DATE : December 20, 2007
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Richard Vogt, Vice Chair – Acting Chair Robert Roloff Halsey Sprecher
Linda White
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Dave Lorenz Gina Templin
OTHERS PRESENT: See individual appeal files for registration appearance slips.
Duckworth called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment (BOA) to order at approximately 9:02 A.M. He 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 Sprecher, seconded by Roloff.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the December 20, 2007 session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by White.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by White to adopt the October 25, 2007 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0 with Duckworth abstaining.
Lorenz stated that the department received a call from Mr. Schnoor requesting that his appeal not be heard at that this time.
The Board then discussed the meeting dates for 2008. Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Vogt to approve the meeting dates as presented for 2008.
Duckworth asked when occupancy has been taken of the house. Lorenz stated he is unsure, but the permit was taken out in 2004.
Duckworth asked how the mobile home got there to begin with. Lorenz explained that owners can have a mobile home with affidavit stating its going to be removed after a house is built.
Duckworth asked about the town opinion. Lorenz stated all that was submitted is Exhibit IV,1, but no opinion was given.
White asked if there is a specific permit for the storage or sales of mobile homes. Lorenz explained that if it is not in a mobile home park, it needs to be approved by the Board.
Belinda Brock, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated she asked for a temporary permit while she built her home and at the end of the time, her son permitted 5 acres at the end of the road and requested moving the mobile home to the 5 acres while he built, which was approved by the Town. She stated that in the fall of last year, her son was arrested and incarcerated ever since. They have sold the land since and have attempted to move the mobile home to a park and listed for sale. In the meantime it is disconnected and abandoned.
White asked how its being offered for sale. Brock stated she is a broker and is also listed by the mortgage company. She also stated the mobile home is not allowed to come to the site unless you are trading it in.
White asked how many she is on the waiting list for. Brock stated she is on the list for 3.
Vogt asked if her son is out of the picture in reference to the mobile home. Brock stated he owns the mobile home, but his situation is pending at this time.
White asked how long it is before her son joins the community again. Brock stated its unknown.
Duckworth asked if the board approves this, what assurances are there that she won’t be back requesting this again. Brock stated she is trying to sell.
Duckworth asked if the mobile home will be occupied. Brock stated all the sewer, water and heating has been disconnected.
White asked if there is skirting and wheels. Brock stated that there is skirting and wheel still on it as it was only meant for temporary use.
Steve Sorenson, appearing as interest may appear, explained the background of the request and history that the property owner has had with the Planning & Zoning Department. He also explained the zoning ordinance and how it applies to this request.
Roloff asked if the Board gives a 2 year approval, does the town then have to get a 1 year affidavit. Sorenson explained that the Board’s approval will trump the Town’s approval and they will not have a say after this, and explained that the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow the town to go back.
White asked if the Town provided a distinct opinion. Sorenson stated that they provided no opinion.
White asked if there is a difference in a mobile home store on site potentially hooked up again versus moving away from where it can be hooked up again. Sorenson stated that the County can inspect and assure that it remains a storage unit and not an occupied unit.
Vogt asked about hearing from the neighbors. Sorenson stated he has heard from neighbors and complaints and worries from them about the length of the mobile home stay and use.
Duckworth asked why you picked 2 years. Sorenson stated that the applicant stated with winter coming on, the trailer won’t go anywhere until Spring, and with her personal and family issues, this will give her time to get her family in order and search for a site.
Duckworth asked if the Planning & Zoning office is willing to enforce that the home is not occupied. Sorenson stated that if the sewer and water is connected and someone lives in there, the county would take enforcement action.
White asked how often you would inspect the site. Sorenson stated that if they are in the area, take a look. He also explained about keeping information in the file.
Roloff asked if the Board made a condition at the end of this 2 year period, the permit can not be renewed, is that a viable condition. Sorenson stated it is, the deadline is a deadline and corrective action will have to be taken. He also explained that a property owner always has the right to ask or apply.
Duckworth stated he sees this just turning into a constant battle between the board, planning and zoning and the applicant. What would happen if the request is not approved. Sorenson stated that the Planning & Zoning office would take enforcement action to get the mobile home removed, in the form of citations or legal counsel taking action.
Belinda Brock, reappearing, stated that if she does not comply she is fined $186/day.
White asked how long she has been paying on the mobile home. Brock explained the history of having the mobile home. White asked if the value exceed the loan owed on it. Brock stated it does not.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:36 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth stated that this is a problem with the Town allowing short term mobile homes.
Roloff stated that he is disappointed that the Town did not provide an opinion.
Vogt spoke of the petition.
Duckworth stated he does not like giving 2 years, but could be supportive of 1 year.
White stated that sometimes with property like this, you have to take a bite and sell the property for what you can get for it and work it out with the bank. She also suggested that they give them 6 months and then come back and provide evidence that they have tried sufficiently to remove the mobile home.
Duckworth is also concerned that although they’ve been told its for storage, that during the summer months it will be occupied.
Vogt stated they will have to hook everything back up.
White asked about the requirement to move from the existing site. Vogt stated that is not an inexpensive option. He spoke of giving 1 year deadline.
Roloff stated he agrees with 1 year and add a condition that it can not be occupied during that 1 year.
Duckworth stated that occupancy voids the permits.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to grant the special exception permit to authorize the location of a single wide mobile home, for 1 year only, with the condition that during that year it shall not be occupied. If occupancy takes place, the special exception permit will be void and enforcement action shall be taken by Planning & Zoning. The motion also includes the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Duckworth rules that the request is a use variance.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
White asked if this was a hind-site permit. Lorenz stated it is, as it was found when an inspection was done. He also stated that for the permit for the house, it was not shown on the plans that they would be working on slopes >20%.
Duckworth asked when the garage was built. Lorenz stated he does not.
Sprecher asked if there were any complaints from neighbors. Lorenz stated he is not aware of any.
White asked if the wall were made out of boulders would it still be in violation. Lorenz stated that if it were made of natural materials, it would not be an issue.
Roloff asked why this is a use variance versus an area variance. Duckworth stated that in the past they have looked at these as use variances, allowing the use. Duckworth confirmed that the garage is 10 feet away from the property line. Lorenz stated it was.
Lorenz then spoke of the unnecessary hardship difference on use versus an area variance. He also stated that a variance is not appropriate for granting a use, which would require rezoning the property.
The Board asked for Mark Steward, Director of Planning & Zoning to appear.
Mark Steward, appearing, explained the difference between area variances and use variances. The use variance would pose a change in use. He suggested the deeming this project as a “use” variance, the standard would be can the applicant use their property. If it is an area variance then you are looking at the dimensional requirements and is the ordinance placing an undue burden on placing the wall off the line.
Roloff asked his opinion on what type of variance this is. Steward stated that his opinion is that it is an area variance and explained to the Board what the hardship requirements would be for an area variance and stated that whether compliance with the restrictions covering the area would unreasonably prevent the owners from using the property or complying with restrictions unnecessary burdensome.
Chair Duckworth then stated that his notes say it is an area variance and misread his notes.
Steward also spoke of the special exception request and the revegetation of the shoreland.
Sprecher asked if the variance is denied can that be corrected by putting natural stone and removing the retaining wall. Steward stated the garage is 12 feet from the lot, as per their approved land use application, they could remove the existing retaining wall back to the 10 foot setback and keep the wall as is.
Cory Reufer, Northern Exports, appearing in favor of the request for the Applicant, spoke of the special exception permit first and stated that there was a residence there that was raised and a new home was built. The size of the new home was larger, and retaining walls were required for a patio on the lake side, however it was not designed when they started building the house. He also stated that the entire property that was disturbed has been seeded and mulched this fall. He then presented Exhibit VIII,1 that shows the shoreline of being naturally vegetative.
White asked about Exhibit II,4, and contrary to that they did grading out the slope the lawn. Reufer stated that they raised the lawn for the patio and they did not grade all the way out to the lake. White stated that they did grade more than what they needed to. Reufer stated they only graded what they needed to.
Duckworth asked if when the snow melts, will it look like II,7. Reufer stated it will.
Duckworth then moved to the variance request and provided him with detail on the requirements needed to be met to get a variance.
Reufer stated he believes the garage was built around 1980 and the retaining wall was put in around that same time, but is not positive and suggests a change in elevation. He stated that the neighbor on the wall side, stated he is in favor of it and is happy with the way it looks and it does not seem to be harming him in anyway. He then stated that if the retaining wall had to be removed, you would have to go back in and dig under that foundation and go 4 feet below grade and doesn’t feel you would be able to just grade around it. He also feels that to replace with boulders, it would be a financial burden to remove the wall and put a boulder wall back in and it would not match the remaining walls on the property. He also felt that the physical limitations are that the garage was already existing and there is only about 14 feet between the garage and the new retaining walls for the house and feels there are restrictions there and need room to get in between the garage to get to the shore.
Vogt asked if he feels the wall was there when the garage was built. Reufer stated he doesn’t know, but looking at the grade changes on the property he would think it would be there.
Vogt then asked about Exhibit II,7, the cross hatched area is what the new owner dealt with. Reufer stated that is correct.
Duckworth stated that testimony is that the retaining wall helps with frost protection, if it was moved back 9 feet, would that provide adequate protection. Reufer stated he does not feel so, if they moved that back, they would only have 2 feet of frost protection.
Vogt, referring to Exhibit VI,3, a certified survey map of the property, stated that is shows 10.1 feet from the corner of the garage to the lot line and it just meets the requirement. He also presented Exhibit VIII,2, a photo of the garage in the summer showing the slope.
Steve Sorenson, appearing as interest may appear, spoke of the permit for the garage, which was issued in 1993 and the plot plan shows a setback of 12 feet from the property line and 75 feet from the lake. The permit for the garage does not show a retaining wall, so it was built sometime between 1993 and now.
Duckworth asked if this is something that would be normally found on a garage permit. Sorenson said nothing is normal, grading requirements were to be shown at that time and no grading was shown on this permit outside of the garage footprint.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:15 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
White stated she is never happy with permits in hind-site for filling and grading, as they never see what the lots were shown before the work was done. She also stated that on the variance she doesn’t feel the hardship is met, as there are other ways to meet the ordinance without having the wall in place.
Vogt stated if you put up a rock wall, then it will be legal and meet the ordinance. And stated as far as the special exception permit, he has no problems, as they have taken the necessary steps to stabilize the slopes and it looks to be a larger enough buffer zone between there and the lake.
Motion by White, seconded by Roloff, to grant the special exception permit to authorize the filling and grading to complete the landscaping of a new residence, with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by White, seconded by Duckworth, to deny the variance request to allow a retaining wall to remain in the sideyard setback, as a hardship was not met and no unique property limitations that would affect the ability to change this situation and meet the ordinance.
Motion carried 4-1, with Roloff in opposition.
The Board recessed until 10:25 a.m.. The Boar reconvened at 10:25 a.m.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked about setbacks from easement roads and a boulder wall over the property line allowed. Lorenz stated there are not setbacks from an easement road and a boulder wall is not considered a structure.
David Hyzer, appearing in favor as agent for the Applicant, stated that this is the only area for the applicant to place a garage and meet all the setback requirements.
Duckworth asked if you will have to blast the materials out. Hyzer stated that Zobel has been in to look at the site and feel they can dig out the material with the backhoe.
Duckworth asked what will be done with the material taken out. Hyzer stated the material will be hauled out and fill brought back in.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:35 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the special exception permit to authorize the filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% during the construction of a garage, with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Todd Denman, Agent for Applicant, appearing in favor, stated that they will cut into the hillside with equipment, no blasting, and will haul the materials out, bring in the sand for the garage pad and build the garage. He didn’t believe they would need retaining walls, as the hillside rock wall will be 6-8 feet already.
Duckworth asked about the stabilization around the garage. Denman stated it will be hauled out as they go and it will be all rock around the garage. He also said there are a few trees that will need to be cut, but they will not be on top of the hill.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:48 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to grant the special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% during the construction of a garage, with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
Dale and Susan Schoor, Bindl Bauer Limestone (SP-41-07), a special exception permit to authorize the location and operation of a new quarry. The property is located in the Agricultural zoning district and described as part of the S½, NW¼, Section 20, Town of Woodland.
This request was withdrawn prior to the hearing today by the applicant.
The Board reviewed the file and Chair Duckworth numbered exhibits in the files that were not prenumbered.
Robert Roloff has excused himself from the Board for this hearing.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked if there is an exhibit that shows how close the nearest residences are. Lorenz stated the board has everything the department has received from the applicant.
Duckworth asked if they will be using the existing access onto Fish Pond Rd. Lorenz stated he understands that is correct.
White stated he knows there have been complaints about Fish Pond Road and asked if there have been any complaints lately. Lorenz stated he is unaware.
Duckworth asked if any complaints have been received on their existing quarry. Lorenz stated he is not aware of any complaints since they renewed their permit in 2005.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II,3C, and asked if those are property boundaries shown on there. Lorenz stated he defers to the applicant, as he is unsure of that.
Duckworth asked if Planning & Zoning has a problem combining this quarries even though they have different ownership. Lorenz stated they do not.
Ray Zobel, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the project is a continuation of the expansion to the west and the pit was originally open in 1990. He also stated that the Township was ok with the request and they had a meeting in April which he attended and then in November they had a Town meeting on it. He also stated that they won’t be at the site for another 6 or 7 years, but looking at brining the two together at one time so everyone is together on the same page.
White asked if he owns the farmstead associated wit the parcel. Zobel stated that it is owned by E&G and he has a 10 year lease for the mining for the land, but the buildings are owned by someone else.
White asked if there were any comments from the owners on this proposal. Zobel stated he has not heard any comments.
Duckworth asked how close they would be to the nearest home. Zobel was unsure, but stated probably not more than any closer than 1200 feet.
Duckworth stated that per II3c looks closer than 1200 feet, but he does not have a scale. Zobel stated that the rock will go straight west.
Duckworth asked if he’s had conversations with the Town of Ironton about the conditions of the road. Zobel stated he did not, but their access is at the Town of Reedsburg, not the Town of Ironton.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II3F and the brim and high wall. Zobel stated that the top bench could be sloped off, but the bottom will solid rock bench and will have to have dirt against the bottom and then that will supposedly be reclaimed.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II3C and what the lines mean if they are acreages or fields. Zobel stated they are fields and the land has not been subdivided.
Vogt asked if he has talked to the people that own that house. Zobel stated that he has spoke to the previous owners, but has not spoke to the new owners.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:13 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth stated that the applicant has been before us many time and he has always followed his testimony and have had minimal complaints on his operations. He also feels that 6c is acceptable by using the existing conditions for the adjacent quarry.
White agrees and feels the timing of the applications for both quarries is important.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Duckworth, to grant the special exception permit to authorize the expansion of an existing quarry, with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 4-0.
The Board recessed for a couple minutes and reconvened at 11:17 a.m.
Jeffrey Nimmow (SP-43-07), requesting variances to authorize the construction of a boathouse larger than permitted on slopes of more than 20%. The property is located in the Shoreland Protection district and described as S7818 State Road 78, Lot 4, Weigands Bay Assessor’s Plat.
Chair rules the request is an area variance.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Jeffrey Nimmow, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Duckworth provided Nimmow with the 3 requirements necessary for the board to provide the variance. Nimmow stated he feels the size and location of the boathouse would impact the public or neighbors. He also spoke of the extra 3 feet in width is that it would not be noticed by any passer-by and the new construction will not impose anyone’s view, as it will be 50 feet from any neighboring lot line. He then talked about the slope on the lot being greater than 20% everywhere and feels the existing boathouse was probably built where it was because of the slope. Next he spoke of the unnecessary hardship and it is not a primary residence, but a vacation home to use the boats on the lake in the summer time and needs a boathouse that would be able to fit more than 1 boat. He then spoke of the building size and materials for the boathouse as well as the maintenance required for the existing boathouse.
Duckworth asked if he can not use his property because the boathouse is too small. Nimmow stated he can not use that part of the property as a boathouse because it is too small.
White asked what is inside the structure. Nimmow stated that they use it for storage right now. White stated that it is usable, just not as what you desire. Nimmow stated that it is not usable for a boathouse. He also spoke of other boathouses in the area already and the timing for construction if approved.
White asked about the other boathouses he is referencing. Nimmow stated they are all greater than 20%, but is unsure of the ages, other than 1 that is a year or so old.
Mark Steward, Director of Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, spoke of the boathouses that were referenced across the bay and currently they are in violation of county code and we are in the process of bringing them into code and working with the developer of that plat and should not take them into consideration here. He then spoke of the ordinance limits and the slopes of a boathouse that meets the limits and requirements as far as size. He also spoke of the use of retaining walls on the property. He then reminded the Board of the requirements they need to take into account in making their decision.
Vogt asked if there is any guidance on why they came up with that number. Steward stated he doesn’t know and other county’s are different from being 400 square feet to not being allowed to have one.
White asked about the ordinance and where it states that boathouses will not be constructed if the slopes are more than 20% and if the BOA is allowed to grant them to do this. Steward stated they are.
Richard Anderson, appearing as interest may appear, stated he has a cottage a couple doors down from this proposal, asked how high the garage will be as opposed to how high the garage is now, and is he going to put a deck on top of the garage, and will the existing deck comes down. He also stated that if the boathouse is allowed to be rebuilt, it will do away with the possibility of boat hoist sticking out 20-25 feet.
Jeffrey Nimmow, reappearing in favor, stated that the height of the current boathouse is 10 feet in height, the proposed will be 11 feet in height and the current deck on the side of the boathouse is a nonconforming structure and does plan to leave it there.
Lorenz reappearing, stated that they did receive a letter from the Wisconsin DNR regarding the proposal and if they want it read into the record. Duckworth stated its not necessary.
Richard Anderson, reappearing, asked if there will be a deck on top of the boathouse.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:52 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
The Board discussed the variance to build a boathouse on slopes of more than 20%.
White stated that she does not see a problem with the protection of public interest, and feels that the property is unique in slopes, but not having a boathouse period does not prevent the use of the property and having a larger one definitely does not meet the hardship requirements.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to deny the variance request to authorize the construction of a boathouse on slopes of more than 20%, as the hardship requirements were not met.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to deny the variance request to authorize the construction of a boathouse larger than what is allowed by county ordinance.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mark 1 Enterprises (SP-44-07), requesting a variance to authorize the replacement and expansion of existing decks within the minimum road setback. The property is located within the Shoreland Protection district and described as S8138 Kassner Rd, Building 5, Summer Oaks Condominiums.
Chair Duckworth ruled that this request is for an area variance.
Dave Lorenz appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked if this would need a variance if they were going to replace the decks. Lorenz stated it would because they are in the road setback.
Vogt said the building itself is 63 feet from the road. Lorenz stated that was correct.
White asked how old the building is. Lorenz stated that it is very old. He also spoke of the landings being a secondary exist and in Chapter 7 it is allowed, but this is Chapter 8.
White asked if they are required to have 2 exists as part of zoning. Lorenz stated it is not part of zoning, but part of the uniform dwelling code, you would need a secondary exit. White asked if the are not approved, would the upper units be uninhabitable. Lorenz explained.
Roloff asked if they are making the deck larger by 1 foot is that because of the uniform dwelling code. Lorenz stated he is unsure.
John Ganser, appearing in favor of the request, agent for the applicant, spoke of the owners replacing the decks because they are in bad shape and are too small for a turning radios for a wheelchair and the balusters are too wide, as well as a 4-5 inch step currently, which will be removed as the decks will be level. He also spoke of the decks remaining in the same position.
Duckworth asked about a foot wide for more room or because uniform dwelling code requires you to do that. Ganser stated he cant answer if it is required by the uniform dwelling code.
Duckworth asked how the variance won’t be contrary to public interest. Ganser stated the decks will be brought up code, they are structurally unsound.
Duckworth asked about unique limitations. Ganser stated that it would be impossible to meet setbacks because of the building setback and you can’t have a patio door without a landing because of safety reasons on the 2nd floor.
Duckworth asked about the hardship if the decks were not allowed to be build larger than what is existing. Ganser stated that the building would not be similar to the rest.
Sprecher asked if there is a wheelchair access such as elevators or lift to the second floor. Ganser said there is not, only steps.
Roloff asked if this were permitted if they did not exceed the dimension of the present decks unless that was in violation of the state code. Ganser stated he would have to confirm that requirement.
Dave Lorenz reappeared. White asked when this was platted, if the road was put into a public roadway or it was a private access road that turned public. Lorenz stated he is not sure and spoke of the definition of a Class C highway.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 12:20 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth feels the request would not be contrary to public interest to have a deck on a second story with a patio door and sees unique property limitations as the 2 story building is already there and you can’t move it back or move the road. He stated he does not feel how you can put anything there would not be in violation and feels the deck is required for having an exist.
Roloff/White feels that no by having a second exit and changing the door would be unnecessarily burdensome and make those units un-rentable.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the variance to authorize the replacement and expansion of existing decks on Building 5, within the minimum road setback with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning, as it is not contrary to public interest and increases public safety, there are unique property limitations with the building age, location, and the zoning jurisdiction that it falls in, as Chapter 7 would allow this request without a variance, and the unnecessary hardship has been shown, as the exit is necessary.
Motion carried 4-1 with White in opposition.
The Board spoke of the January, 2008 meeting being canceled.
The Board adjourned at 12:25.p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Robert Roloff, Secretary