Board of Adjustment Minutes

DATE: August 26, 2004

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair

Robert Roloff, Halsey Sprecher, Richard Vogt,Linda White ,

STAFF PRESENT: 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 9:00 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 Sprecher. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board adopted the agenda for the August 26, 2004 session of the Board on a Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff to adopt the July 22, 2004 minutes. Motion carried 5-0.

COMMUNICATIONS:

None to report.

APPEALS:

A. Robert Demars (SP-33-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.10(2)(b)4 to authorize the construction of six wildlife ponds within 300 feet of a property line, located in the RC 35 District.

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.

Serge Koenig, Sauk County Land Conservation Department, Agent for the Applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the area is very wet, being a wetland at one time, being converted to crop land, and would like to restore it to its natural state.

Duckworth asked what negative effect this would have on adjacent land owners. Koenig said none.

Sprecher asked what the water source is. Koenig stated parts is spring fed and other is rain fall.

Roloff asked how far down the groundwater is. Koenig stated about 3 to 4 feet.

Vogt asked about Exhibit II,3 and a stream that runs through the property and if they would think that stream would ever flood over onto the property. Koenig stated it should not, according to his survey and info. He also stated that the ponds go north and east and the stream is at one elevation and the rest of it tips away from the stream.

Darlene Hill, Town Chair of Baraboo, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of Exhibit IV,2, the town plan commission minutes showing they are in favor of the request. It has not come in front of the town board yet, but once it does she can guarantee that it will pass.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:20 a.m.

Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.

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

B. Tod and Julie Fleming (SP-34-04), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)13 and 8.08(3)(a), and a variance pursuant to s.8.05(1)(b) to authorize the construction of a stormwater detention dam within 300 feet of a property line and a stabilization structure within 10 feet of a side lot line as part of an erosion control project.

Duckworth spoke of the variance and stated that he rules that it shall be considered an area variance unless any board members object. No members objected.

Duckworth asked about Exhibit II,6 and if the property line is where the old fence line runs and the water flows back and forth across the property line. Lorenz stated that was correct. Duckworth also asked if the 2nd water project they wanted to build could not be done because it meets the definition of a structure, so it needs a variance. Lorenz stated that is correct that it meets the definition of a structure in the Shoreland Ordinance and the creek was deemed navigable by the DNR.

Vogt asked about the gully and the property it sits on. Lorenz explained.

Duckworth asked if most of the erosion they saw was on the neighboring property. Lorenz stated he wasn't sure, but it did have a large amount of erosion, but no improvement on the property are being affected by the erosion as it is on the current applicants property.

Julie Fleming, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, gave a background history of the property and the erosion problem and stated that the photographs show approximately 25 to 30 yards of advance erosion into the property.

Vogt asked about Exhibit II,6 and the existing building that is shown. Fleming stated that is their existing storage building.

Roloff asked about the neighbor. Fleming stated it was the neighbor to the west and they do not wish to participate in the project.

Sprecher asked if the project will direct water to the neighbors property. Fleming stated it will not affect their property any more than it always has.

Earl Holzman, Ayres and Assoc, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is one of the design engineers for the project and stated that the gully is across the property line and took more survey shots.

Duckworth asked if he could explain what the structure is going to look like. Holzman stated that on the south end (marked "B"), the inlet riser pipe will be flush to the ground and will have a metal structure that sticks up, the ground will be rip raped and can be covered with a light coating of soil and mowed, and where the pipe extends to the north, it will be filled in to a level grade and on the other end there will be a rip raped slope to stabilize as much as they can.

Duckworth stated so basically you are burying a culvert. Holzman stated that is correct. Duckworth asked where the water goes when it leaves the pipe. Holzman stated it will discharge into the existing gully which is on the neighbors property. He informed the board that they are not changing the water flow any and that the water that was on the neighboring property will be the same.

Duckworth clarified that the only thing visible is the inlet pipe and cover. Holzman stated that was correct.

Duckworth asked about the Dam. Holzman explained that for rainfall up to about 4 inches of rain in an hour, the water that will come out is a very small amount of water and will allow the drainage way to become well vegetated and stable. He also stated that for a major participation event, they will get a large amount of water through the swall and through the structure.

Roloff asked if the pipe on the lower structure could handle a major storm. Holzman stated it is sized for a large magnitude of floods.

Duckworth asked what it would take to convert the dam to a pond. Holzman stated you would have to line the entire gravel pit and will not hold water other than immediately after the rainfall.

Duckworth verified they are not changing the flow of the water. Holzman stated they are only changing the rate that the water flows out of the dam.

White asked how this project would change if the neighboring land owner would be involved in the project. Holzman explained.

Duckworth asked what the other option would be without getting the variance. Holzman stated the other option would be to fill the gully with riprap and hope it holds.

Vogt asked about the drop structure and it being designed for a larger flood event based on the workings of the dam. Holzman stated that was correct and explained further.

Duckworth asked what the hardship would be for them to grant the variance. Holzman stated that the outlet of the pipe is within 10 feet of the property line and for them to get into a stable location to discharge, they need to be where they are at.

Duckworth asked how far the inlet is from the west property line. Holzman stated it is about 35 feet on the south end and it angles towards the property line on the north end. Duckworth stated that the embankment structure is within the 10 feet and needs the variance.

Vogt asked about the basin.

Duckwoth asked how the project will negatively impact the neighbors. Holzman stated he doesn't believe it will.

Roloff read the definition of a structure from the ordinance.

Darelene Hill, Chair for the Town of Baraboo, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the plan commission is in favor of the request. The town board has not heard the request, but she believes they will approve what is being requested.

Dave Lorenz, reappearing, stated that under the definition of structure, it was deemed that because the riprap was part of the water control structure, it was dealt with on that basis.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:55 a.m.

Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.

Duckworth stated he felt the variance was not required and doesn't feel that the rocks do not qualify as a structure.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Roloff, to decide that the applicants do not need a variance for the rocks, as they don't feel it fits the definition of a structure. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt, to approve the special exception request for the construction of a retention dam and the stabilization structure within 300 feet of a property line, with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

C. Thomas and Lynn McWilliams (SP-35-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.8.08(3)(a) and a variance pursuant to s.8;06(2)(d)3 to authorize filling and grading and the construction of a boathouse on slopes in excess of 20%, located in the Shoreland District.

Duckworth stated that he rules that the variance is an area variance request unless the board objects. The board does not object.

Duckworth asked how they got a building permit for the site before they got a permit to fill and grade. Lorenz stated that the builder underestimated the area for filling and grading and when the permit was taken out they didn't believe they would be filling and grading that large of an area.

Duckworth asked if there are any exhibits showing what they want to do down by the boathouse. Lorenz stated we have a blueprint showing the boathouse and they have also spoke of building retaining walls.

Roloff asked about exhibit II,3 and stated it looks like where the footprint of the boathouse is proposed, there is about a 33% average slope, is that accurate? Lorenz stated that is correct and it is a lot steeper when you get closer to the shoreline.

Vogt spoke more about the steepness of the bank. Duckworth asked about the slopes on the neighboring lots. Lorenz stated the slopes are very similar and the neighbor just to the south, has an area that is somewhat flatter, but other than that, most properties out there have these steep slopes at the water.

Larry Lenerz, Agent, appearing in favor for the applicant, stated that the filling and grading that because of the amount of dirt they needed to remove from the site, they wanted to comply, so they needed to request a special exception permit and since the photos were taken, the area has been back filled and seeded down to try to stabilize the area.

Duckworth asked when you changed the slope where was the water runoff sent. Lenerz stated they didn't change the course of the slopes, and all excess fill was hauled off site, and didn't really redirect any water from the contours it already had.

Vogt, referring to exhibit II,5, asked about the drainage swail. Lenerz explained.

Duckworth asked about the request for the boathouse and the things they need to define for the variance. Lenerz stated that a lot of the shorelines on Lake Wisconsin have eroded enough to where they do have steep slopes.

Duckworth asked about the hardship not having a boathouse would cause. Lenerz stated that the owner has a bad back and a difficult time maneuver over the slopes and has to walk cautiously and feels that carrying ski's and boating accessories to the house every time would be a hardship.

Roloff asked about how the public interest would be protected. Lenerz stated that to tuck a boathouse into the bank as they suggest, all you would see is the face to the boathouse, and blend in much better than having a boathouse sitting on a flat lot.

Roloff stated that he felt on this lake and other lakes, ice does wreak havoc on the shoreline and the boathouse would be hanging right out there to take the full impact of that and would act like riprap. Lenerz stated they would keep the boathouse at least 5-7 feet back from the water line and riprap that part of the shoreline before they get to the retaining wall to help stop erosion.

White asked how close the boathouse is on the adjoining lots. Lenerz stated he doesn't know if there are boathouses on the adjoining lots.

Roloff asked if there are any codes regarding boathouses. Lenerz stated that to the best of his knowledge, there are no codes or restrictions on them, but they have theirs engineered and go by the engineers recommendations.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:30 a.m.

Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.

Vogt stated that the only concern he has with the filling and grading, is that the project shall not divert any additional storm water onto neighboring property and feels you can address the issue by doing some landscaping to avoid the water coming down the driveway from going to the neighboring property. Duckworth suggested a swale.

Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff, to approve the special exception request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

The board then discussed the variance request and the requirements that the applicant needs to prove to get a variance granted.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to deny the variance based on the fact that no indication that this is not a unique piece of property and no hardship was shown. Motion carried 5-0.

D. Gregory Mulcahy (SP-36-04) requesting a variance pursuant to s.8.06(2)(d)3 to authorize the construction of a boathouse on slopes in excess of 20%, located in the Shoreland District.

Duckworth ruled that the variance is to be considered an area variance.

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 is asking to see an exhibit that shows the steepness of the property. Vogt suggested to review II,7 and II,10. The board reviewed the 2 exhibits.

Duckworth asked if this was a unique lot. Lorenz stated that most lots have a very steep slope down to the water and did not see any adjacent lots that were any different that this one.

White asked if there are any other boathouses in this subdivision. Lorenz stated he could not see any from where he was at.

Greg Mulcahy, appearing in favor of the request, stated he is the builder, and that the main reason is that it is a nice lot with a cove that is fairly flat for about 18 feet, but then it gets steep from that point on and the hardship would be to have a boat there and then have to haul all your storage back to the top of the hill where the house is.

Duckworth asked how the property was unique. Mulcahy stated it is unique because of the fairly flat spot, but other than that, they are all the same with the banks being just as steep or steeper.

Vogt asked about the existing grade and the new grade shown on Exhibit II,8, and asked if the are planning on grading the entire area. Mulcahy stated that it represents looking at it from the water and the grades that are close to the boathouse would be changed.

Duckworth asked if there was any exhibit that shows what they are planning to grade. Mulcahy stated that the boathouse is going to take up most of the area down there, so there wouldn't be a whole lot of grading. Duckworth referred to Exhibit II,8. Mulcahy stated that maybe the line that shows new grading should be cut in half.

George Raetzke, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the uniqueness is that this is the only one that has this cove and the hardship is if he doesn't have a boathouse he needs to build a garage and then he would have a place to park his boat instead of pulling it out of the water and having to store it somewhere else.

White asked about what other things have been looked at to control the erosion problems, other than to put in the boathouse. Raetzke stated that the boathouse would help it, but if they had to, they would look into something else such as maybe a small retention wall or something further up towards the top of the wall.

White said you don't have any other plans though at this time. Raetzke stated they do not.

Sprecher asked if he's been to the Merrimac Town Board. Raetzke stated he has not and didn't know he had to.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 11:05 a.m.

Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request. The board discussed.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Roloff to deny the variance request because the applicant did not show hardship or unique property limitations. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board discussed the process for the remaining part of the day. The Board will hear SP-38-04 and adjourn for lunch and will not reconvene before 12:30.

The board reconvened at 12:35 p.m.

E. Mark Richards (SP-38-04) requesting a variance pursuant to s.8.05(1)(b) to authorize the construction of an addition, as built, to a residence within the minimum side yard setback, located within the Shoreland District.

The board discussed with Lorenz where the house is exactly located and other issues.

Mark Richard, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, clarified that he built the addition onto the house without a building permit, but followed the roofline and foundation of the old house.

Duckworth asked how it was determined how far from the lot line you were. Richard stated he had it surveyed.

White asked why it was surveyed. Richard stated it was suggested that it was surveyed.

White asked about the chain of events. Richard stated that he built the addition and received a letter from Planning & Zoning stating that he was not in compliance so he had to fill out applications for a variance and a permit.

White asked if the survey indicated how far from the water the structure is. Richard stated he thinks he is 75 feet - the cottage is approximately 45 feet from the water and the addition is probably 75.

White stated if this is an addition to an existing structure, you need to use the measurements of the entire structure, versus just the new one.

Roloff stated that in the letter the applicant received approval from Sumpter to receive a variance. Richard explained that he did receive approval from them. Roloff asked for a document showing that.

Duckworth asked about unnecessary hardship. Richard stated that the hardship would be the small access through the kitchen and the ability to walk through when the cupboards were opened.

Duckworth asked how this property is unique. Richard stated the property is full of small cottages and added to the appearance of the old cottage.

Duckworth asked where the owner lives. Richard stated he lives in Madison. Duckworth asked if Madison would have let him build an addition like this without a permit. Richard stated they would not, he would have to get a permit.

White inquired about the dimensions of the old. Richard explained. White determined that the majority of the entire residence is within the 75 foot setback.

Roloff spoke of the hardship that Richards provided.

The board continued to asked about changes made to the home.

White asked other than removing counter top, what would prevent him from moving the refrigerator to the other side of the kitchen next to the stove. With the refrig out of there, you would have more room. Richard stated that is correct and then spoke of his water filtration system.

White stated that space was added to the cottage, the water filtration system might not be where you want it to be, but it could be moved. Richard stated it could be but would not be able to use any other space.

Lorenz, reappearing, answered a question from Duckworth about the ordinance and the fact that determining how far from the water is has to do with how much the structure can be expanded if the variance is granted. Duckworth and Lorenz spoke of the structure being a non conforming structure based on where the cabin is located, and based on averaging.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 11:25 a.m.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to table the request so that the Planning and Zoning Dept can determine whether the structure is considered non conforming and so that the applicant can provide the survey and more detailed information such as dimensions of on the structure from previous states. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board adjourned until 12:30.

F. Bruce and Dianne Hemmersbach (SP-39-04), requesting a variance pursuant to s.7.18(3)(b) to authorize the construction of an agricultural accessory building, as built, within the road right-of-way, located within the Exclusive Ag District.

Duckworth ruled that the variance is to be looked at as an area variance unless anyone from the board objects. No board members objected.

Duckworth asked approximately how close the shed is to the road. Lorenz explained.

White asked about the retaining wall. Lorenz stated the wall must have been moved prior to the pictures taken.

Duckworth asked if they needed a permit to build the building and if so, do they need one. Lorenz stated they do not need one, hence did not get one.

Bruce Hemmersbach, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they are limited as to what they can do because of the road and the water flow onto the property. He also stated that he should have called Planning & Zoning before, but his contractor told him if the building was back farther than the one they replaced, there would be no issues.

Duckworth asked if they were the same owners in 1998. Hemmersbach stated he was, however the scenario was very different in that case and explained the process they went through for that variance.

Duckworth asked about the unnecessary hardship. Hemmersbach spoke of the layout of the land, the slope behind the building, the water running through the property, and for the use it needs to stay with the rest of the buildings.

Duckworth asked why they couldn't put it on the other side of the road. Hemmersbach stated that they torn down part of the old building and built off of that - not an entirely new building.

White referred to Exhibit II,6, and the old structure and what part they kept. Hemmersbach explained. White asked the size of the old building. Hemmersbach stated it was, however they moved the newer part of the building back further away from the road.

Vogt asked if the structure could be turned parallel to the road. Hemmersbach explained the layout of the building and what was left from the old building. The board continued to discuss.

Duckworth asked why it was a unique piece of property. Hemmersbach stated it is unique because of the slope and the water location.

Duckworth asked if this is the only place on the property to place the building. Hemmersbach stated it is the best place for the use of the building.

Duckworth asked why it is not contrary to public interest. Hemmersbach stated that they all talked to the neighbors, all have signed a petition saying they approve of it, some of them have sent letter directly to the board members. He also stated the shed prior was closer to the road, many of the other buildings are just as close to the road.

Sprecher asked about the road widening and the requirement to move his buildings. Hemmersbach stated that was correct.

Sprecher asked about Exhibit V,2, and the new building doesn't show any of the old building. Hemmersbach stated that the tin is within the wall and they raised the building higher to accommodate a larger door than the pre-existing 8 foot door.

Roloff asked about the survey that Team Engineering did (Exhibit II,5) and asked about 2 centerlines of the road. Hemmersbach stated they measured the width of the road in 10 different spaces to find out where the center of the road is, since the road has no exact centerline of the road is.

White asked if you hadn't built the new shed would the old shed still have been there. Hemmersbach stated the backside was falling off and they would have removed it, but the garage would have remained as that was the best part of the old building.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 1:00 p.m.

Duckworth stated he is unhappy that the applicant appeared here in 1998, and should have remember that there are rules and regulations without investigating if he could put a shed there and there is plenty of room on the other side of the road to put the shed on.

White stated that if this would have been looked into the building could have been oriented the other way and still fit.

Vogt stated that if it would have come to the Planning & Zoning office, and addressed the setback and had a legitimate reason, they would be able to give something along the lines of a variance.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Roloff, to deny the variance, because there is room on the owners property to build the building and still meet the setback requirements without the need for a variance. Motion carried 5-0.

G. Nicholas McPherson (SP-40-04) requesting a variance pursuant to s.7.05(3)(e) to authorize a proposed farm consolidation that will create a lot line with a rear yard of less than 25 feet, located within the Exclusive Ag District.

Duckworth ruled that the variance is an area variance unless member object. No members objected.

Duckworth asked if he was out on the site and if there is enough room between the house and the garage to transfer the garage to the other lot. Lornez stated he has been on site and if that was done, you would need a variance for the house on lot 2 and the only way to get around the variance is to tear the garage down.

White asked if it is split in this manner, both the house and garage would be too close to the lot line? Lorenz stated the only setback is the garage.

Roloff asked if this would make a structure nonconforming. Lorenz stated the house would be fine, the garage would become a nonconforming structure.

The board continued to discuss the farm consolidation and where the best place for the lot line would be.

Nicholas McPhearson, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he doesn't see a problem with the lot line being there, it is a family farm, both lots 1 and 2.

Duckworth asked how far the garage is off the proposed lot line in the back. McPhearson stated he is not sure.

Duckworth asked if the garage can be changed. McPhearson stated it is a pole shed, so that can be considered.

White asked if there are other things stored in the garage and could it be called a machine shed. McPhearson stated it could.

Roloff asked the dimensions of the garage. McPhearson stated 30x30.

Sprecher asked if there is an easement to get onto the highway. McPhearson stated he does.

White spoke of the applicant purchasing from his grandfather and down the road, the house the grandfather lives in will be sold or if there is damage to the building, problems this request could cause.

Greg Fauerbach, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he did the survey and he was led to believe from Planning & Zoning that there is no dimension between the red shed and back lot line, and he is not trying to hide information, however he thought that this whole violation was a violation of the house on lot 1 being 10.3 feet, which is why that dimension is shown in the detail. And then someone made the comment from Planning and Zoning, about what is front and what is rear, and he is now confused what is the front lot line and rear lot line and he assumed this entire time that the house on lot 1 was the violating structure. He then said that the dimetion between the red garage and the lot line is 10.3 feet. Everything is about 10.3 feet.

Duckworth stated that they are going to accept Planning & Zoning's statement that all structures meet the setbacks, except the garage and the rear setback.

Roloff asked what if you move the doors on the pole shed to where they are to the side of the building that faces the easement, then the rear lot line would move. He then asked if they refuse the variance and move the garage doors and then the side in question would become the side yard.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 1:35 p.m.

Duckworth stated he feels it would be an unnecessary hardship to tear the building down, however they can require them to move it or downsize it. He also spoke of unique property limitations and the fact that they have many farm buildings built years ago and that this request is unique and it would be contrary to public interest to make them tear the building down.

White stated she knows the owner of the property and to force him to pay a large amount of money for him to do this just so he can stay in his home would be a hardship.

Roloff stated creating a nonconforming structure for house versus the pole shed is less of a concern.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Vogt, to grant the variance, because he feels they have met the requirements of a hardship. Motion carried 5-0.

H. Lynn and Holly Mittelstaedt (SP-41-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.09(2)(b)10 to authorize recreational vehicle and boat sales, service and rentals, located in the Commercial District.

Lynn Mittlesteadt, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he has had no problems.

Duckworth asked what is done with used oil. Mittlesteadt stated that they have an oil container that is picked up once a month.

Duckworth asked about old materials. Mittlesteadt stated that steel is taken to Mauston the old boats are taken to the landfill and the other garbage is picked up weekly by Peterson.

The board spoke of the boat storage.

Duckworth asked about traffic congesting the road. Mittlesteadt spoke of dealings with the State to get a passing/turn lane for his business and Hartje's business.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 1:49 p.m.

Duckworth discussed the ordinance an the request.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to grant the request with the conditions given by Planning and Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

I. David and Julia Katzner (SP-42-04) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.10A(2)(b)4 and 8.08(3)(a)3 to authorize the construction of a pond/wildlife scrape within 300 feet of a property line and filling and grading of more than 4000 square feet within 300 feet of a stream, located in a Resource Conservancy 5 District.

Carlton Peterson, Sauk County Land Conservation, appearing in favor of the project stated that he is representing the land owner and Serge Koenig, the one that developed the plan since he couldn't be here. He continued to explain to the board what the project entailed.

White asked if there was any other site on the property that would fit into the setback restrictions. Peterson stated that other sites were looked into to see if they could meet setbacks and it was determined that this was the best site for the project because of natural habitat.

Duckworth asked about the adjacent property owner.

Brian Homes, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he is not opposed to the idea, but he has a stream that leads to the area and is concerned how that will affect his property, located to the north of the project.

Peterson, reappearing, stated that the tendency for putting in wetland scrapes is that they don't want to see water ponded up and warm up and then feed into a cold water stream, so every time they do work like this, they involved the DNR, which this site was approved and they felt the water would not be impacted. The drainage would not be increased off of the neighboring property.

Vogt asked about the existing drainage pattern and what happens to the creek that runs from his property. Peterson stated that it would be dispersed into the wetlands.

Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

White asked that the adjoining landowners within 300 feet to provide something in writing as to having no objection to the scrape.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the request with the conditions given by Planning and Zoning and the request by White with the additional condition. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Halsey Sprecher

Secretary