Date: October 23, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair; Robert Roloff; Halsey Sprecher; Richard Vogt; Linda White
MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda White
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin, Dave Lorenz
OTHERS PRESENT: See individual appeal files for registration appearance slips.
Chairman Duckworth 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 Sprecher, seconded by Roloff .
Motion carried 4-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the October 23, 2003 session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt seconded by Roloff .
Motion carried 4-0.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher to adopt the September, 2003 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None to report.
Duckworth stated that the dates need to be set for hearing dates in 2004, which are the 4th Thursday of every month other than November and December to avoid holidays. Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Vogt to accept the dates set by Chair Duckworth.
Motion carried 4-0.
APPEALS:
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. He then reviewed the photos and video of the site. Mr. Lorenz concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked if staff measured the slope. Lorenz explained that Steve Sorenson was onsite and did measurements and discussed the project with the landowners.
Duckworth stated he doesn't feel the lot looks like it has a 20% slope and needs to know how he measured it and where it is 20%.
Roloff stated that he lives on Lake Redstone and does site visits and agrees with the Chair and spoke of where the boathouse could be put to avoid the slope. Lorenz stated that if they were in a location that did not exceed 20% they would not need a variance. Roloff stated he feel that could be done if the property owners get a little creative.
Steve Sorenson, Planning and Zoning, appeared and answered question on how he arrived at the 20% slope. He used Exhibit 4,1 photo and explained that the landscaping created the artificial slope when the original boat house was created.
Duckworth asked what the exact number of the slope was. Sorenson stated that he remembers shooting the slope and it was over 20% but does not remember the exact number.
Duckworth asked if the prior people had built a boathouse and landscaped it down instead of burying it in the ground, it would have been under 20%. Sorenson stated that was correct.
Duckworth asked about the north side of the property and if it was all under 20%. Sorenson stated that was correct.
Vogt referred to picture #2.
Duckworth asked if they could put it somewhere else on the lot. Sorenson stated they could, however he feels they should replace where the current one is so that they don't open up any more of the ground.
Vogt asked if the fill around the existing boathouse were removed and made that as less then 20% slope is that something they can do without getting the variance. Sorneson explained that they could take out a filling and grading permit to make the slopes less than 20% slopes and then replace the boathouse so they don't have to go for a variance.
Roloff stated they are increasing the size of the boathouse, so they would have to disturb more land surrounding the existing and feels that there is a way to do this without having to request a variance.
Vogt asked questions about keeping the north wall and moving the south wall would that be possible? Sorenson explained.
Mr. Donald Ederer, applicant, appearing in favor, stated that he wants to put the boathouse exactly as it was presented, increase 8 or 9 feet and use the same footprint - the north wall would stay where its at, a couple feet longer and the south wall would increase 8-9 feet and the back ridge would be taken out as well as the tree that is there.
Roloff reviewed the request and stated that he feels the south wall could have a grade similar to the north wall which would be less than 20%. Mr. Ederer agreed. Roloff stated he is looking for a way to get around having to give a variance and explained the strict restrictions the board has to following in granting a variance.
Duckworth asked about excavation for the boathouse. Ederer stated that they would only excavate what was needed to put in the new boathouse.
Sprecher asked about the floor height of the new boathouse. Ederer stated the floor height would remain the same.
Seeing as no one else wishes to speak, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the meeting at 9:35 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the request and the ordinance. He also stated that he doesn't feel the property meeting the intention of the county board and testimony states that the slope was created by the landscaping and has the opinion that the property and project doesn't need a variance because the slope would be removed and there is no drainage that runs into this other than normal lawn drainage. He feels the board could say that this project could be done without a variance and doesn't agree with the interpretation that this little man made slope meets the 20% and intent of the county board.
Roloff stated he agrees and if the variance is not granted, a plan be submitted to Planning and Zoning showing that neither the grade on the north wall or new south wall not exceed 20%.
Duckworth stated he's not refusing the variance, but is under the opinion that a variance isn't needed and feels Planning and Zoning can give a permit to build a boathouse without a variance.
Sprecher feels he doesn't feel a variance is needed either.
Vogt asked in the case of other boathouse or new boathouses, if you have a natural 20% slope and a person would come before the board to clear the a spot and grade, does that mean they don't need a variance to put the boathouse in at a later time. Duckworth believed that was correct. Vogt also asked about setting the boathouse back on the other side of the lot.
Roloff stated that he agrees with the Chair on the intent of the ordinance to keep structures from being built on lands that exceed 20% and had nature in mind, not a man made slope and the new structure would comply with the ordinance and feels this is a mute question and Planning & Zoning can work with the clients and create something that will work with the ordinance and comply when the project is completed.
Vogt stated to satisfy county zoning, the should see more complete plans and landscaping plans.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to refer back to Planning and Zoning to work with the applicant to create a project that satisfies the ordinance without having to request a variance and part of working with Planning and Zoning they will submit a landscaping plan and elevation contours to show that they will be within the guidelines of the ordinance.
Motion carried 4-0.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, gave the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site. Mr. Lorenz concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked about photos showing pre-cutting and if the stumps were completely removed and how many removed. Lorenz stated there were no pictures and could not give a number of removed shrubs and/or trees.
Duckworth asked if Lorenz has been on the property. Lorenz stated he was on site a few months back for a meeting with the applicant and his attorney and a representative from Vierbicher that developed the plans. Duckworth asked what type of vegetation had been removed and if he could tell from being on site from the sprouts. Lorenz stated he isn't qualified to tell species specifically, but looks like little oaks and maples and other sprouts.
Roloff asked about in January of 2003, the applicant was given a notice for court appearance for the cutting on this lot and can this plan rectify the damages that were done. Lorenz stated that is correct.
Duckworth asked about the court appearance. Lorenz explained.
Mr. Patrick Clary, Vierbicher & Associates, representing Mr. Applehans, appearing in favor of the request, stated they prepared a site assessment and counted stumps and looked at species and tried to determine what was removed. He stated that in page 3 of his report, in November and December of 2002 they made site visits to determine species and have a total of 15 stumps within the 35 foot, a beaver casualty, species unknown other were a basswood clump, box elder, poplar, double oak, anywhere from 1 to 14 inches. He also spoke of photographs that were taken prior to the construction of the stairs and tree removal taken by a real estate agent.
Duckworth stated the board would like copies of the photographs and the report that talks about the vegetation that was removed.
The board recessed until copies could be made for them to review. The board reconvened at 10:15.
Mr. Clary continued to explain the plan, the meetings with Planning and Zoning and the testimony previously given.
Vogt asked about the 23.25 wide strip and asked about the trees to be removed because of the stairway. Mr. Clary explained that it was a request by the owner, however, the recommendation that Planning and Zoning has before you, they are recommending that no other cutting be allowed.
Duckworth asked if it was the land owners request to cut that area. Mr. Clary stated that they way he understood it, that if the owner wanted to cut a 25% area, where would that be. Its possible that they misinterpreted the request by staff. He also stated that there are some dead trees that the owner would like to remove, but wants approval first.
Duckworth asked how the species were chosen to replace. Mr. Clary stated that the species were chosen because of the being native around the lake and also some requested by Planning & Zoning.
Duckworth asked if some vegetation would be allowed to grow back. Mr. Clary explained that there would be weeding around the areas of the newly planted trees, but no other area.
Duckworth reviewed to Exhibit VIII,1 and asked if all those pictures came from the Realtor prior to cutting. Mr. Clary stated that the 2 top photographs came from the Realtor and the lower photograph was taken by the owner and the remain photo was taken by Vierbicher.
Duckworth asked how the 3 foot size plants were selected. Mr. Clary stated it was agreed upon by all parties during the meeting with Planning & Zoning on site and feels it will be better in the long run to have slightly smaller planting that won't go into shock when planted and in the long run would be better and outgrow a larger size.
Duckworth asked where you are measuring the 3 feet from. Mr. Clary stated it is what you would get from the nursery and their standard. He confirmed it would be measured from above the root collar.
Lorenz reappeared. Roloff asked about the first plan submitted from Vierbicher and the meeting to review the plan and the result of that meeting is shown in the second plan. Lorenz stated that the second plan is a compromise between the owner and Planning & Zoning.
Mr. William Applehans, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Roloff asked about the citation received and if he paid it or went to court. Appelhans stated that the original ticket was paid and stated that the local contractor that was hired to build the stairs and clean up the lot a little bit, which lead to other problems.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:30 a.m.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning.
Motion carried 4-0.
Applicant withdrew request prior to hearing.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request, He then reviewed the photos and video of the site. Mr. Lorenz concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Ms. Patsy McCluskey, appearing in favor of the request, stated that she compares it to a cabin up north where men normally go to hunt and fish, but this is a place where woman would go to fabic, a 5 bedroom, 3 beds to a room, on the lower part of the addition and the upper space would be a work room required for sewing, ironing, cutting, etc., and the rooms would be rented out. It is traditional in that quitters have interest in the area, but are typically found in large motels. The motels don't accommodate quitters well because of the poor lighting and facilities and lack of personality.
Duckworth asked about the amount of activity. McCluskey stated it is very quiet and nothing like a hunting retreat. She also stated she is not sure if it would be year around because of the winter weather.
Duckworth asked about negative impacts. McCluskey stated that there would only be more cars on the property and would not require more services from the town.
Duckworth asked about the neighboring property. McCluskey explained.
Duckworth asked if the requirements of the ordinance was required and if she can live with them. McCluskey said yes.
Roloff asked about feeding people. McCluskey stated it could be catered in or could be a potluck. Kitchen facilities would be available.
Vogt asked about a bed and breakfast. McCluskey explained how she didn't qualify for that option. She then talked about the size of the structure, the layout and the proposed addition.
Sprecher asked about stays. McCluskey explained.
Ms. Susan Vandegrift, appearing in favor, stated that she is the next door neighbor and has no problems with the project and does not feel it will create any problems.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 4-0.
The Board adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary