May 26, 2005 Session of the Board
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 Sprecher.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the May 26, 2005, session
of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt to adopt the April 28,
2005 minutes.
Motion carried. 3-0 with White and Sprecher abstaining.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None to report.
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 about erosion control. Bremer explained what was there.
Duckworth asked about Exhibit II.2, an approval of something issued by the Wisconsin DNR. Bremer stated staff does not have a copy of that approval.
Vogt asked why we are putting a limit of 2 years on the permit. Bremer stated that because it is an existing ag driveway, it gets done and taken care of and is more of a follow-up reason than anything else.
Joel Wyttenbach, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they do have a letter of approval and had an H&H and Floodplain study done and approved by the DNR. He also stated it is for a future building site.
Duckworth asked about modifying the fill that was already put in. Wyttenbach stated there will be no modification to fill that was already put in, but will be retaining with a wall. He stated he placed the fill and did not know they were filling a floodplain area, so the fill is already there and at the height they need, they will just be retaining it.
Duckworth asked about the area of fill that will be removed. Wyttenbach stated that the specific fill in that area has been removed because it was placed in a wetland area and has been restored back into a wetlands area.
White asked how long ago the work was done. Wyttenbach stated he did the work in the spring of 2004.
Vogt asked about the property to the northwest. Wyttenbach stated they do not own it and the road basically follows the property line.
Duckworth asked if the retaining work will be hired out or done themselves. Wyttenbach stated the work will be hired out because of precautions needed to be taken around the wetlands area.
The Board discussed the DNR review and approval with Mr. Wyttenbach.
Vogt asked to have a copy of the DNR letter.
Jack Wyttenbach, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the applicant’s dad and have tried to build into areas that are non-impacting on farm land and this area fits that criteria and has been a difficult situation, and feels it is unfortunate that such a small amount of square footage can create such a problem but is willing to follow the laws.
Duckworth asked if he can build this road without polluting Otter Creek. Wyttenbach stated he feels he can.
White asked how this came to their attention. Wyttenbach stated it was through the permitting process when Steve Sorenson looked at the site and then got the DNR involved. He also stated that the applicant tried to purchase other property from the neighboring landowner and they didn’t want to sell.
Steve Sorenson, Sauk County Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, stated that when on the property to do a soil test to verify septic suitability, he noticed that the property contained what could be a floodplain/wetlands area.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:25 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth asked that “condition D” be reworded and also stated that it is not necessary to have it be “nontransferable”. He also stated he believes that the project can be done without impacting Otters Creek.
Sprecher stated that the applicant has always been upfront about what they are doing.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by White to approve the
request with the conditions listed by Planning and
Zoning, with Condition D stating the construction on
the filling and grading of the road will be completed
within 2 years.
Motion carried 5-0.
Duckworth ruled that the request will be for an area variance.
Matt Bremer, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. Mr. Bremer concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
The Board discussed the photos and locations of the current structures in Exhibit II.6.
Duckworth reviewed the requirements that an applicant must follow for the Board to grant a variance.
William Jaquish, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the original plan was to walk away from what they currently have and build new across the road, unfortunately their financial planning wouldn’t allow it, and the lending institutions all requested that they update what they have versus building new. Mr. Jaquish then addressed the road issue as well as the creek and the need to operate within the existing shell between those. He also stated that the 2 silos’ will be removed and build a new milkhouse and utility room, which will be no closer to the road than the existing barn is. He then discussed the need to get the milktrucks off the road when accessing the barn, and the right-of-way setback is narrower than typical as well because of road updates and where structures were sitting on both sides of the road.
Duckworth asked if he has spoke to the Town. Jaquish stated the board should have a letter stating they support the request and are here today.
Duckworth asked if there is anywhere else they can build the milkhouse that is workable. Jaquish stated that it may be possible to put where they are going to remove a building, but where they have it to be placed now is where it will work best for milking, piping, and trucking.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II.4 and 5 and the milk septic. Jaquish stated they have a septic tank specifically for their milkroom/washroom water and discussed updates to that as well.
White asked what condition the existing milkhouse is in. Jaquish stated it is on a cement slab and is in adequate condition, but is not large enough to house all the equipment for their needs, and would have needed a variance to modify that, as it would have been closer to the highway setback then adding to another part of the barn.
White spoke of trying to get as much away from the roadway as possible. Jaquish stated he isn’t sure if they would have room because of equipment access.
Duckworth asked if this is turned down if they will continue to milk they way they are doing. Jaquish stated he isn’t sure, they are trying to help his son out, and would look for alternatives, but financially would be limited.
White asked what is the timetable for the project. Jaquish stated as soon as the financing is approved, they would like to get started, but may take 2-3 years to complete as the updates would be done in phases.
White asked if it is not done all at once, would the shell of the building be able to be built in 2 years. Jaquish stated it is possible.
Roger Mack, Town Chair of Troy, appearing in favor, stated he is also a neighbor and can appreciate what they are wanting to do, and based on the testimony you heard, their options are quite limited, along with the conditions of farming not being real great. He stated that he feels it is a reasonable request and as far as the requesting regarding the existing milkhouse, to replace for additional money, that is something to be considered, but not necessary.
Duckworth verified Mack is on the Town Board. Mack stated he is and they have heard no complaints from neighbors and the Town Board has approved their request.
Tonya Anderson, appearing in favor of the request, stated that she is also a neighbor of the applicant and believes that with the farming conditions they way they are today, for him to continue his operation with his son, this would be in the best interest of everyone to keep them going. She also stated that she agrees that to move the existing milkhouse to tear down and put up somewhere else, it doesn’t make sense to spend the extra money, seeing as it won’t be that much different from the setback as it is now.
John Ederer, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he sees nothing wrong with the request and the only way to keep the younger men involved is to do what you can. He also felt that nothing is in the way regarding safety and his plan does nothing but better the situation for everyone.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:52 a.m.
Duckworth reviewed the request, variance requirements and ordinance and went into deliberation.
White stated that by taking the silos down and putting another one up will be an improvement for public safety.
Sprecher stated it will bring in improvements for the milktruck to get off the road and onto the property to pick up milk. He also stated that the hardship was created when the road was improved, not by any fault of the property owners.
Duckworth stated there would be financial burden to recreate what is already there across the road.
Sprecher spoke of the Town plans and supporting the farm business in the Townships.
Roloff spoke of the milktruck currently affecting safety on the Highway and this request would be in the public’s best interest to get the truck off the road and accessing the new milkhouse.
Duckworth stated he does not see anywhere else on the property they could build the milkhouse because the barn is nonconforming because of the road and shoreland setbacks.
White asked for a 3 year timeframe.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff, to approve the request with conditions listed by Planning and Zoning, and a 3 year timeframe for the construction of the building to be completed. Motion carried 5-0.
Duckworth asked what the structure is non-conforming to. Bremer stated that it is nonconforming due to side yard setback requirements.
Matt Bremer, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. Mr. Bremer concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked Bremer how this request fits the ordinance that is listed.
Roloff spoke of Blakeslee’s survey which shows that the house is 7’9” from the west side yard and 13’9” when you include the deck on the east side of the property. Bremer confirmed those measurements.
White stated that this house is out of compliance with both the minimum side yard setback and the aggregate side yard setback.
Lloyd Scharles, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Duckworth reminded the applicant of the requirements for a variance. Scharles stated he sold his home in Milwaukee and wants to convert this cottage into a permanent home. He also stated that the road is a service which is maintained by those that live on it, as well as all the other homes having 2 story homes and is not asking for more area to the original footprint, but merely going up with a second story.
Roloff stated that they have to discuss an unnecessary hardship. Scharles stated it is too small of a home to live there year around.
White asked if the lot size would allow for an addition to the front of the house. Scharles stated that if they expand to the front of the house, they would be in violation of the shoreland setbacks. He also stated that he needs to address the septic.
Duckworth asked if he asked the neighbors to purchase property from them. Scharles stated that the neighbors have setback issues themselves and have no land to sell.
Duckworth asked how he found he was nonconforming. Scharles stated by going through the channels to do the work, and that is how they found out. He also stated that the Town of LaValle has approved the project.
White asked about a timeframe for the project. Scharles stated he would have like to have already started.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II.3, asked if this is an old perk test. Scharles stated to add additional bedrooms, he needed to address the septic needs to verify it is big enough. To put on the addition, he needs to add to his septic system which will be in-between the road and the house.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 10:13 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth reviewed the request and the ordinance.
White stated there is a hardship with the shape and size of the lot. Roloff agreed and feels that for a permanent home it is not adequate and not being able to put on the second story would be a hardship.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.
Matt Bremer, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. Mr. Bremer concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
The Board verified that they need the special exception because there are 8-plex units. Bremer verified that was correct.
Don Jackson, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, using Exhibit II,6, described the site, which is 27 acres currently zoned multi-family. He noted that the Clark Forestry has done an assessment of the forestry which has 90% of the forest affected by Oak Wilt Disease which needs to be addressed, and an old quarry that has filled up with water and designated as a wetlands, which will be recharged with storm water. He then spoke of an access to the site, adequate parking, fire access, and buffers. He stated each building has 4 units in them on each level, total 104 units with 3 bedrooms in each, with the flexibility of being able to use as a 1, 2 or 3 bedroom unit, and the entire proposed project has been approved by the Town of Dellona.
Duckworth asked, using Exhibit II.8, how the lock-out works (floor plan). Jackson explained that the foyer of each unit has a lock up closet and washer/dryer unit, and then a family could occupy the entire unit or just part, through the use of adjoining doors. He verified that both unitshave a kitchen.
Vogt asked about Exhibit II.7, the phases of the project, which are all on the northwest corner of the property which is shown in green in Exhibit II.6. Jackson stated that on Exhibit II.7 those are units that already exist and the area shown in green is already built up.
White asked if all areas in green on Exhibit II.6, will be developed. Jackson stated that part of the plan is to stay in its natural state.
White asked about the access road and if it will stay. Jackson stated that they are fine with taking it out, but from an emergency management standpoint, it should be discussed. He did say if it is to be removed to utilize it as a hiking trail.
Duckworth asked on the area to be stated in a “conservancy state”, do you plan to allow a conservancy easement on the property. Jackson stated that they don’t plan to do an easement and leave under the Christmas Mountain ownership.
Duckworth verified that the wording of “conservation” is only what is intended now, but have no plans to make that legally binding.
Mr. Carter Arndt, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the Architectural Designer on the project and described the plans for the buildings and looking to do a quality development. He also stated that the site was designed to comply with fire access from the State of Wisconsin and Department of Commerce.
White asked how to define a single family unit. Arndt spoke of the units and the parking requirements.
White stated that if it has a bathroom and kitchen it counts as a unit on its own. Arndt further explained the villa units.
Duane Brooks, Town Chair of Dellona, appearing in favor of the request, stated that this is the most studied project he’s ever seen and it has approval of the Town Board and there are some restrictions that the town citizens have asked to put in, which is that the 17 acres around it be kept in forest, low level lighting, junk that is buried up there must be removed and concern of access onto Coon Bluff Road. The Applicants have changed their access to be internal, which eliminates that specific concern and asked that the other access be kept for emergency services only and kept as gravel. He also stated that he spoke to Reedsburg Fire Dept and they see no problem with the access for emergency vehicles.
White asked if the road would be internal and owned by Christmas Mountain. Brooks stated that is correct, but the Town would approve restricted access to Coon Bluff Road.
White asked what the Town would like to see for the 17 acres of woodland. Brooks stated he would defer to Planning & Zoning.
Duckworth asked if the Town Board information is in writing. Brooks supplied a letter showing the conditions the Town asked of the applicants (Exhibit VIII).
Jim Owen, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the Site Civil Engineer on the project and spoke of the storm water issues from previous projects and the storm water plans for this project.
Vogt asked about the existing service road and not being engineered as far as erosion and such. Owen stated it has been used for servicing the ski hill and have kept it in usable shape and have had erosion problems in the previous years, which he believes they have addressed and feels the road should be maintained in its current condition.
Lance Gurney, Sauk County Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, stated that the road has been there for about 50 years, but due to the number of units and density on the top, he suggests requiring an additional emergency access to Coon Bluff Road which is gated. He then spoke of the open space area and described that they have to go through a Condo Plat procedures and can dedicate that area as an outlot/openspace outlet on the Condo Plat. He also stated his request that Bluegreen needs to put together a development plan for this project, which will include things such as storm water, septic, wells, etc., and in lieu of that development plan not be provided for review, if the board grants the requests, it is up to 13 8-plex units, once they address other issues in the plat procedures.
Duckworth asked about the open space area. Gurney explained that this is common from a plat procedure where out lots are required to be dedicated for park use or open space use, which would be done during the plat procedure. He also explained the “conservancy” use related to zoning and deed restrictions, which neither are being spoke of here.
Roloff asked what the obligation is of the developer to keep the open space use. Gurney explained.
Duane Brooks, reappearing, stated that as part of the agreement with the Town and Bluegreen the property will be fenced for security of the neighbors and security of the guests.
White asked if the Township has to approve the condo plat. Brooks stated they do.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 10:55 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the
special exception request for the applicant to construct
up to 13 8-plex units, with the conditions listed by
Planning & Zoning and up to 2 years to complete
the project.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary