DATE: December 16, 2004
Committee Members Present: Bruce Duckworth, Chair, Robert Roloff, Vice Chair,Halsey Sprecher, Richard Vogt, Linda White
Staff Present: Gina Templin, Matt Bremer
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 December 16, 2004 session of the Board on a Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt to adopt the November 18, 2004 minutes.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Roloff stated he received a call from Mr. Wilson regarding his case and Roloff advised Mr. Wilson he could not discuss it with him and to speak of his concerns at the meeting.
APPEALS:
Matt Bremer, 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. Bremer concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked how close to the property line the pond will be. Bremer stated he does not know for sure.
Duckworth stated on Exhibit II,4, there is a letter from the neighbor and asked where the neighbor is located. Bremer stated he does not know.
Serge Koenig, agent for the applicant, Sauk County Land Conservation Department, stated that it is a wetland scrape and an area that is currently being farmed but because of the wet conditions the owners were not able to farm the area, would like to put in the scrape and enroll in CRP for the next 10 years and he will be overseeing the construction and the project through completion. He also stated that the spoils will be put on surrounding cropland. The scrape is approximately 40-50 feet from the property and exhibit spoke of earlier is the land owner sharing the property line that the pond is too close to.
Duckworth asked if this will cause any adverse problems to anyone. Koenig stated he doesn't believe so.
Vogt asked if this is an existing hole now or if it is an outlet for a wetlands. Koenig stated it is basically just a pothole in the field.
Mr. Arnold Brylla, appearing in favor, stated he owns the land to the north and is completely in favor of the project and has no objection to it at all.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:15 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the ordinance and the request.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Chair ruled that the variance to be discussed would be considered an area variance. The board agreed.
Matt Bremer, 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. Bremer concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
White asked if during the filling and grading permit there were culverts already designed for the project when the filling and grading permit was approved by the board. Bremer explained the issues with the wetlands and the alternatives that are required per ordinances.
Duckworth asked about the previous request to fill and grade and put in 2 culverts and when the applicant went to get the permit, it was denied because of the wetlands, but approved by the DNR. Bremer stated that was correct, other than only parts were approved by the DNR.
Duckworth asked why the culverts were not acceptable to Planning and Zoning. Bremer explain the wetland issues and the wetland and shoreland impacts.
Duckworth stated he has a hard time believing that the replacement of a culvert is an environmental impact.
White asked what in the design would make the bridge less than an impact. Bremer explained that the culvert design was considerably larger than the culvert that is existing, and there would be a lot more wetlands that would have to be filled to stabilize that. He also reminded the board that the second structure is completely new and the entire wetlands would be impacted at that site.
Roloff asked at the site of the second crossing if it is used as a ford to get across the stream. Bremer didn't know, and asked to speak to the applicant, but he did know that cattle crossed the stream.
Duckworth stated that the major problem is that the bridge is a variance.
Roloff asked if every bridge constructed would need a variance. Bremer stated that every private bridge would need a variance.
Sprecher asked if Planning and Zoning specified what type of bridge has to go in there. Bremer stated that the type of bridge that is in front of the board at this time is the only structure that has been submitted.
Mr. Mike Wilson, agent, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they were granted and special exception permit to fill and grade in June of this year and at that time thought everything was ok and stated that the DNR and the county requested an H&H study (wetland delineation). The study determined that the only wetlands to be impacted were located in the slopes of the creek and doesn't understand why a culvert can not be used. He did stated that they received a Chapter 30 permit from the DNR for a culvert, but planning and zoning requested looking at the bridge option. He stated that he also feels a bridge is an overkill for a stream that is minimal in width and doesn't feel that the impact will be an greater or less with a bridge or a culvert, but they are willing to do whatever it takes to get their residential sites.
Duckworth asked the applicant to talk about hardship. Mr. Wilson stated that the hardship is that they would not be able to use the property for residential use. It is ag now, and would have to continue to be used as ag.
Duckworth asked about unique property limitations. Mr. Wilson stated he would like his attorney to address that question.
White asked about what the property is used for. Mr. Wilson stated that the property is uses for ag purposes, cattle grazing and such and feels that having the cattle thrash through the creeks is more damaging than using the property for residential use.
Vogt asked if there is a total area of wetland that would have been disturbed with the culverts. Wilson stated he did not see any impact of the wetlands with the existing culvert.
Mr. Tom Groeneweg, appearing in favor of the request, stated that this variance is a distance variance not an area variance and spoke of the unnecessary hardship issue. He feels that in this situation that compliance with the distance restrictions of s.8.06(2) would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose and renders the property unusable for this specific purpose.
Duckworth asked if his argument for the hardship was that if you don't get to build the bridge you can't use the property for residential uses. Mr. Groeneweg stated that was correct.
Duckworth asked about the unique property limitations. Groeneweg stated that the property is unique in the fact that you need to cross streams. He also stated that using for a residential use is less of an impact than the cattle grazing.
Duckworth asked if he was saying that the property owner would enter into a contract that they would not graze the 80 acres of property. Mr. Groeneweg stated no they would not, but the intended use of the property is for residential purposes.
Mr. Charles Goad, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the owner of the property and stated that there were 2 delineation studies and met with the DNR and Steve Sorenson and they all agreed that the culverts were ok, but then after review by Planning and Zoning it was decided that culverts would not work. He also spoke of other studies that were done leading up to the decision of the option of a bridge. He then spoke of the money spent on the project.
Duckworth asked Mr. Goad to speak about hardship, unreasonable use of the property and public interest protected. Mr. Goad stated he uses the property for cattle and if he puts more cattle on the property there would be more damage to the wetlands and stated if the bridge or culvert is not allowed, they won't get a house and believes that meeting the ordinance is unreasonable. He concluded with the DNR giving a Chapter 30 permit approving the bridges.
Duckworth asked about hardship. Mr. Goad stated the hardship is not using the property for residential uses.
Duckworth asked about unique of property. Mr. Goad stated it is not unique because everyone in Winfield probably has a stream on their property.
Duckworth asked about public interest. Mr. Goad stated that if the variance is not approved, he'll put many cows in there that will destroy the wetlands.
Mr. Tom Groeneweg, reappearing in favor, asked to see the opinion rendered on the variance. Duckworth stated if he wants to discuss law, it will have to be done with the Corporation Counsel. Mr. Groeneweg stated that their case is based on the owner not being able to use the property for a permitted purpose.
Duckworth recessed for 5 minutes to clarify something with the Corporation Counsel.
The Board reconvened at 10:05 a.m..
Duckworth stated that after speaking with Corporation Counsel, the meeting will be postponed until next month because the notice is for a single structure rather than for multiple structures. The normal monthly meeting will be January 27th.
Matt Bremer, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. He then reviewed the photos and video of the site.
White asked how this came to the attention of Planning and Zoning. Bremer stated he is unsure, but believes it was in the form of a complaint of a violation.
Duckworth asked why this isn't an exception under soil conservation practices under the county code. Bremer stated he would let the applicant speak to that.
Dale Moore, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, gave a background of the property and the use of the property, such as cattle, grading that had been done, moving a fence to help stabilize the side of a hill, rotational grazing program, etc.
Duckworth asked who told them to put filling and grading there. Moore stated he read the statutes and felt as long as they are doing barnyard work, he didn't need a permit.
Duckworth asked if Land Conservation designed the barnyard for him. Moore stated they did not, they did the work themselves and had access and erosion problems, so they attempted to fix the problem themselves.
Duckworth asked what kind of filling and grading was done. Moore stated he moved the barnyard and restructured it.
Duckworth asked where the soil came from. Moore stated they brought in 12 loads of rock from Zobel and native material from grading out the other fences.
Duckworth asked if a silt fence was put up when they did it. Moore stated they did. Duckworth asked if he had pictures. Moore stated he believes he does (these were not entered into exhibits or shown to the board). He then continued to talk about the grading activities.
Roloff asked about the letter from Serge Koenig, dated July 30th, with recommendations, and asked if they were followed exactly. Moore stated he believes they did everything but the gutters.
White asked about any recommendations of slopes around the building or the fill to be used. Moore stated he did not.
Mr. Arnold Brylla, appearing in opposition, stated he was an adjoining land owner of the property until it was sold to this applicant, and spoke of the stream. He feels that what happened is it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. He feels the unauthorized fill should be removed and the land should be put back to its original state. He also said that they owner is a realtor and knows the rules of the county. He also spoke of other violations the applicant has on this property and explained how this issue came to be. He also spoke of the unauthorized fill put in for a driveway that had to be removed, as well as citations written by the Planning and Zoning Office, as well as the DNR.
Mr. Dale Moore, reappearing, stated that some of the material that was brought in is done below the water.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 10:35 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the request and the ordinance. He stated he understands why there are involved because Land Conservation did not design the barnyard.
White stated she doesn't believe people know some of the rules that need to be followed.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to grant the special exception permit request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning, as well as Planning and Zoning verifying that the completed project meets the Sauk County Land Conservation Specification for barnyards.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 10:37 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher