DATE: March 25, 2004
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Halsey Sprecher, Robert Roloff, Richard Vogt,Linda White
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin, Dave Lorenz
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 9:00 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 White, seconded by Vogt. Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the March 25, 2004 session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by White, seconded by Vogt to adopt the February 26, 2004 minutes. Motion carried 3-0. (Duckworth and Roloff absent from meeting)
COMMUNICATIONS:
White stated she received a phone call from Russell Lentz in reference to the Durst appeal and he is here today to speak to the board.
APPEALS:
A. Sauk County (SP-07-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.23.07(1)(b)2 to authorize the location of a new telecommunications tower, located in an Ag District at Hemlock Park, Town of LaValle.
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 about the tower height and if that includes the antenna's on the top. Lorenz stated that is correct. Duckworth also asked about the notice and if it includes the height of the tower. He also asked how far this tower site is from the recent tower that US Cellular put up a short while ago. Lorenz stated he believe it was about ¼ mile.
Tim Stieve, Sauk County Emergency Government, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the binder put together and reviewed some history, such as the communications study throughout the county by a consultant and this area was identified as having problems with communications and also spoke of other sites that will allow emergency response to receive property coverage. He also spoke of the earlier tower request by US Cellular and the cost of co-locating and the lack of potential for renting future space on that tower was not a viable solution for the county. Stieve also spoke of future uses of "fiber-loops" and the ability to have that on county owned property rather than on a leased tower.
Duckworth asked about the tower and antenna height. Stieve stated that the tower is 180 feet and an antenna on the top that will make the entire height to be 199 feet.
Duckworth spoke of the co-locating requirements of the ordinance and asked the applicant to address the issues the ordinance request (referencing the binder, Exhibit II,37). Stieve stated that it does not address the issue of the actual height of the tower, because their tower is not as high as the other one. Duckworth asked about the "strength of the tower". Stieve stated that they (US Cellulars Tower) are capable of handling what would be needed. Duckworth asked about requirement #6. Stieve stated that because of the cost and the need for future space/expansion needs, it is a limiting factor.
Duckworth asked about "unreasonable" and how the numbers were arrived at. Stieve stated that he spoke to US Cellular's contract person via telephone and received the information provided in the packet.
Duckworth asked about question #7 and industry standards of the contractual terms and cost between the county and US Cellular. Stieve said they do not believe the costs are of fair market. He explained some other tower situations that county has and the differences.
Duckworth then asked about the total cost of the new tower. Stieve stated that right now, it is going to be approximately $100,000.
Roloff stated that the number they don't know is the "industry standard". Steive spoke of the Nextel agreement for lease payments and explained the fees to be assessed for rent from the US Cellular tower, which is in the range of $2,000/month. Roloff asked if renting tower space from US Cellular right now would meet the immediate needs of the county. Steive said right at this time, it could, however for future use it is unknown if the ability to expand on the tower would be possible. They would not rent space at this time for what they are not using, which would confirm the ability for expansion in the future.
Roloff asked if there is the potential for the county to rent out space to commercial users on their towers? Stieve stated they would so there can be co-locators on their tower(s), which would also help alleviate the cost of the tower for the county.
Vogt asked for a clarification on the location of the site, referring to Exhibit II,94, directly asking about the neighboring property owner. Stieve explained. The board continued to review the aerial photo in the exhibit.
Phil Raab, Sauk County Emergency Government, appearing in favor of the request, referred to Exhibit II,143 and provided more detail on the antenna and industry standards of co-location and what the county is requesting and how the county does not fit the industry standard and the needs being so much greater than a simple cellular system and the costs associated with them. He also spoke of the benefit of the county having control over their towers with issues such as cost, homeland security, control over space needed, and not being forced off of a site because the county does not own it.
Duckworth asked for a $100,000 structure it rents for $24,000 a year. Raab stated that the tower cost $25,000, the $100,000 amount is for the total site, the antennas, buildings, etc., not just the tower structure. $25,000 for the steel and the construction cost is $37,000, the remaining amount is the buildings, fencing, etc. Duckworth asked about the cost of co-location being unreasonable. Raab explained that the cost of the rent is based upon the needs and how much space you need. He also stated that he believed the ordinance will allow anyone to co-locate on towers, but the key is what is the county willing to pay over the years and will they be able to supply the needed space. He explained to the board that it isn't just the case of the rent, it has to do with being able to control their space and not get removed from the tower, the available space for what they need, ownership, security issues, etc.
Vogt asked if there was consideration given to throwing in at that site with US Cellular and possibly put up another tower next to the other one? Raab stated that they had the intent to build the tower in 2001 and an ordinance prevented them from putting up a tower and the county was involved in discussions with them at that time and had the intent of putting a tower up in that site. He reiterated the costs involved and unknown of the future and understands the concern of having 2 towers that close together, but have support from the community and the emergency services in the community and service and benefits the tower will provide.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:45 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.
Duckworth felt the application is not complete and didn't answer the questions required by the county in Section 23.08 of the SC Tower Ordinance.
Roloff stated they have verbal testimony to the cost, but it would have been nice to have something in writing.
Sprecher spoke of lease prices if you don't own the land you are putting the tower on and asked Duckworth where he feels enough information hasn't been provided. Duckworth stated Section 23.08, #1,2,3,5, and 7, c, and what he really hears is that the county wants to have their own tower and does not see it in the ordinance that it is something they can look at. The ordinance says you are suppose to maximize the use of existing towers.
Sprecher feels that after the research that has been done, the tower that is existing does not fit into the reasoning or needs of the county.
Roloff spoke of the US Cellular tower not meeting the engineering requirement of the county, especially in the long term and suggested that it comes down to where do you spend the money.
White stated that she would have like to have seen how much use the currently tower is getting.
The board further discussed what the ordinance asks for and the economic feasibility of the other tower. Sprecher stated that even if you address the costs, you still don't have a tower that meets the needs of the county and spoke of the planning with fiber optics and the need.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 4-1 with Duckworth in opposition.
B. Alvin & Victorien Klitzke (SP-08-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.10(2)(b)4 to authorize the location of three wildlife ponds within 300 feet of a property line.
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 about the neighbors the town and how they feel. Lorenz explained.
White asked about the characteristic of the pond. Lorenz referred those questions to the Land Conservation Department.
Serge Koenig, Sauk County Land Conservation Department, agent, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is designing the scrapes and can assure that they will be built to federal standards and spoke of some of the details of the ponds. He also stated that the adjacent land owner is Madeline Terry on all sides and she too has been to the board for a similar request.
White asked where the water is coming from. Koenig stated it is coming from the crop fields and the ponds are located in a naturally wet area of the crop fields.
Duckworth asked about the affect on the neighbors. Koenig stated there should be none due to the fact that there will be no berms.
Vogt asked where the spoil will go. Koenig stated that they are placing it where the DNR has requested to the south of the project.
Duckworth asked more about the water runoff in the area. Koenig explained.
Vogt asked about a ditch, referring to Exhibit II,5. Koenig explained where the fence lines are to the north and the ditches are to the east running south. Vogt asked if everything drains to the east and will run into the small tributary. Koenig stated that is correct.
Roloff asked if this project is compatible with land use plans that the township has for this area. Koenig feels it is simply because the neighbors have done similar projects. Roloff asked if there has been discussion with the Town Board. Koenig stated he is not positive if the town has contacted Mr. Klitzke yet.
Sprecher asked about the high ground. Koenig explained. Sprecher then asked if the spoil will be used for anything, such as selling it or moving it out. Koenig stated that he is unsure, but it needed to be out away from the ponds itself so that water would not be baked up on the neighbors. He also spoke of erosion control measures.
Alvin Klitzke, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the field where the project is proposed is not good for crop production and spoke of low spots in the field.
Duckworth asked if he has spoken to the neighbors. Klitzke stated he has and the neighbors have done similar projects.
Vogt asked if the field to the south will continue to be cropped. Klitzke stated that he does intend to crop that field.
White asked if he will maintain long term ownership of the property. Klitzke stated he will as long as he can keep going, and in the future the property will probably be taken over by the son.
Seeing as no one wished to speak, Duckworth closed the public portion of the meeting at 10:17 a.m.
The board discussed the ordinance and request.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White to approve the request along with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.
C. Gerald & Phyllis Wittmann (SP-09-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)21 to authorize the continued operation of a salvage yard. This request is a renewal of a 5 year permit from 1998.
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 Planning & Zoning has received complaints and if the inspection showed that liquids are being disposed of properly. Lorenz stated that no complaints have been received and there is no evidence that liquids are not disposed of properly.
Gerald Wittmann, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he had the operation for about 30 years and tries to do the best he can and also repairs farm machinery and has always drawn off liquids as required and disposed of them as required.
Duckworth asked where the materials come from. Wittmann stated that the county has suggested calling them and people just cleaning up their place and need a place to get rid of materials. Duckworth asked if anything is ever just dropped off. Wittmann stated nothing is ever dropped off and there is a place for everything that is taken in. He also stated that they are typically inspected twice a year.
Sprecher asked about vehicles when brought there. Wittmann explained the process of receiving junk vehicles and the recycling process with them and asked for a higher number of vehicles they could take so that they can do a bunch of vehicles at one time. Duckworth asked how many he would like. Wittmann stated 5 or 6 would be nice. He continued to explain his process of intake of vehicles to recycling.
Vogt asked about turnover of tires, etc. Wittmann stated that generally about every 5 to 6 years and they typically don't have a lot of turnover.
Sprecher asked if they go out and pick up vehicles. Wittmann stated they do not go out and pick up vehicles, people call and then they drop them off. Sprecher asked about the fields around the yard. Wittmann stated that his cows pasture around the salvage yard and that alone requires him to keep things very clean.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 10:35 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to approve the special exception request with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning, changing "G" to allow 6 vehicles rather than 3. Motion carried 5-0.
The Board recessed until 10:40 a.m.
D. Hubert and Betty Durst, (SP-10-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)15 to authorize the location of a proposed new duplex in Agricultural Zoning.
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 there is a structure on the property already. Lorenz stated he does not believe there is and explained that they are limited in creating separate parcels by CSM and the restrictions. Lorenz stated the lot as it is recorded now, does not have a structure on it now.
White asked about any existing duplexes that are not related to agricultural operations in ag or exclusive ag zoning. Lorenz stated he is not aware of any.
Roloff asked about the home shown in photo 3. Lorenz stated he believes it is owner by the Durst or relation of.
White asked about the Border Riders property. Lorenz stated their property is to the east of the proposed site.
Vogt asked about the CSM created to split off the lots and where they are located. Lorenz explained. Vogt asked if they are in LaValle or Ironton township and how big the CSM's are. Lorenz stated he did not know. Vogt also asked about adequate space for septic. Lorenz stated they would have space.
Betty Durst, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that on Exhibit V,II, the 40 acre parcel, and out of that there is 23 acres left which goes right up to Rabuck Road. The property across the road belongs to Russell Lentz. She stated that her son-in-law and daughter are interested in building a duplex, but the exact spot has not been determined yet. She also stated that she feels that it wouldn't be a problem to the surrounding community and the representation from the neighbors and stated that Mr. Lentz and the Border Riders has the opportunity to purchase that land. She mentioned to the board that she has lived in the area for 44 years.
Duckworth asked if there is a structure on the property in discussion. Durst stated there is no structure.
Vogt asked about the CSMs created. Durst explained the property that was carved out by CSM's.
White asked if the land behind her son's house is landlocked. Durst stated that it is and there is no easement.
Duckworth asked if there are surveys that are not shown on the map. Durst stated that was correct. Duckworth clarified that there is more land division than what is shown on Exhibit V,2.
White asked about the land surrounding her son's property. Durst explained where buildings currently set.
Vogt asked where the certified survey map divisions are located. Durst explained.
White asked how the 1 acre would be used versus using the entire 23 acres and what size the units will be. Durst stated they just wanted enough land for the duplex and would refer the size to her son-in-law.
Duckworth asked why this would be a good use for the area. Durst stated that it is a quiet place.
White asked how it will affect the surrounding property owners. Durst stated that it will not affect agricultural land at all and explained where they used to crop in the 23 acres. White asked where in proximity to the Lentz home is the duplex to be located. Durst stated they have not picked out the exact spot yet.
Vogt, referring to Exhibit IV,3, photo 2, and asked about the approximate placement of the duplex. Durst stated it would be in that area or a little bit further back.
White verified that nothing has been plated as far as the parcel. Durst stated there has not.
Mike Butler, appearing in favor of the request, stated that as far as picking a spot, they have not done that yet, but are thinking of closer to the wooded area, so it would not be on the fence line of the Border Riders property. He stated that it will probably be a single story with an exposed basement and even though they do not live in the area, they are here quite a bit. He stated this is there first attempt to get into real-estate and secure their future and does not feel that it will detract from the community other than more road traffic in the area.
Duckworth asked why this is a desirable location for a duplex. Butler stated its not necessarily a desirable location, but they have the opportunity to purchase property there.
White asked about the sizes of the units. Butler stated it has not been decided yet, but thinking about 3 bedrooms each. White asked if there are intentions to move to the area. Butler stated they have no plans to move to the area and not sure if that will happen down the road or not.
Russell Lentz, appearing in opposition, stated that he and his wife are adjacent property owners to the proposed duplex site and presented Exhibit VII,1, copy of a map of the area, and Exhibit VIII,1, a petition from neighbors in opposition. He stated that it is true that they tried to purchase the property years ago, however it was an opportunity for Clarence Borntrager to purchase more land for his farm operation and they would assist them by purchasing the remaining frontage. There was not an agreement reached between the Durst, Borntragers and Lentz, so they backed out of it. He then referred to the petition in opposition and how it correlated to the map and feels that granting this exception will open the door to future exceptions and feel the land should be kept agricultural.
Duckworth asked if he appeared at the town board meeting. Lentz stated that they did not know about the town meeting or the proposal until they received information in the mail from Sauk County. He then spoke of the road and it being a low maintenance, low priority road, maintained by the Town, its narrow, been seal-coated, but is not a good road for further development. They also have concerns that the owner will be an absentee owner, the fields in the area are spread with liquid manure and how will the farm operations surrounding the property affect them. Lentz concluded by stating that the petition should be important in their decision today.
Joe Sander, appearing in opposition of the request, stated that he is a member of the Border Riders club and have been neighbors to the Durst for several years and the biggest concern of the club is their ability to continue to carryout the functions held on their property and the problems a duplex could cause.
White mentioned the noise levels, while not a problem with them, does carry and could be heard from their property.
Byron Becker, appearing in opposition, stated that he is also a member of the Border Riders club and feel if they build duplexes or even just one, their facilities and functions could have a issues and feel if they do get it approved, there should be some way, such as part of the lease, that notifies the renters of the functions and dates so that they aren't constantly calling the Sheriff's department constantly throughout the day about whatever. He also spoke of the charities that they serve based on profits from the functions they hold.
Sprecher asked how long they've been on the property. Becker stated since the early 1980's.
John Pearson, appearing in opposition to the request, stated that he is a member of the Ironton Town Board and the road near the property is a low maintenance road, it is the last to be plowed, a young family there would put more burden on the town, it is narrow, a pothole filled road and will be more expensive for the town to maintain and the buildings proposed will not benefit the Town of Ironton tax base.
White asked how it will affect his specific property. Pearson stated he does not think it will have a negative bearing on his property.
Patricia Lentz, appearing in opposition, stated that she is a tax payer in Ironton feels it will be a burden on tax payers without seeing a benefit from the tax base. She also spoke of the negative affect on the farmland and the history of the CSM splits by the applicant and the ability to have the entire roadside developed.
Bob Cassity, appearing as interest may appear, stated that while it is not in his district, there are members of the adjacent landowers in his district that he represents, urged the board to allow the adjacent land owners, such as the border riders club to continue their efforts and functions that raises funds that benefits the entire county, helped children with cancer to pay for doctor bills and helped people who've lost their homes and do many more things for the community and would hate to see the development of the land prevent them from doing this service.
White asked, as a member of the county board, if they allowed the duplex, if it would encourage duplexes to be built in his area. Cassity stated it would not help the effort in his district or the township that he represents.
Betty Durst, reappearing in favor, stated that there are no plans at this time to put any more duplexes than this 1 and feels that it is a personal vendetta with the Lentz's. She also stated that she could have had a list of members herself. She then read a letter she received from the Lentz's and said that her home is in the Ironton township and pays taxes there.
Seeing as no one wished to speak, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:35 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and request
White stated she does not feel that this meets the public interest of the surrounding agricultural community and is concerned about the door that would be open to encourage development around the county of this kind.
Roloff stated that according to 7.05(k)(15) the states that the board can only act on a site location for a request to construct a two family dwelling and since the application is not location specific, the board has nothing to approve.
Duckworth stated that he kept asking why this spot and the only answer was because they could buy the land and does not feel it is desirable to have absentee owners of a duplex in a rural community and feels that the applicant has not shown any reason why it is desire to be there other than the land being owned. He then addressed the noise issues from neighboring property owners and feels the board has no ability to impose any standards.
Sprecher stated that from past experience as town chairman, he does not see any reason to change how duplexes have been handled or should be handled.
Vogt stated it is merely a real estate investment rather than a residence and spoke of the difference and why it is even before the board and spoke of the intent of the ordinance in regards to things like this.
Motion by White, seconded by Roloff, to deny the request. Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Halsey Sprecher
Secretary