Board of Adjustment

DATE: May 28, 2009 Session of the Board

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair

Richard Vogt, Vice Chair

Robert Roloff, Secretary

David Wernecke, Alternate

Ron Lestikow, Alternate

ABSENT: Linda White

Halsey Sprecher

STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin

Dave Lorenz

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

Chair Duckworth called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment ( BOA ) to order at approximately 9:03 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 Vogt, seconded by Wernecke. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board adopted the agenda on a Motion by Wernecke, seconded by Vogt. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt to adopt the April 23 2009 minutes. Motion carried 4-0 with Wernecke abstaining.

COMMUNICATIONS:

None to report.

APPEALS:

• Rodney Splett (SP-18-09) requesting a special exception permit to authorize the location and operation of a machine shop.

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

Wernecke asked about the buildings that are existing and what type of businesses may have existed in the past. Lorenz explained.

Vogt asked if this is the only commercial lot. Lorenz explained that both buildings in the area are zoned commercial and there is commercial zoning for Poor Nate's which is located to the south.

Vogt asked about Exhibit XI,2. Lorenz explained that the building shares a driveway and parking lot with the parcel to the south and both are zoned commercial.

Rodney Splett, applicant, appearing in favor of the requested stated he plans to operate a machine shop and employ 4-5 employees to do CNC machining for a few different industries and 60% of the work will come out of Dane and Columbia Counties .

Duckworth asked about a well and traffic. Splett stated it is on a shared well with the adjacent property and there will be limited traffic and deliveries and transportation will be done via his own vehicle or through UPS .

Wernecke asked about customers coming directly to the site. Splett stated they were would not be, unless clients came in to look at the site. He also mentioned that he operated a business within the city of Reedsburg for many years.

Vogt asked what kind of machinery would be done. Splett stated OEM parts, small parts for manufacturers, but mainly for the food and medical industries.

Vogt asked about the bank owing the property. Splett stated he will be purchasing from the bank.

Lestikow asked about hours of operation. Splett stated it will be a 5 day a week operation and normal work hours, as well as having limited noise, as the building needs to have temperature controlled space, all doors will be closed.

Lestikow asked about outside storage. Splett stated he may have a dumpster but that is it.

Duckworth asked about trash and waste products. Splett stated there are no oils used, and all scraps can be recycled.

Duckworth asked about the Town Board. Splett stated he met with Duane and they had a board meeting that he attended and fielded questions from citizens.

Wernecke stated that the fabrication and processing is incidental to retail business and felt that it is central to this business. Splett stated he is making the parts but he is not assembling anything.

Charlotte Coan, appearing in opposition, stated that her home was not shown and there was a shop there about 6 months ago and they noise was unbelievable and she worries about the noise.

Duckworth asked where her property is located. Coan referred to Exhibit XI,2 and pointed to parcel number 1093-10100.

Vogt and Wernecke asked about the previous business located at the site. Coan stated they were auto businesses and maybe located there a little over a year.

Ricardas, appearing in opposition, stated that he moved here 2 years ago and stated he lives right behind the parcel in question, but the previous owner was not quite and feels that he chooses to live in a quiet area. He also stated that the applicant is stating that there won't be too much noise and is concerned about the business growing and doing more business in which the noise will increase.

Lestikow asked if when his home was purchased if he knew there was a commercial property there at the time. Ricardas stated he did not know and felt it was not there at the time he purchased his house.

Vogt asked Ricardas, referring to XI,2 asked which property was his. He stated parcel 0554-2.

Duckworth stated this property was zoned commercial in 1994 and asked that he did not see it in 2007 when his property was purchased. He stated that there was a museum there, but then opened a different business later which had much more noise.

Splett, reappearing in favor, stated that he understands the noise issues and knows what the previous business was, automotive repair, front end alignment and witnessed some of the work being done and understands why they would have an issue with that. However, his business will not have the noise issues.

Lestikow asked how many years he had his business in Reedsburg. Splett stated 22 years and it was located in a residential neighborhood with no complaints.

Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth closed this portion of hearing at 9:30 a.m.

The Board discussed the request.

Vogt stated that he has concerns about what may happen there, not necessarily what is happening there, but based on the conditions does not feel that there will be noise issues and disturbance of the neighborhood.

Duckworth noted that there are many other businesses that could operate in the commercial district without going to the BOA .

Wernecke stated the history of the property was spot zoned to make an illegal business legal. He also noted that this business seems to fit, but it doesn't seem to match the language in a commercial zone.

Duckworth asked which part of the ordinance he is referring to. Wernecke explained.

Lorenz appeared and stated that the commercial zoning district does not specifically mention machine shops and it was the interpretation of the department that it would fit for this use based on what he have to work with in the ordinance. He also explained past cases where the same ordinance was applied. He also stated it is a service business establishment and feels it is a cleaner way of doing things and it left up to the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator.

Wernecke asked if there is any other zoning ordinance in the county's ordinances that would fit this use better. Lorenz stated there is not.

Vogt asked if it would fit under industrial district. Lorenz stated it does allow manufacturing and processing under special exceptions, however this property is not zoned industrial and is zoned commercial and is not aware of any properties zoned industrial in the county.

Duckworth stated that when he reviews the special exception uses, there are many.

Duckworth verified that this was the best fit for a machine shop. Lorenz stated that was the staff's determination.

The Board discussed the ordinance specifically addressing machine shops and reviewed the allowed uses. Wernecke asked if there is a way to communicate to the County Board to address this gap.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt, to approve the request with the conditions provided by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

B. David Mack (SP-19-09) requesting variances to authorize the construction of an electric lift not to be mounted on an existing stairway and the stairway (as built without permits) with landings in excess of 32 sq. ft.

Duckworth asked if they take out the stairs can they put the lift in without the variance. Lorenz stated yes they could. He also stated if the lift is attached to the stairs, that would be allowed as well without a variance. However because they are separate, they need a variance.

Wernecke asked if any action is being taken on the stairs being built without permits. Lorenz stated the applicants are asking for 2 variances to build the lift and leave the stairs as built.

Roloff asked about the definition of a walkway and if you look at the photos showing, those landings are walkways and a walkway is not defined in the ordinance, but referred to the definition in the encyclopedia.

Vogt spoke of the stairs being placed differently, they would not be sitting 4-5 feet at the top and could have avoided having to have those landings so long.

Wernecke spoke of Sec. 8.06(2)(b) 10 it speaks of landings when built on stairs.

Duckworth spoke of the 2 variances being an area or use variance. He stated he feels the variance for the lift and to keep the stairway is a use variance and the variance for the size of the landing he feels in an area variance.

The Board continued to discuss. Duckworth ruled that the variance for the stairway landings in an area variance the variance request for the lift is a use variance.

Lorenz stated that staff did consider whether the landings could be considered walkways and the staff determined they were not walkways.

The Board continued to discuss whether or not the stairs were built to UDC standards.

Duckworth asked for the dimensions of the stairs. Lorenz reviewed.

Roloff asked if the owner would reduce the width of the landings they would be ok. Lorenz stated they would not meet UDC code then.

Dave Mack, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Duckworth reviewed the criteria that must be met for the Board to grant a variance and confirmed that Mack understood those requirements.

Mack provided a history of the property, when the home was built and when the stairs were built, as well as the layout of the land and rock formations. He stated it would not be possible to attach a lift to the existing stairs, as the angles that exist now on the stairs can not be done. He stated the reason for having both options, there are power outages or the lift fails, you have no way to get back up the hill. He also spoke of the dramatic investment of the stairs to have them put in, as well as the lift only have one place it can be located, which is 10-15 feet to the right of the stairs.

Duckworth asked about the uniqueness of the lot. Mack stated the lot is a beautiful lot and has a lot of rock formations and from top of the stairs to the bottom is about 7 stories. He feels there is a uniqueness of where the lift can go as its only possible in one location where it will affect minimal trees.

Vogt asked if this will be a straight shot and there will be no turn coming off of it, referring Exhibit X,2, photo 4. Mack stated that where the first ramp starts, there would be another ramp to meet up with the lift chair.

Roloff spoke of the other requirements of a variance, unnecessary hardship and how this would be detrimental to public interest. Mack stated the hardship is the cost of the stairs to put in and then if they have to tear them out, that would cost more and not to have a secondly method to get up or down to the lake. He stated he has talked to the neighbors about he lift and they seem to be ok, as they are asking about company names as well.

Wernecke asked who built the stairway. Mack stated Alibrando built the stairs. Wernecke asked when he was hired, did he feel comfortable with him. Mack stated he was comfortable with him and seemed to know all the requirements and felt he was very good.

Duckworth asked if there are no other lots on Lake Redstone that have rock formations. Mack stated many of the lots have rock formations, but there is hilly and has rock formations. He also stated that the Town of LaValle had a board meeting to review and approved the request.

Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:18 a.m.

Duckworth requested that the Board address the variance on the existing stairway first.

Vogt stated the 32 feet should have been taken into consideration when it was built and it could have been built meeting all the standards in its design. He stated he also feels the contractor should have anticipated that a lift may want to be put in some day in the future and where they would put their stairs in anticipation of putting the lift in.

Duckworth stated it would have changed the dynamics of the stairs. He asked about uniqueness, unnecessarily burdensome to change and is it in the public interest. He stated it could possibly be in the public interest to have the flat spots larger than 32 feet, the stairway looks like it blends in really nice and does not detract from the landscape and looks like a walkway, but does not feel the property is unique and feels it may be unnecessarily burdensome to have someone come out to redo the 3 landings so that they become code compliant.

Wernecke spoke of the ordinance being specific on the dimensions and feels that the unnecessary hardship or burden does not include monetary or self created hardship.

Roloff stated since this is an area variance the board has a little more disgresion. He feels if he were the property owner he would put one step in the middle of each landing and then it would comply, however this is ridiculous.

Vogt stated that he agrees with the arguments, but if this was such a great builder, why didn't he look at the code to begin with.

The Board discussed just because it is built, they should not look at it as being built.

Duckworth asked about public interest. Roloff stated if the variance is granted, public interest would not be negatively affected. Duckworth asked if it would be affected by "build what you want and asked for forgiveness later" and then the other people around that do it the right way and are negatively impacted.

Wernecke stated the structure itself is not contrary to public interest, but the builder should have known and if we keep giving variances because people built ahead of time, is not right.

Duckworth asked Lorenz if the ordinances they are looking at were in effect at the time the stairways were built. Lorenz stated he believes so and the shoreland ordinance was adopted in 1968.

Motion by Roloff, to approve the variance for the stairway and landings in excess of 32 square foot maximum. The motion fails due to the lack of a second.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Wernecke, to deny the variance for the stairway and landings in excess of 32 square feet, based on the stairs being able to be modified, contrary to public interest being that you shouldn't be approving variances after the fact, the owner testified that the uniqueness of the lot is not met, as there are other lots at Lake Redstone that are very similar and no hardship had been proven. Motion carried 4-1 with Roloff in opposition.

The Board discussed the variance for an electric lift in addition to a stairway.

Vogt stated uniqueness does play some role, however there are a lot of places where it would be difficult to put in stairs and a lift in combination. He suggested a motion to approve the variance to have the lift separate from the existing stairs. He also stated he would have like to see a set of plans.

Wernecke spoke that it does not meet unnecessary hardship and must be met for a use variance. He also stated that the uniqueness standard is not the property but unique to the area and doesn't feel that either of them have been met.

Duckworth stated he does have reasonable use of the property as he has a set of stairs and does not see how it's in the public interest that you can have both, separately. He also stated that the property does not appear to be unique for Lake Redstone and they have reasonable use of the property.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff, to grant the variance for a lift, stating that public interest would not be harmed. Motion fails 2-3, with Duckworth, Wernecke and Lestikow in opposition.

The Board recessed for 5 minutes.

C. Linda Szwaya (SP-20-09) requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading in excess of 4,000 square feet within 300 feet of Lake Redstone

Roloff asked about the silt fence and if it is on the lot line. Lorenz stated he is not sure if the string is the lot line and if they surveyed it or not, he is unsure.

Wernecke asked about the pink flag and if that is the lot line. Lorenz stated he is not sure.

Vogt asked about him taking out the old house and the filling and grading that would be done. Lorenz explained the calculation.

Linda Swzaya, application, appearing in favor stated she is building a home and has been out of state, but the contractor has been in charge and the largest concern is that the water will runoff onto their property.

Duckworth asked her to talk about the land. Swzaya stated she can't address it.

Duckworth asked how the water will be controlled. Swzaya stated they have plans but she doesn't know.

Duckworth asked if there will be a swale or a ditch between the properties. Swzaya stated she doesn't believe so.

Wernecke asked about a detailed plan and would like to see it. Swzaya provided Exhibit XIII 1-9, a water runoff control plan.

Jeff Hahn, appearing in favor of the request, stated he is the contractor on the property, and was not aware of the 4,000 square foot rule and spoke of tearing the existing house down that was there. He also spoke of the neighboring property and stated they created the problem and want to fix the problem and have offered to raise the swale on their property at no cost to them. He continued to talk about the plans and trying to work with the neighboring property owners to prevent erosion and water run off problems.

Duckworth asked about the other side of the property. Hahn stated there are no issues on the other side of the property and the neighbors are cooperative and they will be fixing his property as well.

Duckworth asked if there is a plan for that as well. Hahn stated there is no plan, they have infringed 4-5 feet over the lot line and will smooth it out and sod it in and will have a small retaining wall coming off the house by the basement door.

Vogt reviewed the disturbance on the other side of the lot. Hahn explained that they will be adding another waterway on the Swzaya property and what comes down the driveway will be split between the 2 drainage swales. Vogt confirmed that the neighbor on the west side is all worked out.

Duckworth asked about the plan.

Wernecke asked about Exhibit II,3, a hand drawing of the plan, indicates that everything will be sod.

Lestikow asked about the east side, there is a rock wall proposed near the lot line and will all be level. Hahn stated that was correct, they will be level and sloped back into the garage.

Nate Idhe, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the landscaper, and proposed reviewing the plan that was submitted in Exhibit XIII. He continued to read through the plan, page by page for the Board. He then addressed sketch B, which is on the side in question.

The Board continued to review the plan and discuss the water run-off.

Vogt, in referring sketch A in Exhibit XIII, on the left side, all the gutters go to the rain garden and asked where the French pit is located. Idhe stated it is located on the top right and not near the rain garden.

Vogt asked about the drain tile and French drain will all be diverted onto the west side. Idhe stated it will be diverted under the wall, piped to the French drain and then perforated as it starts to drain.

Vogt asked about the Campbell 's side, the gutter flow will be taken off and everything will drain between the two walls. Idhe stated that is correct and explained how he feels the water will flow.

Duckworth reviewed the runoff plan and what is typically requested when people raise the property elevation to address water runoff and confirmed that they will not put a ditch in. Idhe stated they are not. Duckworth clarified that they are building an underground piping system that will act as a ditch.

Duckworth asked what guarantee and plan is there that in heavy water events the water will not run down onto the neighboring property. Idhe stated the law of physics states that water runs downhill.

Duckworth asked if this will operate in the winter when the ground freezes. Idhe stated he believes so. Duckworth asked if it would freeze up. Idhe didn't know. He stated that the slope is slightly towards the neighbors, but then diverts from them.

Duckworth asked where it shows that on the plan. Idhe explained. Duckworth stated there are no elevations shown on the plan. Idhe stated the walls will be 4-5 feet high apiece.

Duckworth again asked how this will guarantee that no water will not run onto the Campbell 's property. Idhe stated that was the existing grade. Duckworth stated it was not the existing grade, they made it that way. Idhe stated they had to so that they could build the house.

Duckworth asked what would happen if they were required to put a drainage swale at the original grade on the east side of the property. Idhe stated he did not know.

Duckworth asked how high the property was raised. Idhe stated it was about 7-8 feet raised.

Duckworth stated he is having difficulty believing that the water will be kept on the property. Idhe stated its going to work.

Vogt, referring to Exhibit V2, photo 3, and asked if that wall runs along the side of the house, at the base of that wall, what direction does that land slope, to the lot line or onto another lot or towards the Campbell's. Idhe stated it slopes towards the lake and explained more of the property runoff.

Wernecke asked if he provided these plans to the Town of LaValle and Planning & Zoning. Idhe stated he did present some plans, but they were not in as much detail, and he did not present them to Planning & Zoning.

Wernecke asked what he uses to build these plans and what kind of standards are used. Idhe stated it is a computer program, but is not specific for landscaping or water runoff.

Wernecke stated you do not know if it meets NRCS standards. Idhe stated it work, but feels it meets the standards.

Wernecke asked again if the plans meet the NRCS standards. Idhe stated if those standards include keeping the water off of the neighboring property, then yes it does.

Roloff asked if this plan has been presented to the Campbells . Idhe stated it has not, as there has not been a lot of cooperation between the two parties.

Vogt stated the Town of LaValle did not take any action because of lack of detail. Idhe stated their plan had less detail.

Stephanie Erickson, appearing in opposition, appearing on behalf of Kent and Roseann Campbell, stated that the Campbells are not interested in them not being able to build the home or be denied forever, however, currently it is creating a nuisance on the property, as well as presenting Exhibit IX, showing photos of the property prior to the silt fence being installed, as well as Exhibit X, color photos of the property after the silt fence and Exhibit XI, a photo from April 24, 2009 showing the silt fence not working. She continued to speak of the concern and nuisance that is being created on their property. She also spoke of the landscaping plans and the fact that the landscaper is not a certified engineer and can not guarantee where the water is going to go. She then spoke of the citations that have been issued on this property that have not been resolved yet, as well as the applicants sending a couple emails and the Campbells asked for a set of plans showing that this water is not going to affect their property. She then spoke of the elevation and the change in elevation done to construct the new home and garage. She then presented Exhibit XIII a photo of the old house and garage and the elevation of the property at that time.

Roloff confirmed that there was an existing unattached garage that serviced the old house. Erickson stated that was correct.

Erickson stated that until the slope on the neighboring property was put in, the swale on their property worked fine and did not hold water. She then presented Exhibit XIV, a photo showing an electric utility pole.

Lestikow asked about the existing swale. Erickson stated that prior to the slope the swale would work and water would not stand, yet now it does.

Wernecke asked who told the Campbells they would need an engineered plan. Erickson stated that they were before the Board of Adjustment.

Duckworth asked what the Campbells would like. Erickson stated they would like the Board to deny the request as it is, and then come back with an engineered plan showing that they could guarantee that water would not run on their property.

Vogt asked about correcting the swale as well as the other means to correct water runoff and if the Campbells ever were contacted about plans. Erickson stated they heard through Mr. Sorenson and have never been provided a plan.

Roseanne Campbell, appearing as interest may appear, stated they have not been trying to get the plans to them, as they have emails, phones, addresses and they have been trying to get one on one, they could have called, they could have sent the plans, but they choose not to. Not only has the property been a nuisance, but the neighbor herself has been creating a nuisance and has been harassing them.

Duckworth asked if they have ever received any written plans. Campbells stated they have not received any.

Wernecke stated that the swale is the only access to the lake to take her son down in a wheelchair. Campbell stated that is the only side of the access for a wheelchair.

Lestikow asked if there was a chance that they brought the plans to see. Campbell stated that the day they came over, Mr. Sorenson was there, her daughter was home, but she didn't answer the door. They banged on the doors, then the windows and then went around the house and banged on the basement doors.

Duckworth asked what she wants. Campbell said they can mail the plans.

Vogt asked if they would be willing to work with them. Campbell stated they would be willing to work with them to make sure the runoff doesn't affect the property.

Steve Sorenson, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he is with Planning & Zoning and has issued citations to both the contractor and property owners and believe that the plans they have submitted today is not proving that there is a design standard showing that drainage will handle any rain event. He then suggested that a solution be a drainage ditch between the two neighbors and feels that 8 feet of fill within a 10 foot side yard setback won't be an issue. There is no room to build anything there that will work. He stated he has asked for engineered plans and asked that the lot be stabilized, but neither of those have happened and the silt fences are at capacity and will create erosion issues again. He then concluded with asking the board for some protection if they choose to delay.

Don Pilgram, appearing as interest may appear, stated they are a neighbor about 12 lots north of the property, stated he knows nothing about drainage or landscaping, but testified to the applicant's character.

Nate Idhe, reappearing in favor, reviewed their proposal again and stated this is a personal dispute and doesn't think they can wait, they need to fix this now and suggests that before their water was running onto the Swzaya property. He also suggested that Steve Sorenson already told him their plans are great, and doesn't know why he said what he said today.

Duckworth asked about his background in landscape design and water management. Idhe stated he went to school in LaCrosse and worked for a landscaper since his freshman year in college and he's built several ponds.

Duckworth asked if he has a professional degree. Idhe stated he does not.

Duckworth asked if he is part of any of the professional committee's or associations. Idhe stated he is not and doesn't feel he needs to do a good job.

Duckworth stated he doesn't feel the plans are complete. Idhe explained his plans.

Lestikow asked what he thought of the suggestion by Sorenson for the parties to get together. Idhe stated he is all for it but still wants to build the wall.

Duckworth confirmed there are no plans showing the option to fix the ditch. Idhe stated they do not but spoke of the ideas that have been discussed.

Wernecke asked about the desire to have more specific drawings, showing topos and such and to be convinced that this has a good chance in working and the suggestion that an engineer be involved in that, and how do the parties get together to agree on a concept. Idhe stated he feels his job is to follow the plans he's submitted and having an engineer he doesn't feel is necessary.

Jeff Hahn, reappearing in favor, stated that he has been a contractor for over 25 years and has sent plans to people and always get questions on how this going to work. He also talked about trying to talk to the neighbors and the plans to address both properties.

Duckworth asked if any plan has been provided. Hahn stated no plan has been drawn up, he wants to talk to the owners and then agree on something and then draw up a plan.

Duckworth provided options - table it, stabilize it, or reject the plans and try again, or approve the request, and require additional plans and work with the 3 parties, allow them to go ahead, or they can design their own plans.

Hahn stated he would agree that he is willing to work with Planning and Zoning and the other property owners.

Stephanie Erickson, reappearing, stated that the approval is conditional and they can not work on that side of the property until the Planning & Zoning Department says this meets their approval.

Duckworth stated they can't work on the other side of the property until the Planning and Zoning Department approves it.

Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:53 am .

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Wernecke, to approve the request for filling and grading on this property with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning and that all parties shall meet with Planning and Zoning, more detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by Planning and Zoning prior to any work being done. Motion carried 5-0.

D. Robert and Jacquie Steagall (SP-22-09) requesting a special exception permit to authorize the location and operation of an agricultural related business.

Duckworth confirmed what is allowed with just a permit and what needs a special exception permit.

Duckworth asked if people will be allowed to sleep like with a lodging house or bed and breakfast. Lorenz stated there is nothing in the plans for that.

Robert Steagall, applicant, appearing in favor of the request stated that they are trying to compete with outside area businesses, where if they have a nursery and retail store with products, it would be nice to be able to sell gloves and such. He described Agri-Tourism and what their intent is.

Duckworth asked for more details. Steagall stated they intend to open a retail store where they can sell a variety of things, as well as growing their own plants and selling them. They would like to sell soaps, garden gloves, hand made artwork, wool, yarn, and anything made by local artists as well.

Duckworth asked if they would buy non-local things and sell them as well. Steagall said they would as well. Duckworth confirmed that what is being asked for is a store. He also asked if there is off street parking. Steagall stated there is.

Duckworth asked what generally will be sold in the store. Steagall stated they would like to offer herb related products, bathsalts, scrubs, lotions, wreaths, artwork and plants. Duckworth asked what they would not be selling. Steagall stated he couldn't say and it's a gray area.

Duckworth asked if classes will be offered on how to make these things. Steagall stated they would be holding classes and teach them in the store.

Roloff is concerned about what it may not be, rather than what it will be and feels if they grant this is it a cart-blanche to do anything. Who is going to go in and be the ag-related business cop.

Duckworth asked if they plan on running people from the Dells to their property. Steagall stated that is correct.

Duckworth asked if they will allow berry picking and such. Steagall stated it could happen in the future.

Roloff asked if it could be a petting-zoo. Steagall stated they can do that as well.

Wernecke asked about rural therapy and if those people would be staying at there house. Steagall stated they will be doing rural therapy but they will not be having people stay at their homes. He also stated they want to cater to those that have a hard a life and teach them how to get back to a rural way of living.

Duckworth asked about employees. Steagall stated it would be him, his wife and her daughter to begin with.

Duckworth asked what else would be taking place like weddings. Steagall stated they would have wool festivals, how to create products from wool, etc.

Duckworth asked about septic. Steagall stated they would bring in outhouses for the public to use.

Duckworth asked if they talked to the neighbors and town board. Steagall stated they have and have received good comments from everyone.

Roloff asked how much of the year they would be open. Steagall stated they would operate from April until October.

Duckworth asked if there are any others in the area. Steagall stated there is. Duckworth asked where. Steagall stated he doesn't know, but is sure they are out there.

Vogt asked if they will be working with the Amish. Steagall stated they would not.

Tom Broughton, Town of Westfield Chair , appearing in favor of the request, stated that the Town Board feels that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and would benefit the community.

Duckworth asked about the store in a rural area. Broughton stated he doesn't feel it will be an issue.

Vogt asked if he feels it is in conflict with Exclusive Ag zoning. Broughton stated he doesn't think so, as most of his products are Ag.

Lestikow asked about the zoning change on the bar, but the Ag fields stay in Ag. Broughton explained.

Duckworth asked if there was a public meeting on this or just a regular meeting. Broughton stated they just talked about it in a regular meeting.

Wernecke asked if any of the neighbors were notified. Broughton stated they were not notified.

Wernecke asked if the Town Board talked about rezoning out of Exclusive Ag. Broughton stated they considered that, but felt that since you would have to rezone just the barn as commercial, they felt this was fine.

Vogt asked if the plan commission review this. Broughton stated they did not.

Mark Steward, Director of Planning and Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, stated that the staff spoke in length on this and rezoning to commercial was an option, but felt it would open up more issues. The proposed activities generally fit within an ag related business and going through the special exception process was the way to go.

Vogt asked if a cottage industry was looked at. Steward stated that it did not fit a cottage industry because of his retail sales of items not made on the property. He stated that the Board's ability to put conditions on the property would be the way to go rather than rezoning to commercial or being the ag related business police.

Wernecke asked if Recreational-Commercial district was looked at for the specialty shops and such and because of the uses, it fits better. Steward explained that it goes back to rezoning the property and most Exclusive Ag towns don't want to rezone much, as well as making changes to the comprehensive plan. He also spoke of an ag tourism concept will be put into the county's comprehensive plan that is currently in the works.

Vogt reviewed the process.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 12:58 p.m.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Roloff, to approve the request for a special exception permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning, with the addition of the permit expiring in 5 years, with the option to renew and it is not transferable. Motion carried 5-0.

E. Gerald and Margaret Sprecher (SP-23-09) requesting a special exception permit to authorize the renewal of a permit for a mineral extraction site.

Wernecke asked where the site was. Lorenz explained.

Duckworth asked about complaints. Lorenz stated none have been received.

Duckworth asked if inspections have been made. Lorenz stated they have and there are no issues with what has been reclaimed and what is active.

Gerald Sprecher, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is asking for a renewal of what he had and has no problems with the conditions being requested.

Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 1:10 p.m.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Wernecke, to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Roloff,

Secretary