Adjournment 43 Motion to adjourn at 6:51 PM. 44 Motion by Heidler second by Harff. Motion carried -all ayes. 45 46 Respectfully submitted by Sarah Bertges, Administrative Assistant 4