Sauk County Board of Adjustment

SAUK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

                                                August 27, 2015 Session of the Board

 

PRESENT:                  Dan Kettner, Vice Chair

David Allen
Henry Netzinger

Nick Ladas

David Wernecke, Alternate

                                   

ABSENT:                    Linda White, Chair

 

STAFF PRESENT:     Dave Lorenz  

                                    Gina Templin

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  See Registration slips

 

Vice Chair Kettner called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment (BOA) to order at approximately 9:00 A.M.  The Vice 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 had been provided for the scheduled public hearing.  The certification of notice was accepted on a motion by Allen, seconded by Netzinger .  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

The Board adopted the agenda for the August 27, 2015 session of the Board on a motion by Allen, seconded by Netzinger.  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

The Board adopted the minutes from the July 7^th and 30^th Board of Adjustment meeting on a motion by Netzinger, seconded by Allen.

 

COMMUNICATIONS:  None.

 

APPEALS:

 

A.        Ted & Teresa Bindl (SP-20-15) requesting a variance to authorize an addition to a commercial kennel within 1000 feet of a neighboring residence.

 

Dave Lorenz, appeared and gave a brief history and background of the property, as well as reviewing photos and a video of the site.   He then recommended conditions to be placed on the appeal if the request were approved.

 

Kettner asked what brought the investigation onto the property.  Lorenz explained the Department received a complaint about barking dogs and an expansion of the kennel.

 

Kettner verified that in 2006 a special exception and variance was granted and questioned transferability.  Lorenz explained.

 

Ladas asked about the new lean-to being within 66’ setback.  Lorenz stated that with the change of the oridnance the setback is 42’ and he meets the setbacks.

 

Wernecke asked where the privacy fence falls within the setbacks.  Lorenz explained the fencing requirements based on the structure and the build.

 

Wernecke asked if the lean-to is where the kennel previously was.  Lorenz explained.

 

Ted Bindl, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the history and background of the project.

 

Kettner, referring to Exhibit II-4, asked if the buildings labeled “existing barn” are all one structure.  Bindl confirmed and stated since 2006 there are dogs housed in the existing barn, hay shed and in the outbuilding, as listed on the exhibit.

 

Bindl explained that the lean-to was built to conform to newer state codes.  Kettner confirmed there were pens located there with a concrete base.  Bindl stated that was correct.

 

Ladas asked about the 2006 variance and if all the buildings were being used.  Bindl stated that was correct.

 

Wernecke asked if where the lean-to was built, whatever was there before, if that was presented in 2006 as being used.  Bindl stated that was correct.

 

Kettner asked about the noise complaint.  Bindl stated the dogs are active when the coyotes howl and in the morning when they feed them, otherwise they are pretty quiet.

 

Wernecke asked if the dogs are inside at night.  Bindl stated they are and explained the kennel set up.

 

Benny Stenner, appearing as interest may appear, stated the owners take good care of their property and sometimes the dogs bark, but it is not all the time.

 

Bindl, reappearing.

 

Kettner asked Mr. Bindl to explain using the video where the fencing would be.  Bindl explained.

 

Lorenz reappearing.

 

Netzinger asked about the concrete being allowed to be poured and fencing being allowed and the issue with the expansion is only the roof.  Lorenz explained that was correct.

 

Wernecke asked about the existing barn being too close to the road and any issues with fence being too close to the road.  Lorenz explained again the requirements of the fence.

 

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Vice Chair Kettner closed the public portion of the meeting at approximately 9:42 am. 

 

Kettner stated the issue at hand is the existence of the roof and there is already a variance on the property.

 

The Board discussed.

 

Wernecke stated he feels comfortable giving a variance for the expansion given the testimony given today, the roof expansion that was done, was done to comply with state regulations, to treat the animals better, the privacy fence is a good idea.  He does have an issue with sequencial variances.

 

Kettner feels this should have been brought to the Board first.

 

Netzinger feels putting a roof over the runs should have been checked out first and feels making him take the roof off would be detrimental to the operation.  He also feels the addition of the privacy fence is a good idea.

 

Motion by Netzinger, seconded by Ladas to grant the variance under the terms of the original variance to include the expansion, with the conditions listed by the Town of Spring Green and those requested by Conservation, Planning and Zoning.    Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Board of Adjustment Training/Review with Corporation Counsel Todd Liebman.

 

Liebman provided a training outline packet and gave an update on land use issues and things affecting the State.

 

Motion to adjourn by Netzinger, seconded by Allen.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Henry Netzinger, Secretary