Board of Adjustment

DATE: March 23, 2006

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Robert Roloff, Vice Chair Halsey Sprecher Richard Vogt Linda White David Werneke

STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin Dave Lorenz Lance Gurney

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 9:10 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 Board adopted the agenda for the March 23, 2006, session of the Board on a Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher.
Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by White, seconded by Werneke to adopt the January 26, 2006 minutes.
Motion carried 5-0.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Duckworth stated he has passed out the judgment against the Hemmersbach’s and the Board needs to read and understand for future hearings.

APPEALS FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS:

Motion by White, seconded by Sprecher, to remove Appeal SP-01-06 from the table.
Motion carried 5-0 (Werneke present in place of Vogt).

Summer Oaks Condo Unit Owners Association, Inc. (SP-01-06) requesting a change in administrative decision pursuant to s.7.17(3) to dispute the issuing of a land use, filling and grading and sanitary system permit by Sauk County Planning & Zoning.

Chair Duckworth ruled that the case is closed to public comment, as all testimony was taken during the original appeal in January. The Board went through testimony heard, documentation and the judgment by the Corporation Counsel.

Duckworth spoke of the filling and grading permit request. The Board decided not to hear any additional testimony. Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White that Planning and Zoning had authority to issue the filling and grading permit.
Motion carried 5-0.

The Board then discussed the issuing of the sanitary permit, and the testimony regarding the Wisconsin State Statutes 145.19(2) and 145.20(2)(h). Duckworth read from the statute, stated that the county verified they were on site and did an inspection, even though they were not required to. He also spoke of the determination that the proposed construction does not interfere the sanitary system, which was done by the Planning and Zoning office. They continued to discuss testimony from the Planning and Zoning Director. The Board determined that they did not need to hear additional testimony. Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Sprecher, that Planning and Zoning had the authority to issue the sanitary permit.
Motion carried 5-0.

The Board then discussed the issuance of the land use permit and the testimony heard on the issue. They discussed the ordinance and the guidance requested from Corporation Counsel on this issue, which has been presented in a documentation to the Board. Duckworth stated the legal opinion from the Corporation Counsel is that Section 8.13 should not be taken into account when making the decision on this issue.

Werneke asked to hear from Corporation Counsel.

Todd Lineman, Sauk County Corporation Counsel, providing legal capacity to the Sauk County Board of Adjustment. He spoke of the difficulty in the question applying to Section 8.13 regarding condo developments and statutory interpretation. It was his opinion to uphold the Directors decision in granting of the permit. The Board continued to review the documentation by the Corporation Counsel.

Werneke asked about Section 8.13 and that the requirements were met simply because the condominium was already platted. Liebman stated you can’t say that the requirements were met based solely on the fact that it was platted and can understand the argument. He stated he discounts that because the State Statutes address that specific issue and allows the developer to amend the plat and come into compliance. However the problem with 8.13 is that there is legal deficiencies in that section.

Duckworth asked if 8.13 does not apply because it only talks about condominiums and violations of some other portion of the state law. Liebman stated that was correct and spoke of what the Boards duties are and how they must arrive to their determinations and can not rely sole on Section 8.13 and not take into consideration of the other laws that apply.

White asked about the plat and changing the development to build these units. Liebman stated that he feels that is the position the developer has taken and continued to explain his decision and the ambiguity in Section 8.13.

Werneke asked about Section 8.09(1)(f) and the argument that condos are being singled out. Liebman stated that the nonconforming issue is the most vexing and generally does not concur that a plat has a right in general does not mean you have a buildable lot, however, we do allow legal lots of record and there is not a legal lot of record in a sense for a condo plat.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Zoning to issue the land use permit. (Discussion followed and no vote was taken.)

Duckworth stated that when he reads 8.13 it has to apply because the words clearly indicate that they did not grandfather anything in, however when he reads the legal opinion, 8.13 can not apply because it violates some other section of the Wisconsin State Statutes on the fair treatment of condos versus owning other lands, which was not brought up in testimony before.

Werneke stated they also have the responsibility to uphold the Shoreland Protection Ordinance and on page two of the opinion provided by the Corporation Counsel, it talks about the authorization of the condo developer to amend. Has that amendment to the existing condo plat been pursued in order to comply with the Shoreland Ordinance?

Lance Gurney, Director of Planning and Zoning, appeared and stated that in terms of amending the plat, there is an amendment that is possible to bring into compliance, they already exceed the number of units allowed and there is not way that they can amend and record the condo plat to bring into conformance and allow them to construct. He reiterated what was stated by the Corporation Counsel in that you have to look at all sections of the local and state laws and the difference between what condos are held to versus what other multi-family districts are held to. He then spoke of the comment on Section 8.09 and whether a structure was burnt down and you could not rebuild, and verified that the state law does allow people the right to rebuild.

Werneke asked about condo law and if a series of condos platted next to each other. Gurney explained how plats are recorded in phases and expanding condominiums, reserving future expansion areas.

Duckworth asked the Board to keep their questions related to the specific issue they are dealing with.

White asked if it was Gurney’s opinion that the building of the units will not change the plat. Gurney stated that the construction of the building will conform with the plat.

Duckworth then discussed the local and state laws and the discrimination spoke of between the two.

Motion carried 4-1 to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Director, with Duckworth in opposition.

Werneke has left the Board and Vogt has returned for the regular scheduled appeals.

APPEALS:

Shelly Recob (SP-03-06), requesting a variance pursuant to s.7.05B(3)(d) to authorize the construction of an attached garage within the minimum side yard setback.

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 determined the variance would be considered an area variance.

Duckworth asked if the property was zoned something other than Exclusive Agriculture would that make a difference. Lorenz verified that the lot would still be undersized, no matter what the zoning would be.

White asked what the side yard setbacks are suppose to total. Lorenz stated the total aggregate would be 19.25 feet.

Sprecher asked if there is any requirement to have access to the mound system and if the garage would prevent getting to the mound system. Lorenz stated that there is a requirement to be able to pump the tank, but nothing really about the mound itself.

Duckworth asked how the pumper truck would get back there if the garage was built. Lorenz stated the pumper would run his line around the garage or she could get permission from the neighbor as his drive runs right by there.

Shelly Recob, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Duckworth reminded her of the 3 requirements of getting a variance. Recob addressed the request not harming the public interest as many properties are very similar to hers. She did talk to the Town Board and they have sent a letter in support of the variance.

Duckworth asked if she has spoken to the neighbors. Recob stated she has spoken to the neighbors on the same side of the garage and they have signed a statement saying they did not oppose it.

Duckworth asked about the unique property limitations. Recob stated that many of the lots located there are very narrow and this one is smaller than normal.

Duckworth asked about unnecessary hardship. Recob stated that a one car garage would not be adequate for what she needs it for and would not be efficient as she would only be able to use it for one vehicle versus the two that she has, plus no storage for other things in the garage.

White asked if she was looking to expanding the living space in the house. Recob stated that she intends to change the existing garage into an additional bedroom and the garage that she has now is only used for storage, as it is too narrow and too difficult to get a car into right now.

Vogt asked if it was a single car garage that is there currently. Recob explained what is there right now and its use.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:00 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

White stated that she does not believe she has met the hardship for the variance and the preference to have a 2 car garage is not a hardship nor is adding living space to an already livable house.

Duckworth stated this is a small lot and the county had decided they want a setback and they would be significantly under the county’s desired setback if they granted the variance. He also stated that all the lots in Blackhawk are small and not sure if this is unique in that sense, as all the ones next to it appear to be similar and doesn’t feel it is contrary to public interest as the neighbors have signed off and agreed to have it there. He does feel that the unique property limitations have not been met, nor has a hardship been explained.

Motion by White, seconded by Roloff, to deny the request for a variance because the 3 standard requirements have not been met to grant the variance.
Motion carried 5-0.

James Sorg (SP-04-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05B(2)(b)3 to authorize the location of 3 ponds within 300 feet of a property line.

Duckworth asked what negative affect the ponds would have on the neighbors. Lorenz stated he doesn’t see how there would be a negative affect.

Serge Koenig, Agent, Sauk County Land Conservation Department, appearing in favor of the request, stated that it is a wildlife enhancement and protection ponds and have agreed to participate in the CRP program for 10 years and he has surveyed and designed the site and will oversee the construction and erosion control measures recommended by Planning and Zoning.

Duckworth asked about negative impacts. Koenig stated there should be no negative impacts.

Roloff asked about the berms and what happens on this site during and event when there is a 100 year rainfall and how the berms accommodate that. Koenig stated that normally they would not put in a birm on this kind of project, but because of the slope of the land, he has emergency outlets designed for a 10 year event, but also has a design where it will spread out around the birm.

Duckworth asked if there was anyone immediately downstream that would get flood out if the berms break. Koenig stated all the land around this is owned by the applicant and no other land owners would be affected. He also spoke of a swale between the ponds that handled about 99% of the flow that goes through and what will fill the ponds is the ground water flow and the surface water flow.

Vogt stated that they are basically just accepting the immediate runoff from the slopes of the hill. Koenig stated that is correct.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10: 15 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt, to approve the request for a special exception permit, with the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Office.
Motion carried 5-0.

The Board recessed for 5 minutes.

C. Gary & Diane Moseman, The Kraemer Co., Agent (SP-05-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)19 to authorize the expansion of a quarry.

Duckworth presented Exhibit VIII,1, a copy of a decision letter on SP-47-04, that was used for a previous appeal that the Chair would like to refer to.

Duckworth asked if we have had any complaints on the quarry in the last 5 years. Lorenz stated none that he is aware of.

Mr. Benny Stenner, General Superintendent for the Kraemer Co., Agent, stated that this is a quarry that has been in existence for over 50 years and the entire property aside for this request is owned by the Kraemer Company and they are coming to the edge of their property line and the material is being depleted, so this is just natural to go into the adjoining property. He also stated this quarry has served state and local highway projects, but also various local uses.

Duckworth asked if he is familiar with the normal requirements that the Board puts on the quarries. He stated he is familiar with them, but would request that they have no requirements put on this new part of the quarry, as the old quarry has no requirements.

Duckworth asked where it shows were the surrounding residents are located. Stenner stated it is located on Figure 7, which shows only one residence that is in the entire area.

Duckworth stated that in Exhibit VI, 2, an aerial photograph, it shows several residences, but no distances.

Vogt suggested referring to Figure 4 in Exhibit II,2. Duckworth stated there is at least 3 housings or farms without distances marked and stated they are suppose to submit documentation showing how far you are from residences. Stenner stated they assume the distances were not that close, they didn’t do it. He then stated that per the Town of Troy the property at the top of the hill was the only property of concern.

Duckworth verified that the applicant does not know how far away any of the properties are. Stenner stated that is correct.

Vogt asked if a buffer zone will be maintained between Highway C and the actual quarry itself, along the entire northwest side of the highway. Stenner stated out of the 10+ acres, there is about 6 acres of actual mined area, and the area on the north edge of it is a ravine that will stay and will not have any mining done in there.

Vogt asked about any suggestions of plantings or screening being done. Stenner stated that they are leaving a portion of the existing woods there, no plantings are planned.

Duckworth referred to Figure 5 which shows the area to be stripped and mined.

Vogt spoke more of the buffer zone between the site and the road.

White asked if there are any particular conditions that are bothersome. Stenner stated that most of the conditions he doesn’t quite agree with and would request that no conditions are put on them as they haven’t had any problems.

Joel Gaalswyk, appearing in favor, stated that he represents the District on the County Board, as well as living near the quarry, in the Town of Franklin, and to his knowledge there is no problems with the quarry and would like to see the request approved.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:50 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Duckworth stated he could not support approving a special exception permit for a quarry with no conditions attached, as it would set a precedence, as well as quarry operators in the past taking advantage of the limited restrictions. He also stated that the Kramer Company has always worked well with the local governments and land owners and typically have had no issues with any of their sites.

The Board discussed the example that Duckworth had referred to and handed out prior to this appeal.

White asked for a 10 year permit rather than a 5 year permit, as they have had no issues with this site.

Motion by White, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request with the conditions listed in the Polk/Kramer quarry decision letter, changing the time frame from 5 years to 10 years.
Motion carried 5-0.

D. Sauk County (SP-06-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.10(2)(b)8 and s.23.07(1)(b)2 to authorize construction of a new 250 foot emergency communications tower.

Tim Stieve, Director Sauk County Emergency Government & Building Services, appearing in favor of the request, stated that this particular tower is the exact same type of request as the last one they were here for, which was the Hillpoint Tower. He also stated that it is the last of the 9 towers that they have been working on through the Communications Infrastructure Committee and the County Board.

Duckworth asked if there are any other towers in the area that they can reasonably use. Stieve stated they have looked at the Spring Green water tower site, but that would require the addition of another tower beyond that. The water tower is presently used by the US Cellular people for cellular needs, and modifications would need to be made to be used for emergency services.

White asked if the towers in the 9 tower site give them the coverage and serve the needs that they need. Steive explained the towers and the fiber-optics that are included and the towers that are completely operational deliver great coverage and better than expected coverage.

Duckworth stated they have purchased a property that they will put the tower directly in the middle of the property to meet all the setbacks. Steive stated that is correct and the tower will be approximately a minimum of 275 feet in all directions.

Roloff stated that area is heavily wooded and asked how much area will be cleared. Steive spoke of the fencing needs and would level off an area of about 70’ x 110’ for the tower site compound itself and the remainder would be just for the access itself and the rest of the woods would be undisturbed.

Roloff asked if there is something where the neighbors have signed off. Stieve stated that Gene and Delores Neuheisel, which is who the property is purchased from and the other one is Exhibit IV,3.

Mr. Bob Bauer, Fire Chief of Plain, appearing in favor, stated they need the coverage and spoke of an accident this weekend where 4 of the first responder pagers did not even go off.

Mr. Art Carlson, Sauk County Board District 24 and representing the Spring Green fire and ambulance, appearing in favor, stated that this is desperately needed and one light being seen should not stop an emergency tower from being built and the community served.

Mr. Virgil Hartje, Sauk County Board District 4, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is Vice Chair of the Communications Infrastructure Committee and they have worked very hard and tried to get different spots for this tower and if they put up 2, you will see 2 from the river and we don’t have the money to fund 2 towers. He requests that it be granted as the emergency services are needed. He also stated they asked the opposition to help find another tower site and they have not come up with anything either.

Roloff asked how many public hearings the committee has held. Hartje stated he is not sure and most of the people have been in favor of the site.

Mr. Bob Jewel, Village of Plain, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he has been on the Plain EMS for the last 6 years and he has had numerous times that his pager has not gone off and he asked that the Board helps them help the community.

Mr. Joel Gaalswyk, County Board Supervisor District 23, appearing in opposition, stated that no one is opposed to improving emergency communications, but this particular tower violates the spirit of the river way law. He continued to speak of the River way Board and its laws and believe the county itself should also follow the river way laws themselves. He also spoke of the use of fiber-optics and feels that the best solution would be to put the tower across the river and asks the Board not to approve this application.

Duckworth asked which part of the county ordinance he is asking them not to approve this with. Gaalswyk stated they should consider co-location and spoke of the Arena water tower.

White asked how putting this across the river would be in the spirit of the river way. Gaalswyk stated there is already a tower there and not to add another sign of civilization along the river.

White asked how tall the Arena tower is. Gaalswyk stated he does not know, but does know it is not 250 feet tall.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:20 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

White stated this seems to be another instance of balancing the good and the bad.

Roloff stated if there was ever a homeland security issue, this would be one, although it doesn’t relate to terrorist. He stated he lives within eye shot of a new tower and while he noticed it the first couple days, he does not see it any more.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the special exception permit for a 250 foot communication tower, along with the conditions listed by Planning and Zoning.

Duckworth states this site meets all the requirements that the ordinance puts forth and there has been testimony that no other site fits the needs and all the requirements of the county ordinance have been met in this request.

White stated that after all the research, this tower would have to be replaced by 2 towers. Someone will not like this no matter where it is.

Sprecher also spoke of the maintenance and the work of the committee to pursue and find the best location for a tower.

Motion to approve the special exception request carried 5-0.

E. James Sprecher, (SP-07-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)19 to authorize the operation of a mineral extraction site.

Duckworth asked if any complaints were received on the previous site. Lorenz stated none that he was aware of.

James Sprecher, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he would like to take the knolls off to help with the crops and the trucking.

Duckworth asked how far down they go. Sprecher stated that they take it level to the rest of the field.

Duckworth asked if he would have a problem with the conditions previously set and if it would be acceptable for a 10 year permit versus a 5 year permit. Sprecher stated he would accept that.

Mr. Dan Ruetten, Chair, Town of Spring Green, appearing in favor, stated that the Town fully supports the request and has never had a problem with the previous sites.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:25 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White, to approve the request for a special exception permit and use the decision letter from 2000, Pearl Road site conditions and allow a 10 year permit versus 5 years.
Motion carried 5-0.

F. Ethanol Productions, Inc. (SP-08-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.10(2)(b)7 to renew a permit for an agricultural related business.

Vogt asked if there has been any complaints or correspondence regarding the operations of the plant. Lorenz stated that he has not received any complaints other than the concerns of not getting answers related to this specific appeal, such as hours of operations, potential for odors and the road conditions and the only correspondence that have been received is from the Town Board which was just received due to this appeal and was put in the Board’s packet.

Mr. Paul Sir, Vice President of Operations for Ethanol Productions, Inc., applicant, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the operation at a level of productions keeping the output under a 2,000/gal limit per day and spoke of the ethanol market and the profitability of the product. He spoke of the plant operator and consultant to look at the existing plant to bring it to current standards as well as a distributor of organic products to discuss the viability that would allow them to use a facility of this size and still allow them to be profitable. He spoke of using organic materials and the advantage that it would eliminate grinding at the site and could directly be put into production. He also spoke of the concern for heavy truck traffic and understand that and will do whatever they need to do to comply. He continued to explain the history of the business at the current location and explained that no product has been produced to date and technology available that they would implement that would keep any odors to a minimum and explained that a hog farm is a million times larger in odor and this would be very minimal. Truck traffic would be between 2 to 3 trucks a day that would either pick up product or take care of disposal of waste water. He also discussed safety and invited anyone to come in a tour the facility as long as they call ahead and wants to keep everything open and answer any questions.

Roloff asked if they are in production or have they been in production in the past. Sir stated they have not started production.

White asked when they would like to start production. Sir stated by November 2006.

White asked why they didn’t start production before. Sir stated they needed to verify the marketability, the economics and costs associated with the plant as well as the safety

Roloff asked what the end use of organic alcohol is. Sir stated the primary uses is in cosmetics, and while it’s a small sector, it is a steadily growing sector.

Roloff asked if organic alcohol is a specialized ethanol. Sir explained the process and the grade of purity that you would need and the level they are striving for is for the cosmetic industry.

Roloff asked who sets that level, the government or the industry. Sir was not sure, but though it was set by the industry.

Roloff asked about the conditions from the 2004 permit and if he has any issues with them. Sir stated he did not have any issues, but would like 5 years so that they could get the process running.

Vogt asked what process changed from the request in 2004 to going to this product. Sir stated that it is a different process that requires different equipment and different testing for the end result.

White asked if they visited a plant of this type. Sir stated they have had a plant provide a dvd and information on the area, the plant, the odors, etc. and if it is set up properly and you are using the correct processes, it is a minimal amount of odors, and non-offensive. He stated that they are trying to be responsible an the last thing they want is the township or neighbors to have complaints about what they are doing or affect property values and are sensitive to that.

Mr. Zenon Potoczny, Ethanol Productions, Inc., appearing in favor of the request, they have been very careful, it is a small production facility and will not produce much omissions and request support of the request.

Mr. Joel Gaalswyk, District 23 County Board, stated he registered as interest may appear, but now that he listens to information, he is in support of the request, and has spoke to the owners of the property, the neighbors, town board members, etc. He feels this plant is small and fits into the agricultural area around them and they do not have close neighbors and alcohol is not a pollutant in the fact that it is toxic and can’t imagine the small amount of odor that could come from this plant would be offensive. He also stated that the fluid coming in and out of this plant are lighter weight than the milk trucks going into the dairy farms in the area and the owners have received rent from the applicants even though nothing has happened at the site and they have made no profit from the site. He feels organic agriculture is a niche market that provides more income for local farmers and feels it is a benefit to the Town and the local community.

Duckworth asked how you reconcile this with the view of the Town of spring Green plan commission. Gaalswyke stated he respectfully disagrees with the plan commission and they are imagining dangers that could be there, but they don’t know anything for sure and the fact is it is not going to cause any other agriculture business in the area.

Duckworth states that the plan commission feels this doesn’t fit with their town plan. Gaalswyk stated that that is their opinion.

Mr. Jeff Heintz, appearing in opposition, stated you can’t compare to a milk truck, as it does not explode if it turns over, is there a hazard plan for a milk truck and spoke of the locations of homes around the plant and no matter how small the emission are, they are 300 feet above the plant and suggests because there hasn’t been any operations there won’t be complaints and spoke of explosion being a viable concern. He then discussed chemicals used.

Duckworth asked who developed the list of chemicals and if they are regulated by the Wisconsin DNR. Heintz stated they are regulated by the EPA and Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fire Arms and the list came from AIG, an insurance provider for the industry. He then spoke of the inability of the Spring Green community to deal with a catastrophe.

Duckworth asked again about the Wisconsin DNR. Heintz stated he thinks they should be involved, but they have not been contacted and the Wisconsin DNR is not aware of any productions being done within the last couple years there.

White asked if he has taken the time to visit a plant to see what takes place and how things work. Heintz stated that he has not but has done research on the internet and raised concerns again about the safety of the area in relation of the plant and also spoke of the unique topography of the area and feels they will be sucking down emissions continuously.

Ms. Mary Merle, Plan Commission, Town of Spring Green, appearing in opposition, stated the board has a copy of decision of the plan commission and explained the process of how they come up with their recommendation. She then summarized the recommendation that the permit be denied because of factors such as not knowing what the effect is going to be, what the emissions will be or environmental issues; their comprehensive plan and how it fits, which they feel is an industrial operation and their plan suggests moving industrial operations into industrial communities in the Village of Spring Green; additional need for public services, such as repair to town roads; availability of alternative site more suitable to handle this production. Concerns they have is the operation hours, noise levels being unknown, emission levels are unknown, odors levels are unknown, sound levels are unknown, the byproduct of production and how will it be used is unknown, the traffic levels with heavy weight is unknown, adequate insurance and liability in unknown, the feasibility of the current buildings, financial feasibility of the plant, the safety of the facility and the integrity of a storage system of an aging facility. She also spoke of the permit issued by the Board of Adjustment in 2004 and the requirements and conditions listed in that approval.

Duckworth asked if the Town of Spring Green has gone through their smart growth plan and if they talked about manufacturing in that process. Merle stated they did.

White asked if they talked about grandfathering things that were in place before the plan went into effect. Merle stated they did.

White asked if they consider this to be a grandfathered operation. Merle stated they do not as the operation has changed and the process has changed and the only thing that ties it to the farm is the building they would be doing it in.

White stated she has an issue with the “ghost” they have based their denial on and spoke of the operations of a dairy farm and the comparison between the truck loads, road damage, the waste and states that her dairy facility operates 24/7 and creates odor 24/7. Merle stated they can’t tell them what they are emitting and they are afraid of the ghost and the answers they don’t have yet.

Mr. Dan Ruetten, Chair of Spring Green, appearing in opposition, stated that the Town endorses the plan commission’s recommendation and at inception it had local ownership interest and it does not have that anymore and is total foreign owned. He stated his concern with not getting direct answers, the change in the fuel source and end product and believes this needs to be moved to a sight that can handle their end product and can accommodate them.

Mr. Allan Green, appearing in opposition, stated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Heintz, and there are 34 +/- neighbors up the hill from the plant and stated he is in favor of organic farmer, but feels this proposal is an industrial operation and not an agricultural operation. He also stated his concerns of mistake of questions not answered, question that the Board has raised and no one has been responded to in any kind of responsible way. He also suggests more communication between all parties and reminding them that this has nothing to do with a dairy farm.

White stated that the quantities that were presented as being scary used her own farm productions to show a comparison that dairy farms produce just as much if not more quantities.

Ms. Laura Heintz, appearing in opposition, spoke of letters from neighbors in opposition and presented Exhibit IV,17 an additional letter in opposition. She stated she was never informed that the plant existed and spoke of doing research on the issues and stated that the legal fundamentals were not covered by the County. She also spoke of questions that the Board had asked the applicants to answer when they came back and is unaware of the answers ever being given. She then questioned public safety around the plant, the lack of connection by the applicants to the community, property values, and the lack of answers in the application addressing growth, check and balances, semi truck noise, and the lack of tax revenue. She concluded by saying the plant belongs in an industrial park.

White asked if she called anyone that is living next to a plant like this. Heintz stated she has not, but read about things on-line and spoke to someone about a large scale plant and they suggested there are emissions from that.

White asked if the woman she spoke to, being a lawyer, was she representing someone. Heintz stated she does represent a large group of people.

Mr. Benny Stenner, Supervisor Town of Spring Green, appearing in opposition, stated he was not a part of the board when previous applications were made. He also stated that he is pro-business and that business would be welcomed if it was located in the proper place and stated the roads were not constructed for this type of use.

Duckworth asked if the Town Board took a position. Stenner stated the Town Board did not vote on it, but they have stated they would not approve it.

Mr. Paul Sir, reappearing in favor.

White asked what changes have taken place in the plant since the 2004 permit. Sir stated there have been no changes and their time has been spent on research. He also spoke of the ownership and that the lease was always to Ethanol Productions, and not Rod Aide, as he only worked for the Company.

White asked about the November 5 th renewal deadline. Sir stated that they did not come back prior to this because they did not have a full market plan put together and they were not prepared to come back at that time. He also stated that he is glad they did not start producing 5 years ago, because of the technology that is in place now that is more environmentally friendly as far as emission than it used to be.

Vogt asked about the statement fitting in an industrial area. Sir stated he can’t argue that it wouldn’t fit better in an industrial area, but this where they are located and it fits into the ordinance, and while it has changed, it is the same operation.

Vogt clarified that the operation that was approved in October 2004, the only change is that the product will be filtered more.

White asked if the only connection to the Oliver’s is that he is leasing the building. Sir stated that is correct.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 12:55 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Duckworth stated this is a permitted operation within this zoning district by county ordinance and the board needs to decide on the granting of the permit and possible conditions if it is granted.

White spoke of concerns in finances involved and recognizes the different between alcohol and

Vogt asked about the “not in my backyard” and if it is in an industrial park will there be residents around the same distance being there and the same hazards existing in the village as it does in the township and there are a lot of things that seem to be overkill. He can appreciate the concerns and can understand, but it is allowed by county ordinance.

White states there is no differentiating in the county ordinance about who lives there.

Roloff spoke of concerns with the county ordinance referring to a permitted use to be an agricultural related business and after listening this morning, he unsure if it is an agricultural related business. He also wishes the Township would have taken some official action, but it sounds as if they are against it and in the application, they applied for the continued operation of an alcohol fuel site, but testimony shows they have changed to an organic alcohol to be used for cosmetics instead of fuel.

White stated concern with no plans or drawings being presented.

Duckworth referred to the ordinance in relation to a special exception permit and the county board specifically listed fuel alcohol still as a use and spoke of the requirements and purposes of the zoning district and can not see any reason why this project will cause adverse pressure on farming, as described in the ordinance. He also asked if this will significantly injure public health, safety or welfare.

The Board continued to review the ordinance in relation to special exception permits.

Vogt wishes there would be a running record of a plant of this type and the board doesn’t have the experience with these type of operations. Yet you cant drive it away because you don’t know and you can base a judgment on scare tactics.

Duckworth spoke of the public welfare and the emissions are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, spoke of gas trucks, lp trucks that currently drive up and down the roads, but is concerned that the plant has operated so sporadically over the past, but the ordinances does not require the board to protect investors money. He then asked what is the injury that the public is going to suffer and has some difficulty coming up with those, especially when these types of plants are being built on a much larger scale all over.

White stated she does have concern with public welfare and how do you protect that and asked if you put a time limit on it.

Sprecher asked if they need to look at the possibility that they did not follow through on the permits before or do they look at this as a new opportunity.

Duckworth felt they can look at previous request and look at whether they have violated the previous conditions and does not see anything in violation other than the change of a manager, and does that make a difference if they are not operating.

The Board asked to hear from Lance Gurney.

Lance Gurney, Sauk County Planning & Zoning Director, stated that the information provided by the Plan Commission chair in reference to their plan and that is one thing that has changed since all the other applications and the town has gone through that process and put time into looking at where land uses are appropriate and where they are not.

White asked if this would be considered a grandfathered use. Gurney stated he is unsure how to answer that and the difference between the approval and the use. To look at use and grandfathered use is similar to comparing a house and a duplex. While it is the same, its not. It is still relatively consistent, they are still producing alcohol.

Vogt spoke of the plan commission and it appears that they have discussed this extensively and the whole idea is to give more local control and say this is what we want and this is what we don’t want. Gurney stated that in listening to the deliberation between the board and then what was heard by the plan commission is that they want more information and things need to be better explained and explored to allow them to make a complete decision or accurate decision. It is up to the board if they feel the questions that were raised by the town have had the adequate answers. He also spoke of the significance of going to a plant, smelling the air, seeing how things were done and the experience he himself had with doing just that. He also stated that some of the chemicals that were read off are part of our normal daily consumptions, but it is the responsibility of the DNR to review that.

White asked about the how the Board arrives at their decision and if it is contrary to what the locals want and the “not in my backyard”.

Roloff did say that the local ordinance could be more restrictive than the county ordinance.

Duckworth read from the ordinance in relation to the town’s land use plans when making their decision.

Motion by Roloff, to deny the special exception permit based on the fact that the Town of Spring Green and Plan Commission has determined that this is not compatible with their land use plan. Motion has died due to lack of a second.

Vogt stated that the company has not sold this idea to the township and there is no past experience to draw from and there are a lot of compelling reason that would not support this and said there are a lot of questions to be answered and would it be better to table something like this to get answers.

White stated it is difficult because industrial development is not suited for this area, due to the town, but is this industrial development and it is that determination based on the fact that they don’t want it in their backyard. She also agrees that the company has not answered the questions that should be answered.

Roloff stated that the message was sent back to the company the last time a request was heard, that they needed to get the Town Board satisfied.

Vogt asked do they give them the permit and give them a year or two years to prove themselves?

Duckworth stated the board needs to look at the application and the testimony and does it meet what the county board has adopted in the ordinance.

Sprecher stated he is having trouble in deciding what direction to go.

Duckworth spoke of taking into consideration the local comprehensive plan.

Sprecher also spoke of whether or not this is a grandfathered use.

Vogt stated this has been approved 3 times now and there is no evidence to say it shouldn’t be approved again, other than the fact that a plan commission has now been formed and there is objection from neighbors.

White also stated that at that time no one labeled this as an industrial plant.

Duckworth stated this falls under what the county board determines to be agricultural related, no matter what it is used for, they have determined that this is an agricultural use.

Vogt asked if there is the option to postpone, allow the applicant to present to the Board either by expert testimony and enough information to put the questions raised by the town board/town plan commission, that are of substance, put to rest.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to table the request for a special exception permit until the applicant can present evidence and more specific information to answer questions raised by the township and during the hearing.
Motion carried 4-1 with Roloff in opposition.

The Board recessed for lunch at 1:40 p.m.

The Board at 2:10 p.m.

G. Archie McPherson, (SP-09-06), requesting special exception permits pursuant to s.7.05B(2)(b)3 and s.8.08(a)3 to authorize the construction of 3 wildlife ponds within 300 feet of a property line and a stream.

Duckworth asked if this would cause any harm to the neighbors. Lorenz stated he does not see how it would.

Serge Koenig, Sauk County Land Conservation Department, Agent, appearing in favor of the request, stated that there are no structures below that would be threatened if there were a flood and emergency outflows have been constructed and he also addressed the middle pond having a birm.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 2:30 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by White, seconded by Vogt to approve the 2 special exception permits with the condition listed by Planning and Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.

H. Alvin Brinkman (SP-10-06), requesting special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)13 to authorize the location of a pond within 300 feet of a road or property line.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and presented Exhibit IV,1 a wetland deliniation map, 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.

White asked about the size of 8 to 12 feet and the documentation going to the town was for 4 to 8 feet. Lorenz stated the original application came in and there was a modification when it went to the town.

Mr. Alvin Brinkman, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, presented a letter from the town in approval of the request and stated he wants this to be a recreational use of a pond and the DNR recommended that it be no more than 4 to 6 feet deep and that is when he made the modification to go to the township.

Duckworth clarified that he is aware of the requirements of the DNR. Brinkman stated he was and continued to explain the project, spreading the spoils on the upland area and leveling off around the barn and house.

White asked if a well would be put in to feed it or affect anything else. Brinkman stated he was not.

Duckworth asked about affecting neighbors. Brinkman stated there are no near neighbors that the pond would impact.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 2:50 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to construct a pond with the condition that Planning and Zoning recommended, as well as getting a permit from the DNR and building to the specification required by that agency.

I. John & Tracy Brienen (SP-11-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.8.08(3)(a)1 to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% as part of a new home construction project.

Mr. Ray Gilden, Hickory Ridge Log Homes, Agent, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the fill would be hauled off site, as there is no place to fill depending on what they run into underground such as rock that could be used as a retaining wall, they would place fill in there.

Duckworth asked where the fill would be taken from using the plot plan shown in the packet. Gilden explained.

Vogt asked about the block wall shown in Exhibit II,6 and if you would dig out around the wall shown. Gilden stated they would not, but explained where the steeper slope would be used for the walkout basement and explained how they would divert the water from washing around the end of the house and back into the basement.

Vogt asked about the water runoff and how that will be diverted. Gilden stated that when it would come down the driveway, it would stay to the inside corner and go down that edge of the lot and would dissipate at the east end of the house and would keep between the house and the property line.

Vogt asked if the slope of the land runs onto the adjacent property. Gilden stated it does not, and the neighboring property actually slopes onto this lot.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 3:05 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

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

Linda White has dismissed herself from the Board.

J. Gary Schyvinch (SP-12-06), requesting special exception permits pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)2, 10, 19 and 20, to authorize the renewal of the special exception permits granted to the applicant May of 2001, for a contractor’s storage yard, private landfill, mineral extraction site and agricultural related business.

Duckworth asked if Planning and Zoning would be ok with taking the original letter from 2001 and extending it for 5 to 10 years. Lorenz stated the office would have no problem with that.

Mr. Gary Schyvinch, applicant, appearing in favor of the request stated they have purchased the residence within 200+ feet of the landfill and mineral extraction site. He also spoke of signage that was placed around the site and a new driveway, as well as allowing others, by appointment only to have items disposed, but typically is used for landfill items that is from jobs that he has done.

Duckworth asked if he would have any problem with the letter from 2001 being extended, as is. Schyvinch stated he does not have any problem with it.

Duckworth asked about the town board. Schyvinch stated they were in support.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 3:25 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request and take Exhibit III,1 and extend it from 10 years from May 30 th, 2001.
Motion carried 5-0.

Duckworth asked for a paragraph

The Board adjourned at

Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary