July 28, 2005 Session of the Board
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Halsey Sprecher Richard Vogt Linda White Ben Malin
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin Dave Lorenz Steve Sorenson
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 9:07 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
Sprecher, seconded by Vogt.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the July 28, 2005, session of the Board
on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Malin.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by White to adopt the June 23, 2005 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0, with Malin abstaining.
Lorenz informed the Board that the Director of Planning & Zoning received a phone call from the Chair of Winfield, and stated that the town board was in favor of the request by Schlough.
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 how big the area is that they are going to deposit material in. Lorenz spoke of plans that were submitted in Exhibit II,4, however would ask the applicant to give dimensions.
Sprecher asked about water being fed or dam up. Lorenz stated there is not indication either of those will happen.
White asked how long this had been going on. Lorenz stated that it was brought to the county's attention about 6 months ago, but is unsure how long it had been going on prior to that.
Sprecher asked about the use of sand and if it would be considered material for a landfill. Lorenz explained.
White asked about the sides of the drive where fill is existing now. Lorenz stated that it will be buried in the final stages. White asked if there was a plan submitted that showed that. Lorenz stated there was and explained briefly what it entailed.
Ms. Pauline Brown-Hinze, appearing in favor of the request, stated she is the sister of the applicant and was unable to attend and also stated that she is a supervisor with the Town of Winfield and abstained from the request when it was heard by the town. She explained that he is building the driveway using the broken up concrete as fill.
Duckworth asked where the driveway is going. Brown-Hinze stated that on Exhibit II,6, there is a plan that shows and she explained while reviewing. She also referred to Exhibit V,1 to review where the driveway will be located.
Malin referring to Exhibit VI,2 and verified where the drive will come out on Churchill Rd. Brown-Hinze explained.
White asked about a shorter section of the drive and what that is used for and if there is a swale in there. Brown-Hinze stated they are just filling on the hillside and no plans to fill anything in the field.
Duckworth asked where the material comes from. Brown-Hinze stated that he gets it from his worksites and no where else. Duckworth asked if anyone else is allowed to bring material in. Brown-Hinze state they are not.
The board reviewed again where the fill will go. White asked how long he had been working on this. Brown-Hinze stated he's been working on it for a couple years.
White asked if it is going to take him 5 more years to finish the project. Brown-Hinze stated it wouldn't, but that is the length of time usually on those permits, and would like the option to use the length of time to finish the project.
Malin asked what kind of surface will be at the end of the project. Brown-Hinze stated it will be a gravel drive. She also stated that there are adjacent landowners and have been contacted them and verbally they did not object to the request, as well as 2 signed papers from other property owners stating they did not object. One property owner was concerned about groundwater contamination and whether or not the applicant was getting paid to allow people to dump concrete there, which was discussed.
Duckworth asked if they would be ok with a condition stating that only the applicant can dump at the site. Brown-Hinze stated that many time others that work with the applicant will bring the fill, as the applicant works out of town a lot.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board went into deliberation.
Vogt stated he doesn't seen any issues with the request with the conditions that are listed.
Duckworth stated he is concerned that it turns into a semi commercial business where the applicant can't watch what is being put in the trucks.
Sprecher stated that having it on his own property he would be cautious with what goes in there.
Malin asked what the difference is between sanitary fill and unsanitary fill. Vogt explained. White felt that condition D takes care of that.
Brown-Hinze reappearing in favor stated that the applicant is very picky and will not be a garbage haul, it will be concrete only. She also stated that he won't even allow concrete with rebar left in it.
Malin asked if it would be a problem if the applicant was restricted to harden concrete and sand. Brown-Hinze stated that would be fine.
Motion by White, seconded by Sprecher to approve the
request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning,
but would like condition e to state that when the site
is completed it will be covered with soil and crop cover
to prevent soil erosion.
Motion carried 5-0.
Duckworth ruled that the request will be for a use variance.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request. Mr. Lorenz concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
Duckworth asked how long the photos were taken. Lorenz stated about 3 weeks ago.
White asked about the gravel that is shown at the end of the culvert. Lorenz stated that where the new material starts, that is about the end of the old road bed. The board continued to discuss.
White asked about the entry point. Lorenz stated it is the same.
Vogt asked about the date of the old fill. Lorenz stated he believes it was brought in during the 1960's prior to any county ordinances.
Duckworth asked about the old road bed that didn't get gravel and if it was in the wetlands. Lorenz stated that it was the determination of the county and the DNR.
White asked if there is a building site on the property that are not in the wetlands. Lorenz stated there is, but you can't access them without crossing the wetlands.
Malin asked if there are other properties near this that are in a similar situation. Lorenz stated there are many and spoke of one incident close by where the property owners had to bridge the property because they could not fill in the wetlands.
White asked how big the bridge would have to be. Lorenz deferred the question to Steve Sorenson.
White asked if the variance was allowed, they would have to remove fill and use the old driveway for recreational purposes only, never for residential. Lorenz stated that is correct.
Vogt asked about the old and new drive as shown in the photos.
White states that II,6 shows the road differently than Exhibit V,2 shows. Lorenz stated the old road did come in quite straight, however the area that shows remnants of old road has reverted back to wetlands.
Vogt asked about II,5. Lorenz explained. The board also spoke of the placement of the old and new drive and the location of mature vegetation and the difference shown in the photos from old to new.
Duckworth asked about the letter to Alfredo Cristo. Lorenz stated Mr. Cristo was the Real Estate Agent that had the property listed.
Malin asked about rezoning process. Lorenz stated that is a different process and is not what the Board is here for today.
Steve Sorenson, appearing as interest may appear, representing Planning & Zoning, explained to the Board where the wetlands are located and used Exhibit II,6.
Duckworth asked if the entire front of the lot is wetlands. Sorenson stated that is correct.
Duckworth asked if it is possible to run a road from Highway F to the building site without going through the wetlands. Sorenson stated that wetlands exist all the way to the lot lines on lot 1. He also stated that there is wetlands from the site to the lake on lot 2.
White asked if there is a building site that is not in the wetlands. Sorenson stated there is a building site that is not in the wetlands, but there is no access, as wetlands surround the entire building site.
White stated the applicant is asking to build a house, but shows no plans on how to get access through the wetlands.
Vogt asked about the aerial photo and high ground.
Malin asked if they would succeed rezoning the property. Sorenson stated he's been here 18 years and no one has ever succeeded at rezoning. Wetlands are protected by the State.
White stated she is trying to determine what they are trying to achieve if you can't fill the wetlands. Sorenson deferred to the applicant.
Duckworth asked about the crossing. Sorenson stated that they would have to cross about 80 feet to get to the building site.
Vogt asked about II,6 and asked Sorenson's opinion. Sorenson stated that there was an old road bed there, however during soil probes, no material was found and a clear brake in where the road was, versus where the wetlands started. Vogt confirmed that where they show green on the map is wetlands. Mr. Fred Zietlow, appearing in favor of the request, acting as agent for the applicant.
Duckworth reviewed the variance standards that must be addressed.
Zietlow gave a brief history on the property and spoke of the meeting with Mr. Sorenson and the DNR and that the DNR had never been onsite. He also spoke of the clean water act of 1971 and when wetlands were protected and the driveway had been in place prior to that.
Duckworth asked what documents the agent has the proves the driveway was in place from the building site to the shore prior to that time. Zietlow, using a large aerial photograph, dated 6/3/68, marked as Exhibit VII,1, shows the driveway from the road to the point of the lake.
Malin asked how high the water table has to be before it becomes a wetlands. Zietlow stated that they agree it is wetland and the contractor placed the fill without the property owners permission. They want to take the fill out of the wetland and put on the existing road bed.
White asked what the objective of this request is. Zietlow stated that Turnquist want to construct a residence.
Duckworth asked the applicant to prove the conditions for a variance. Zietlow stated that the hardship would be the financial burden of putting in a 60ft bridge to access the property. He has also felt financial hardship though the whole process. He stated that the property is unique because the county feels the site is a wetland and he disagrees with the county and the DNR's ruling that it is wetlands. He then stated that a variance will not change the character of the neighborhood because there has been a driveway existing prior to the ordinance and wetlands being protected. He then spoke of "takings" of land for public uses.
White spoke of the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance and asked what the current use of the property is. Zietlow stated it is a recreational use property at this time. White asked if it is a reasonable use of the property to have recreational use without a residence. Zietlow stated she would have to ask Mr. Turnquist.
Duckworth confirmed that Mr. Zietlow states that unique physical limitations of the property is that the driveway crosses the wetlands and has been there since 1968, the character will not change because the there has always been a driveway in place and been in use,
White asked if other properties in the area have wetlands. Zietlow stated there are a lot of other properties in the area that have wetlands.
White stated that from the testimony, she understands it as the property has always been used up to this point and the property has always been used up to the point and the owner just wants to change the use and asked Zietlow if that was correct. Zietlow states that is correct.
Vogt asked about the old road bed and asked if it has been used and presently used for vehicle traffic on the extended part of the drive, not the original. Zietlow stated they are not because the fill went into the wetlands.
White asked if prior to the fill being placed, was their vehicle traffic on the property the entire length of the drive. Zietlow stated there was.
Mr. Donald Turnquist, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is the property owner and that the contractor placed the fill in the wrong spot and was going to contract with him to build a home, they no longer use him. White asked that if at some point in time he was on site with the contractor and looked at the property, where the home would be and where the driveway would be placed. Turnquist stated that was correct and they have the stakes still in the ground where the house would be placed.
Duckworth asked if he has seen the letter to the Realtor before the property was purchased. Turnquist stated he may have, but thought the issues were different.
Duckworth stated that the letter clearly states that a bridge must be constructed and a wetland delineation be done.
Malin asked when the property was purchased. Turnquist stated in 2003.
Duckworth asked if there is anything he wanted to add to the 3 requirements that Mr. Zietlow addressed and reviewed what they were. Turnquist stated that on the hardship, if he has to build a bridge it would hold him off from doing any type of residential building.
Vogt asked when the new fill was placed on the property. Turnquist stated in November or October of 2004.
White stated that they testified that the builder cashed the check and asked what it was for. Turnquist stated they sent a check and then reviewed the property and didn't understand that he didn't go in for permits.
Ms. Roseanne Turnquist, appearing in favor, stated that the builder they were introduced to that they were told that he was very well informed about the rules and regulations about Lake Redstone and they assumed that he had followed the procedures.
Vogt asked if the builder stated that he was going to get the necessary permits. Turnquist stated that they tried to get a hold of the contractor after they were cited, but have not been able to speak to him.
Vogt asked if a contract was signed. Turnquist stated everything was verbal.
Steve Sorenson, reappearing. White clarified the part of the driveway they want to continue to use has reverted to wetlands. Sorenson stated that it meets the wetlands qualifiers to meet the wetland definition. He also spoke of the soil borings and measured the depth to the actual water. He also reviewed the conversation he had with Mr. Zietlow and the DNR which determined that the property was still considered a wetland even though the water was at 12" below the surface and explained why the departments are relying more on soil motteling and vegetation than they are on free water.
Vogt asked about the new fill and where he wants to put the new driveway. Sorenson stated that the extension would get him to higher ground, however you can't go through a wetland.
Malin asked if it is illegal to drive through a wetland. Sorenson stated you can drive through a wetland and farmers can plow a wetland, but it is illegal to fill a wetland.
Sprecher asked what the reason is that you can't fill a wetland. Sorenson stated that you would be changing the hydrology and would change the characteristics and the geology of that property. He also stated that they have already change the characteristics of the property just by the nature of the fill.
Vogt asked if more recent photos since 1968 have been examined? Sorenson stated he's been on the lake 18 years, he knows that the property has been used for recreational purposes and has been driven on when the property is dry enough to dry on.
White asked about the letter to Alfredo Cristo and the permits that would be required from the State Agencies. Sorenson stated that permits would need to be required from all agencies.
Malin asked about the term of mapped wetlands and if they are on the map. Sorenson stated these wetlands are mapped.
Vogt asked about Big Creek. Sorenson stated that Big Creek would be on lot 2 where it crosses Highway F into the lake itself.
Mr. Fred Zietlow, reappearing n favor, stated that what makes the property unique is that the hydric soils are not natural and spoke of the motteling.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:55 a.m.
Malin stated that testimony is that it is not unique in the neighborhood.
Duckworth stated the unnecessary hardship is that is must have no reasonable use and we have testimony that the property has been used since 1968 on a regular basis as recreational property.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to deny based
on the fact that the applicant did not present testimony
to meet any of the three conditions required. No hardship
was proven, unique property was not proven, as many lots
have wetlands and as far as protecting public interest,
wetlands are protected.
Motion carried 5-0.
Malin disagreed with the public interest and the neighbors. White explained that protecting public interest goes beyond just the immediate neighbors, but the people in the county and the people in the state.
Adam Sollomann (SP-34-05) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.8.08(3)(a)1 to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% within 300 feet of a navigable body of water.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request, and reviewed photos and a video of the property.
White asked if a grading permit would be required if the steps were located at the end of the deck. Lorenz stated if they were just sinking posts into the ground and just making steps, they may not need a special exception permit, but would be getting close to the water.
Vogt asked about the landings. Lorenz explained.
Mr. Dean Anderson, agent, appearing in favor of the request, presented Exhibit VIII,1, state that the new deck was an addition and at the time were running into some issues with the builder and were not able to complete the project with the steps at that time. He also stated that as far as the filling and grading, it would allow for headroom to use the space and the only grading would be to take out a couple feet of soil to get the steps into place. He also referred to the photos and the plans for retaining the soil as well as removing it.
Duckworth asked if all the filling and grading will be done behind the posts for the deck. Anderson stated that is correct, except for the small swale where the hump is located, will be graded out towards the swale.
Duckworth referred to the railroad ties to the property line if all the fill, at the maximum will be done behind that line from the railroad ties to the property line, making sure all setbacks are met. Anderson stated that is correct. Duckworth asked about fill. Anderson stated it will be hauled off if needed.
Seeing as no one wished to appear, Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 11:20 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth reviewed the request and the ordinance.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Vogt with the conditions
listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 11:23 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary