Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

DATE: November 17, 2005

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 9:05 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 Roloff, seconded by Sprecher .
Motion carried 4-0 (White absent at this time)

The Board adopted the agenda for the November 17, 2005, session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher.
Motion carried 4-0 (White absent at this time).

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff to adopt the October 27, 2005 minutes.
Motion carried 4-0 (White absent at this time).

COMMUNICATIONS:

None to report.

APPEALS:

A. Ross and Theresa Halverson (SP-45-05) a special exception permit to authorize the operation of a bed and breakfast and addition of a lodging house. A variance to allow a lodging house of less than 750 sq.ft.
Duckworth noted that the legal notice states an incorrect section number and ruled that it is im-material to the hearing, as the correct section was read into record. (White is present at this time)

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 spoke of whether the variance should be considered an area variance because of the 750 square foot requirement, but could be a use variance because of being a second residential unit on the property. Bremer explained the reasons for being considered a lodging house per the state licensing requirements.

Roloff stated a lodging house is a permitted use and the question is whether or the 450 sq.ft. Structure there can be used as a lodging house because of the square footage and believes it would be an area variance because the use is allowed.

Duckworth asked if there is a requirement that the property only have one residence. He also asked if there were 2 bedrooms in the main house. Bremer stated that there are 2 bedrooms to be used for rental, but are more. Duckworth asked about the septic issues with the bedrooms. Bremer stated that as part of taking out the permit, they would need to update the septic and make sure everything is up to code.

Steve Sorenson, Sauk County Planning & Zoning. Duckworth asked if there were restrictions on the ability to build two homes on the same piece of property and if so, why doesn't the 2^nd home fall under that restriction. Sorenson stated that is correct and the use isn't viewed as a home, but more like a business, but not like a single-family residence.

Vogt stated that lodging houses are allowed under present zoning, and the number of buildings would be 4 cabins would that be allowed or considered residences. Sorenson stated that they would be allowed, with proper permits and Board of Adjustments, and not considered residences. Vogt verified that the variance is for the use of a lodging house and not for it to be a 2^nd residence, but part of the business of that home. Vogt felt the variance would be considered an area variance.

White asked if there are restrictions on the length of time someone can stay in a lodging house. Sorenson stated he believes that the stay is for less than 30 continuous days.

Duckworth asked about change of ownership and the fact that the lodging house or bed and breakfast business could end up being 2 homes. Sorenson stated he would like to see a condition that states the if the ownership/business changes that the special exception permit is null and void and the property must come into compliance with the residential use and converted back.

The Board continued to discuss the lodging house issue. The Chair ruled that the variance will be considered an area variance.

Mr. Ross Halverson, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they have been in business for about 4 years and got established and licensed through the state in 2001 and during the first summer rented about 75 rooms, the second year did about 140 rooms and have stayed steady since. The clientele are from Chicago and many of them come up to attend the American Players Theater. He stated that family wanted to stay with them, but wouldn't stay because they felt they would be taking business away from them, and that is how the separate cottage came to be and used for their own use to begin with. At this time, they found out they were in violation of the zoning requirements to bring the property into compliance and though this would be an opportunity to bring the separate cottage as part of the business. As part of the business expansion, the co-owner has quit her job and plans on making this her income. Mr. Halverson stated they were upfront in coming to County and spoke of the septic issues and the business changes from being licensed for 4 bedrooms to using the cottage and scale down the using the bedrooms in the home, projecting to be able to make up for the loss of business in the home and still hopefully be able to grow the business. He then provided the Board with septic usage figures between using the home for family versus using it for business.

Duckworth asked when the chicken coop was remodeled did he get a building permit. Halverson stated they did not.

White asked when the septic was connected to the main house, was a permit taken for that. Halverson stated he did not have a permit and did it on his own.

Sprecher asked if the main house basement has an exit to the outside. Halverson stated it does not. Sprecher asked if that would be considered a legal living space.

White asked if there were windows in the basement large enough to get through. Halverson stated they do.

Duckworth asked about the Township. Halverson stated they have spoken to the Town and they are in favor. He also stated that as far as agricultural awareness, they are a small farm and have in the past rented the property to different farmers for ag use and have never an any issues with the business use and the farming.

Mr. Marty McCluskey, Town Chair of Bear Creek, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the applicant was on the agenda and the board took action to approve the request and support it.

Duckworth asked about the variance for the small living unit. McCluskey stated that he doesn't feel it is a problem and using it as part of their business is acceptable with the Board.

Duckworth asked if someone wants to remodel, do they need a permit. McCluskey stated typically not for remodeling, but if they want to add a porch or something, then they do need a permit.

Duckworth asked what he sees happening to the small cabin once the Halverson's have sold the property. McCluskey stated he can't speculate, but it could be an issue.

White asked if the township would not have a problem having a residential unit less than 750 sq. ft. McCluskey stated they would go with the county rules on that.

Roloff stated the variance is for a lodging house, not for a residence.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:55 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

The board discussed the special exception request first.

Roloff stated it is a permitted use and the town board is in favor of it. White stated it has an operational history that is a favorable use.

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

The Board then discussed the variance request. Roloff spoke of the requirements for a variance. He stated he doesn't see any unique property limitation that wouldn't allow the owners to build a structure that could meet the 750 sq.ft. requirements and also feels it would be against public interest to create a non-conforming lodging house.

Vogt stated that the 750 sq.ft. is what is required and it is a tough call because of the use and once it becomes a lodging house, if it was to be changed to residential down the road sometime on its own lot, it would be required to have its own septic. He questioned if you did grant the variance, what kind of conditions would you put on it.

Sprecher stated if they allow a lodging house of these dimensions, they are setting a precedence and could see more requests such as this and would hesitate going in this direction.

Duckworth stated he reviewed the requirements for a variance and doesn't see any unique property limitations, unnecessary hardships, and it may be in the public interest to have a business expand. The other option is that they can expand the building to meet the requirements. He understands the request, but the way the county ordinance states and the way the State of Wisconsin wrote the rules for a variance, they are limited and does not see this request meeting the requirements.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Roloff, to deny the variance for a lodging house under 750 sq. ft. because there has been no presentation of unique property limitation and no presentation of an unnecessary hardship.
Motion carried 5-0.

A. Jeffrey White, David Hyzer - Agent, (SP-46-05), requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% in the Shoreland Protection District.

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 the culvert in place and if it has been moved. Bremer stated the culvert is in place and has not been used.

White asked how we were aware of the issue. Bremer stated he is not sure.

Roloff asked when the video was taken. Bremer stated it was taken last week.

Duckworth verified that they are talking about the area near the road and not closer to the water. Bremer stated that is correct.

Duckworth asked if there is a required setback of the boulder wall to the road. Bremer stated he is not sure.

Duckworth asked which way the water flows from the culvert now. Bremer explained the lot slopes towards the lake and not the neighbors.

Duckworth asked who has the authority to allow them to move the culvert. Bremer stated it is a town road.

Roloff/Sprecher spoke of the Town providing the culvert and where it will be moved.

Sprecher asked if the movement of the culvert will redirect the water onto the neighboring property.
Bremer stated that is one of the conditions to not have any water runoff directed onto neighboring property.

Mr. David Hyzer, Agent, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he has been in contact with the Town of LaValle and a new culvert has been installed and was done in accordance with the Town of LaValle specifications for size and location and the Town Chair was onsite for installation.

Duckworth asked where the water is directed now. Hyzer stated that the water runs down the property line for the White's and their neighbors and no filling and grading was done for that project.

White asked where exactly the water goes and if the change was discussed with the neighbors. Hyzer stated it goes down the property line and was not discussed with the neighbors, but done with the Township.

Roloff asked about the filling and grading done prior to the permits. Hyzer explained that they started due to finding the old culvert and once they realized that they had done more than they should, they addressed the erosion control and open areas immediately.

Duckworth asked about the old culvert. Hyzer stated it is still there and the Town asked that the end that takes in the water be cemented shut.

Duckworth asked how high the boulder wall would be. Hyzer stated that per Steve Sorenson, the wall shall not be any higher than 6 feet.

Duckworth asked if any filling and grading will be done on the water side of the house. Hyzer stated they would not do any filling and grading on the water side of the house.

Roloff asked about the setbacks from the town road for the boulder wall. Hyzer stated he will discuss that with the town.

White stated that in the beginning of the project, they figured on additional water, but with the culvert moved, they neighboring property will get additional water. Hyzer stated they could build a birm to keep the water on the property, that wouldn't be an issue.

Vogt, referring to Exhibit V,1, and the outlet of the old culvert, there is a driveway there and if that is the drive that will be used for their access and the new culvert would be to the right of that driveway and will intercept the water. Hyzer stated that is correct and the inlet to the old culvert was just about blocked off and wasn't taking much water at all.

Duckworth explained that the board is concerned that the neighbors do not received more water on their property due to this project.

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

The Board adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary