Board of Adjustment

Minutes (56 KB)

SAUK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 25, 2012 Session of the Board

PRESENT: Dan Kettner, Acting Chair
David Allen
Nicholas Ladas
Henry Netzinger

ABSENT: Linda White, Chair

STAFF PRESENT: Dave Lorenz
Gina Templin

OTHERS PRESENT: See Registration slips

Acting Chair Kettner called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment (BOA) to order at approximately 9:00 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 had been provided for the scheduled public hearing. The certification of notice was accepted on a motion by Ladas, seconded by Netzinger. Motion carried, 4-0.

The Board adopted the agenda for the October 25, 2012 session of the Board on a motion by Netzinger, seconded by Allen. Motion carried, 4-0.

Motion by Allen, seconded by Ladas to approve the minutes from the September hearing. Motion carried, 4-0.

COMMUNICATIONS: None.

APPEALS:

A. Terry Ramaker (SP-28-12) requesting a special exception permit and a variance to authorize filling and grading within 300 feet of Lake Wisconsin and replacing a boathouse on slopes greater than 20%.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental Zoning Technician, 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 about the Town of Merrimac and if they responded. Lorenz stated they were notified and no response has been provided by the town.

Ladas asked about the permit in 2002. Lorenz explained that the permit was for the retaining walls and the work done around the boathouse and that a survey from 1976 showed the boathouse on the csm as an existing structure.

Ladas also asked about the permit for the deck. Lorenz clarified that the permit was for a deck on the house and not on the boathouse.

Craig Meister, Agent, appearing for the Applicant, stated that the retaining walls need to be repaired and at that time they are proposing to widen the boathouse, not go any deeper and is unusable for the current owner. He stated it will be mostly in the same footprint, just move slightly the west. He spoke of the vegetation to be replaced, the height of the retaining walls being at 4 feet and addressing the retaining wall to the east to be setback and remove the riprap and replace with a native vegetative buffer zone, which will be done by permit from the DNR.

Ladas asked how old the existing boathouse is. Meister stated he does not know.

Kettner asked about disturbance of mature trees. Meister state 1 oak near the top will be removed, as well as the two elms near the shoreline will be removed.

Ladas asked about the Town of Merrimac and any decisions made by them. Meister stated that he received the acknowledgement and that Merrimac size standards are more restrictive than Sauk County’s and they will comply with the Merrimac requirement.

Kettner asked about the landscaping plan and reestablishing trees. Meister stated that there are trees included in the planting plan and the owner is willing to add more if necessary.

Kettner asked about the look of stone and wood on the existing structure and what will be the surfacing of the front of the proposed boathouse. Meister stated the homeowner has not decided on that yet, but more than likely a stone veneer on the outside.

Kettner reviewed the requirements for a variance.

Meister stated there is a hardship in the fact that the current boathouse and retaining walls need to be replaced and because of the amount of time and money to repair the boathouse and timbers, it would be best to replace completely. He stated that the unique property features are that the west side of the boathouse is greater than 20% and simply repairing the walls would require the slope to be opened anyway. He concluded by stating that there will be no burden to the township as all the materials will be stored off site and no water flow will be directed to either neighbor.

Netzinger asked if the boathouse can be moved so that you are out of the 20% slopes. Meister stated it will be in the 20% slopes no matter what and would have to disturb the area no matter what they did, replacing the retaining walls or repairing the boathouse walls. The owner does not want to repair the walls, as he would like to make the boathouse larger.

Kettner asked for verification on the current size of the boathouse. Meister stated the existing boathouse is 16x30 and the proposal is 20x30 and the roof will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing.

Kettner asked if the current boathouse has ever been flooded. Meister stated he does have water in it and guessing there is no drain tile around it and feels it should come up at least 6 inches to 1 foot.

Netzinger referring to Exhibit II,5, shows the boathouse at 22x32. Meister stated that was drawn before he got his letter back from Merrimac, which requires a smaller boathouse. The request is for a 20x30.

Kettner verified the plan being submitted is 20x30. Meister stated 22x30, but 20x30 will be sufficient for what the owner wants to do.

Netzinger stated the outside dimension needs to be specified, not the inside. Meister asked for the maximum allowed by the Town of Merrimac, which was written at 24x30, so that is what they are now asking for.

Lorenz reappeared stated the Counties maximum square footage is 640 square feet and not to exceed 22 feet in width. He also confirmed the variance was for the 20% slopes.

Kettner confirmed the counties maximum is 22 feet in width, not to exceed 640 square feet in total. Netzinger stated that the requested is larger than allowed.

Meister reappearing.

Kettner then confirmed with Meister that what is being requested is 20x30 outside dimensions of the boathouse. Meister confirmed.

George Gentili, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he is the immediate adjacent property owner to the west. He stated he purchased his property in 1978 or 1979 and the boathouse that is in question was in existence at that time. He spoke of the new boathouse and the east wall of the structure and if it will be in the same footing as it is now or located further west of that.

Meister reappearing, stated the proposed boathouse will be moved approximately 4 feet to the west, which would require less retaining wall to the west and not encroach onto the neighboring.

Netzinger asked how close to the property line the new building will lay.
Kettner confirmed the left wall of the boathouse will be moved to the west 8 feet, and the east wall will be moved 4 feet and asked how many feet it will be from the property line. Meister stated he cannot tell what the setback will be and asked what the setback distance is.

Netzinger stated 10 feet on one side, 15 feet on the other. Meister stated they will be well over the 10 feet.

Netzinger referred to the plat of survey and feels they would not be encroaching the property line where it would be in the setback.

Kettner confirmed the new boathouse does not and will not come any closer than 10 feet to the property line. Meister confirmed.

Gentili reappearing, asked how much higher the proposed boathouse will be compared to the new boathouse. Kettner stated testimony was that it will be 2 feet higher.

Netzinger asked if he has any concerns. Gentili stated he is concerned as they have an existing boathouse in the same location and wondering how close the two will be for questions of privacy and as long as the dimensions are as stated does not encroach on the setback lines or their property then he has no objections. He stated due to the amount of social events he holds at the property, it would be in the best interest of the neighbors to keep the footings in the same spot.

Kettner referred to photo 1, and asked about the timber retaining wall and the western extent of that wall, if that comes up to the property line. Gentili doesn’t believe so and feels his property line may be approximately 10 feet west of the retaining wall.

Meister reappearing.

Netzinger spoke of raising the floor 2 feet higher than it is now, and the roof will also increase 2 feet, if that will increase the total height by 4 feet. Meister stated the roof height elevation will go from 787 to 789. The floor will come up maybe 6 inches, but the roof elevation will increase by 2 feet. He also addressed the timber walls and will be further from the property line than what they are now.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Acting Chair Kettner closed the public portion of the meeting at approximately 9:48 a.m.

Ladas stated he feels the special exception permit, with the failing wall needs to be addressed and feels new retaining walls to protect the property and lake is necessary. He stated he is having an issue with when the boathouse was built and the need for a variance originally. He also is having a hard time seeing a hardship, other than a hardship due to the property limitations.

Netzinger feels the hardship is mother nature that has taken its toll on a boathouse in its present conditions. The owner purchased the property with a boathouse on it, so going back seems moot. He feels if the boathouse is not repaired the building will collapse and that is a hardship. He feels maintaining the property addresses public interest. He concluded by stating that if they say he can’t have a boathouse, everyone else has a boathouse, and that would be unique property limitations. He stated he wishes some testimony was provided on the finish of the boathouse, as if it was merely concrete he would be against the variance.

Allen stated he feels the retaining wall needs to be repaired and has no problem increasing the boathouse to the testified square footage. He feels the setbacks to the property lines are more than adequate and feels it is a good project and feels it needs to be addressed before the structure and the retaining walls fail.

Kettner stated a timber wall has limited life and it needs to be replaced/repaired and the testimony is that it will be replaced with something more permanent. As far as increasing the size of the boathouse, it’s an existing boathouse, which is usable, but feels it needs to be made more usable. He spoke of encroachment on the property lines, testimony stated that it won’t be a problem and agrees that the face of this structure be something more aesthetically pleasing.

The board went back into open session and asked for the applicant to reappear.

Meister, reappearing.

The board asked about the finish of the boathouse. Meister stated he could not speak of the owner, but asked if a stucco, stone, natural or artificial would be his recommendation. He assured the board it will not be just natural exposed concrete. Meister asked if they could submit the type of siding before they did the boathouse for approval of planning and zoning.

Kettner asked if the exterior be of natural or veneer stone and if there was going to be a different choice that choice would have to be approved by the board. Meister and all board members agreed.

Kettner closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:00 a.m.

Ladas spoke of the original boathouse and going back to that was not the right approach.

Lorenz reappeared and stated the shoreline ordinance was adopted in 1986 and the boathouse was existing in 1976.

Ladas stated he feels it meets all 3 criteria.

Netzinger asked for a condition added addressing the exterior to be natural stone or look like natural stone and or material which shall be reviewed by cpz for approval prior to installation verifying that this criteria is met.

Motion by Netzinger, seconded by Allen, to approve the special exception permit and variance request to authorize the filling and grading and the construction of a new boathouse, with the conditions provided by the Conservation, Planning and Zoning Department, as well as adding the condition that the applicant shall provide a detailed plan showing the proposed exterior of the boathouse to be in natural stone and materials or look like natural stone and materials. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department prior to any installation of the exterior. Motion carried 4-0.

Motion by Netzinger, seconded by Ladas to adjourn. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Henry Netzinger, Secretary