DATE: December 18, 2003
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Robert Roloff Halsey Sprecher Richard Vogt Linda White
ABSENT: Linda White(absent until 9:12 a.m.)
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 Roloff, seconded by Sprecher.
Motion carried 4-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the December 18, 2003 session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff.
Motion carried 4-0.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff to adopt the November 2003 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0.
COMMUNICATIONS: None to report.
APPEALS:
Ms. Becky Choroszy, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the intention was to retire in the area, but decided to make the area their home. The seasonal change has been challenging without having a garage which will be used for storage of vehicles.
Duckworth asked if it will be a one story garage. Ms. Choroszy stated that it would be 1 story and just large enough to hold 2 vehicles.
Duckworth asked the applicant to talk about the slope of the land. Ms. Choroszy stated it does slope and they have talked to a couple builders about the slope and would either build up the land or construct a foundation to put the garage on. The garage would replace the small storage shed that is currently located there.
Vogt asked about the shed and the other setbacks that have to be met and if the option of minimizing the encroachment onto the required road setback as far as garage placement, moving towards the house more if the setbacks could be met? Ms. Choroszy stated she doesn't believe it would minimize it that much moving it closer to the house and would locate it on top of the driveway. She also spoke of the only large mature trees on the property as well as others that have been planted and would like to retain them.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:18 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the request and the ordinance.
Duckworth stated that even if the garage was moved over towards the house, they still could not get it very far away from the road before they were into the water setback.
Vogt stated that a well is shown and asked if they are talking about the wishing well and the trees that are planted there are small trees and could be moved.
Roloff stated that on the east side of the house, there is a stairway (Exhibit 4,1 and 2,3) on the house and questions where the corner of the deck falls as far as the setback to the lake and if an attached garage would fit on the end of the house. He also asked how precise the drawing was because of the plot plan and the home being drawn in.
Duckworth asked the applicant to return to answer the question. Ms. Choroszy stated the plot plan and house is shown as closely as they could do by hand and that the deck does not extend out that far from the house because of the way the shoreline comes in to that lot. She also stated that there is not enough space within the triangle shown on the plot plan, to build an attached garage and meet all the setbacks.
Roloff asked if the north side of the house is at exactly 63 feet from the centerline of the road. Ms. Choroszy stated they are right at the minimum requirements for all the setbacks for the house. She also answered the question of the well and that it is a water well and pointed out in the photo exhibits for the board.
White asked about the location of the well and the fence lines and lot lines. Ms. Choroszy explained.
Duckworth reviewed the history of variances for garages at Lake Redstone. Roloff stated it looks as if they have explored all the possibilities of putting a small garage on that lot and this is the only place it will fit. He also asked if the property owner meets the standards that the state law requires.
White asked about the equipment stored in the shed and if the size of the garage would be able to fit that equipment as well. Ms. Choroszy stated that they only have 1 riding lawn mower which will be sold and the other lawn equipment that is in there can be stored on or along the wall of the garage and still fit the automobiles in there.
Sprecher asked if anything was received by the Town Board. Duckworth stated in Exhibit 3,1 and it is supported. Vogt stated there is no way you can get around not putting the garage there without violating one of the setbacks. However, the overage could be minimized more by moving the building to have less of an encroachment and feels that hasn't been explored and feels the trees that are there could easily be moved. Duckworth feels that would encroach the 75 foot water setback and feels that the only place you can move it would encroach to some degree on the water and/or would they be that much farther away from the road and needs to watch the septic system that is located near there as well.
Duckworth asked if the lot really needs a garage and in the past have been more lenient on the roadside setbacks when the town boards have indicated they have no problem with it.
Roloff asked about the hardship and if one was proven. White asked how the decision has been made in the past when a variance for a garage similar to this has been approved.
Sprecher feels that the variance is hard, especially seeing as we allow the undersized lots to be sold, the owners should be able to utilize them. He also feels that the location of the proposed garage is the best for what they are given.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White to approve the variance with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning.
Motion carried 3-2, with Roloff and Vogt voting negative.
Linda White left the board for the next hearing based on personal investment in the hearing.
Ms. Linda White, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they looked at how to deal with the issue and that there is not provision in Exclusive Ag zoning for a duplex and had the property rezoned to Ag to allow for a duplex if approved by the BOA. The footprint of the house will not be changed, however the roof line of the house will be changed. Animal occupy 3 of the buildings and a 120' long feed way behind the barn. This route was decided on so that there is no more disruption to the neighborhood and the farm is being updated and the older buildings not being used will be removed. Also asked that this be nontransferable to anything other than an agricultural operation and does not want a duplex out in the middle of the country, but as only part of a farm operation.
Duckworth asked if they own the land that surrounds the property. White stated she does and only rezoned the 2 acres because they have no desire to put up additional housing.
Roloff asked if they wanted one of the conditions to be nontransferable to a subsequent owner. Ms. White stated they would like their son to take over the property and that would prevent him from using, however would like nontransferable to a non-farm operation, which would also meet the desires of the neighbors.
Duckworth asked about the rezoning area, but did not divide it off with a CSM. White stated that they intended to do that but the Planning Committee stated they did not require one.
Duckworth asked about the changes to local government. White stated it would not affect local government other than increasing the tax base. She also referred to the photos while describing the plans for updating the structure to make into a duplex.
Duckworth asked about the Town Board. Ms. White stated they are in favor of the request.
Sprecher asked about Exhibit 6,2 and the roadway shown. Ms. White stated the roadway is owned by people that own a back 40 for a residential use.
Roloff asked about the letter received by the town board and the conditions of ag use only and reverts back to original standing use (single family) and the special exception permit would be void. White clarified the Boards decision.
Duckworth asked about the transferring back to single family use. White explained the intentions and the plans that would allow for easily making the home back into a single family residence.
Roloff asked if the board should be mute on the question of nontransferable. Duckworth stated he doesn't believe it is in their power to make that decision. White stated the issue is whether the special exception permit can have the condition placed. Duckworth stated that this type of permit does not have a time limit and is continuous.
White stated that in other permits granted by the Board, there have been time limits put on and wondered how you determine that. Duckworth stated that some of them are predetermined by the county board, others are not.
The board discussed the nontransferable issue.
Seeing as no one wished to speak, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and request.
Vogt talked about the history of the property and the rezoning that has taken place previously on the property.
Sprecher feels the zoning and lack of CSM is a benefit because that way the 2 acres can't be sold off as it is. He spoke of the rezoning and the intent. Vogt asked if the 2 acres that have been rezoned are sold separately it would have to be a certified survey and be approved by Planning & Zoning. It was noted it would. Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff, to approve the request, with the condition that the structure may remain a duplex so long as the property is used for agricultural purposes, along with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 4-0. Motion passes.
The Board then discussed the issue of having/creating policiesfor the board to follow. Roloff suggested Planning & Zoning examining the published practices that may be contrary to the County Ordinances.
Vogt stated that he has a problem with policies in that you know there will be an exception to a policy that will trip them up.
Duckworth mentioned possible policies on how displays are to be made, such as what would be needed for power point presentations, etc.
The board continued to discuss and agreed that they don't want to establish any policies, but the staff needs to review their ordinances and policies. The board decided that there was no need for a closed session and understands the written opinion provided by the Corporation Counsel referring to last months case.
Dave Lorenz explained to the board what is required of applicants to apply to the board initially.
The Board adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary