Board of Adjustment

Minutes (53 KB)

                                                  SAUK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                                     June 23, 2011 Session of the Board

PRESENT:                               Rich Vogt, Chair
                                               Henry Netzinger
                                               Linda White
                                               Ron Lestikow, Alternate
                                               David Wernecke, Alternate

ABSENT:                                 David Allen
                                                Robert Roloff

STAFF PRESENT:                    Dave Lorenz
                                                Penny Pohle
                                                Steve Sorenson

OTHERS PRESENT: See individual appeal files for registration appearance slips.

Chair Vogt called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment (BOA) to order at 9:02 a.m. The Chair introduced the members of the Board, explained the procedures and the order of business for the day. The staff certified that the legally required notices have been provided for the scheduled public hearing. Certification accepted on a motion by White, seconded by Netzinger. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by Netzinger, seconded by Wernecke to adopt the agenda. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by White, seconded by Netzinger to adopt the minutes from the May meeting. Motion carried 4-0 . Wernecke abstained.

COMMUNICATIONS:

None to report.

APPEALS:

A. Orrin Carr (SP-10-11), a variance to authorize the construction of a new detached garage on a substandard sized lot. The property is described as: lot 2 CSM 4280, part of the SW ½ , SE ¼ section 3, T10N, R7E, Town of Merrimac.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and provided the history and background of the request and reviewed the staff report provided to the Board and applicant, as well as photos and video of the site. He then concluded with the recommendations of conditions to be attached to the variance if approved.

White asked if there is a height maximum.

Lorenz stated under that the shoreland ordinance does not deal with height.

Wernecke questioned the setbacks.

Lorenz responded by saying setback averaging was allowed along the town road.

Vogt had a question in regards to Exhibit 6-3, are the platted roads 20’ wide.

Lorenz explained the required road setbacks and that the garage was 35’ from the road right of way.

White questioned about how the garage relates to the other buildings in the neighborhood.

Lorenz discussed Exhibit 2-3 and 2-4 and that 2-4 showed the setbacks for the existing homes, and 2-3 is what is proposed. Lorenz said they needed to meet setbacks or have to get relief by variances or averaging the setbacks.

Vogt noted he is proposing to place the garage right in the middle which is 35’ away from right of way line.

Orrin Carr, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they want to build a garage in the middle of a vacant lot. The lot is unbuildable without a variance. Nothing in the neighborhood could exist without a variance. He needs the garage space for storage and that public interest is served by providing additional parking spaces and storage.

Carr presented Exhibits 8-1 through 8-6.

Carr reviewed the elevation exhibit and how the garage would be placed. The members reviewed the new exhibits.

Carr stated the garage would be cut into the existing slope to create a level floor. He described his three lots.

White questioned if the 14’ is to the peak.

Carr responded yes it 14’ to the peak.

White asked if all three lots were purchased at same time

Carr responded yes we did as a package.

White questioned what his intentions for the lot use were when the purchase was made.

Carr no plans originally and focused on repairs and putting in a new septic system.

Wernecke questioned plans for erosion control, landscaping, and grading.

Carr replied that the existing oaks will stay, the garage will be conventional design and dark in color, north homes should not be impacted, entrance is from the south, will park two vehicles and a boat in the garage, no increased traffic, no new people moving, a lot more parking, concrete apron to the south, no one staying in the garage, no pets in garage, strictly for storage or lawn care equipment and vehicles, old shed will be removed, and will put in some new landscaping.

Vogt questioned if there is an existing shed on the lot.

Carr said they was an old shed as shown on Exhibit 5-2.

White questioned if the lot would be unusable or unsalable to others.

Carr noted that with it being unbuildable it has zero sale value.

Mark Prescott, a neighbor appearing in favor of the request, read a short statement from wife that was unable to come (see Exhibit 4-2). He agrees with her statement. They live in the neighborhood three lots away, few lots meet the setbacks, most park on the street or on the lawns, garage would provide less street congestion.

White questioned if others would come in for variances.

Prescott responded no because of lack of room on the lots.

White questioned neighborhood garages.

Prescott responded that few neighbors have garages, most are small and detached. Their current garage is 6’ from the right of way. He does not object to the garage proposal.

Hans Simonson, a neighbor appearing in favor of the request, stated that he has no problem with building the garage, helped with the plans, concerned about view of the lake, see no problems if building as proposed provided it does not exceed 14’ in height. He stated that he owns three lots and has no objections.

Toni Seebantz, a neighbor spoke as interest may appear. Seebantz presented Exhibits 9-1 through 9-5 consisting of five photos. She questioned how far the garage is from the road. Suggested to build 48’ from the front line road, she has windows on side of house and don’t want the view of the lake obstructed. She has lived at the property for 17 years.

Vogt reviewed Exhibit 6-3 and that Park Street is the front road and Elm Street is also Idlewild Road.

Seebantz noted that her lot is larger than others in the neighborhood. Questioned why this was being heard again since he was denied last time.

White responded cannot deny a hearing request and explained the process on why he can attend.

Seebantz noted if Carr is willing to compromise the placement, she would agree to the request. When requests came in before, they were told to attach the garages to their homes.

Lorenz came forward and discussed the setbacks.

White asked if future improvements to the lot are possible and if Carr can build 20’ from the lot line.

Lorenz stated using averaging that yes it is permissible.

White asked what is the side yard setback.

Lorenz stated that it is 10’.

Vogt asked Carr to appear again and questioned if he had discussed this with Seebantz.

Carr stated that this was the first time he heard about it. He is considering what she said and has no problems with her request if able to meet the set back requirements. Can move the garage north. If moved to the north, will have a longer driveway and more off street parking.

Vogt stated that to maintain the same elevation will require putting the garage into the slope further.

Carr replied yes but more excavation will probably have to dig down another 18’ to make the south end of the garage make the 14’ requirement of height. Plan on 24’ x 30’ garage with an aggregate 13’side yard setback. Don’t know if this change will affect Hans’ view.

Wernecke questioned if trees or their roots will be harmed.

Carr noted that the oak trees are mainly to the south and some scrub trees closer to the road and those would not be interfered with or touched.

Simonson in favor as long as the elevation does not change and may improve the view.

Seeing as no else wished to speak, Chair Vogt closed the portion of the hearing at 10:02 a.m.

White noted she was on Board last time it was turned down, undersized lots are not addressed in the ordinance, Section 8-01 addressed standards for development in shoreland zone, discussed standards, this project will not affect water quality standards. The unnecessary hardship standard for lot size needs to be addressed. Uniqueness, within the county, these are very unique lots compared to today’s standards.

Netzinger concerned that the Town of Merrimac has responded to this request.

White replied that the Town of Merrimac had no objections in the previous request.

Wernecke noted that there are multiple policies. A substandard lot can have improvements. It is an established lot that typically you can put an improvement on. The proposal is a good faith effort to meet the setbacks, based on ordinances there is some wiggle room, needs a variance. Hardship must not be self created. There should be ability to improve a substandard lot. In favor of variance.

Lestikow has no problem with variance if Planning & Zoning agrees with the setbacks, this will improve the parking situation in the area. In favor of variance.

Vogt addressed the three variance requirements. Unnecessary hardship-there is really no other use for that lot, no other improvement that can be put on that lot unless a portable garage/portable carports. I think in this day and age, it can be hardship not to have a garage. Unique limitations addressed where you have an older subdivision that would not be platted out today this way. It is unique that the road has only a 20’ right of way. The public interest will be served by taking more cars off the street. Expressed concern that averaging will be met with the new garage location.

Wernecke stated they would need to meet the setback averaging condition.

White stated that over the years the Board has changed the way they review a variance request. Initial review only looked at the garage but now uses a wider context for the decision. Now I support the variance request. Her original variance opinion looked at the garage only instead of looking at the improvement of the vacant lot.

Wernecke noted that what we are looking at today is a lot with no improvements.

Vogt motioned that we approve the variance condition that the variance be granted to have the setback at 22’ or the average of the setback of the structures on the south side of Elm Street whichever distance is greater, as determined by the Sauk County Planning and Zoning and including the three recommendations by Planning and Zoning staff, seconded by Wernecke. Motion carried 5-0.

B. Timothy Deppe (SP-11-11), a special exception permit to modify the approved plans for filling and grading to repair the landscaping of a residence. The property is described as: E12558 Bay Rd., part of the SW ¼, NW ¼, section 8, T10N, R7E, Town of Merrimac.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and provided the history and background of the request and reviewed the staff report provided to the Board and applicant, as well as photos and video of the site. He then concluded with the recommendations of conditions to be attached to the special exemption permit if approved.

White questioned why this is coming before the Board again.

Lorenz informed that there has not been any construction, the decision letter was written in a manner that instructed that they need approval of the Board for the revised plans.

Craig Meister, contractor appeared in favor, discussed plans for building retaining walls, eliminating the stairs, riprapping the shoreline and having a buffer zone, constructing a new stone patio, and stabilizing the lot. The DNR received the plans.

Wernecke questioned the buried downspouts emerging by the steps.

Meister responded by saying that he has no plans to bury the downspouts on this project. The existing retaining wall has no fabric, not compacted, not installed correctly. Will replace the retaining walls in the same spot.

Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Vogt closed the public hearing at 10:44 a.m.

White motioned to add to condition A “or with changes approved by Planning and Zoning” seconded by Netzinger. Motion carried 5-0.

Recessed at 10:49 a.m. and reconvened at 10:54 a.m.

C. Larry & Kay Schroeder (SP-12-11), a special exception permit to authorize the location and operation of a new lodging house. The property described as: S1465 McKinney Rd., part of S ½, NW ¼, section 21, T13N, R3E, Town of LaValle.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and provided the history and background of the request and reviewed the staff report provided to the Board and applicant, as well as photos and video of the site. He then concluded with the recommendations of conditions to be attached to the special exemption permit if approved.

Wernecke questioned where the lodging house will be and how the permits were done. There appears to be a guest house on top of the garage. The lodging house was for the main house only and not the guest house. People in the guest house would currently be a violation.

Larry and Kay Schroeder, applicants, stated they have lived there for the past 12 years, now live in Reedsburg, and this property is for sale. Want to get a vacation rental for this home as an option for themselves. The guest home will not be used as part of the rental or for human habitation and will be used as a shop.

Wernecke questioned Lorenz what he would do if he found people on top of the garage.

Lorenz would ask them to leave.

Vogt asked what they need to have done in order to make the guest house legal.

Lorenz would provide options to create a new CSM for it or establish multi-family.

White questioned if in violation.

Lorenz stated they can have the kitchen but cannot be used for human habitation.

Vogt asked how the guest house will be utilized.

Larry Schroeder stated he did not plan to use the guest house, will use the main house for guests.

Vogt questioned if guests will be one family unit or multi-family.

Larry Schroeder stated it will be for one family, not a B&B.

White asked how many sleeping spaces.

Larry Schroeder informed that there are spaces for six, couch would make it eight. Strictly short- term. Will lock up over garage and keep secure. Will maintain the garage as a woodworking shop.

Vogt questioned if Schroeder’s will do the property management.

Larry Schroeder stated yes we will continue.

White questioned if less than 30 days for rentals.

Larry Schroeder said yes and thinking for weekend stays.

White noted to inform the realtor to get the guest house off the listing.

The Town of LaValle sent in acknowledgement form 4-0 with no objections dated June 13, 2011.

Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Vogt closed the public hearing at 11:15 a.m.

Vogt has no problems.

Wernecke stated that since the town approved, he has no problems. Make clear that the main house is the rental unit and do not advertise the guest house.

White emphasized that county zoning staff will work with Schroeders.

White motioned to pass with the conditions by Planning and Zoning, seconded by Wernecke. Motion carried, all in favor.

D. Ken & Sue Kidd (SP-13-11), a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% during the construction of a proposed new residence. The property is described as: E4420 W. Redstone Dr., lot 33 Bluebird addition to Lake Redstone, part of the NE ¼, SE ¼, section 23, T13N, R3E, Town of LaValle.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and provided the history and background of the request and reviewed the staff report provided to the Board and applicant, as well as photos and video of the site. He then concluded with the recommendations of conditions to be attached to the special exemption permit if approved.

Vogt questioned why this is coming before the Board again. He also stated that the 2010 permits were issued for retaining walls.

Lorenz stated the permits were issued for the retaining walls for the path leading down to the water. There was nothing addressed regarding the location of the residence. It didn’t look like they were on the steep slopes.

Vogt questioned if they got the permit for the walkway.

Wernecke questioned what issues were before the Board today.

Lorenz stated we are agreeing to the original conditions to create the walkway down to the lake. The walkway did have some retaining walls in that plan. Won’t need to build as many walls as were in the plan. To scale back is not an issue, to add is an issue. The other change is that the building is actually staked out and is on slopes greater than 20 percent.

Wernecke questioned if they are doing some filling and grading. There are or are not additional retaining walls which would deal with very steep slopes. Typically we see stabilization efforts for the wall on steep slopes.

Ken Kidd, applicant, we have a permit for the walkway. This is not designed to change the walkway permit. House is encroaching on the steep slopes, will not touch the big slope, an upper slope of 37 percent is what we are getting into.
Vogt questioned again the need to go to Board of Adjustment and locate the home out of the setback.
Kidd responded that the general contractor may need some minor encroachment on the slope.
Wernecke was questioning the previous Board of Adjustment language.
Sorenson we need to adjust the Board of Adjustment decision letter language to allow Planning and Zoning the flexibility to adjust to changing permit and plan conditions.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Vogt closed the public hearing at 11:43 a.m.

Netzinger stated that the possible building changes should be in a plan.

Vogt noted that we do not have a plan to show what is going on.

Netzinger stated that is why we are relying on Planning & Zoning.

Open public hearing at 11:52 a.m.

Kidd stated I have the walkway permit and if I need the retaining wall permit for the house, then I will work with Sorenson.

Seeing that no one else wished to speak, Chair Vogt closed the hearing 11:53 a.m.

Wernecke motioned to add condition G that any modifications outside the footprint of the house will require a plan to be approved by Planning and Zoning prior to construction. Netzinger seconded. Motion carried, 5-0.

Vogt mentioned this is his last Board of Adjustment meeting after serving for nine years. The Board thanked him for all of his work and dedication.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to adjourn at 12:01 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0.

Respectfully submitted,



Linda White for Robert Roloff