Board of Adjustment

June 22, 2006 Session of the Board

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Halsey Sprecher Richard Vogt David Wernecke Linda White

ABSENT: Robert Roloff

STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin Dave Lorenz

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 9:02 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 4-0. (White absent).

The Board adopted the agenda for the June 22, 2006, session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Wernecke.
Motion carried 4-0 (White absent).

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher to adopt the April 2006 minutes.
Motion carried 3-0 (White absent, Wernecke abstaining).

COMMUNICATIONS:

Lorenz spoke the lack of communication from EPI regarding the information requested from them from the Board and Planning and Zoning office regarding their tabled appeal and asked the board to provide the Department with direction.

APPEALS:

• Dean & Kim Blum (SP-21-06), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)2 to authorize the location of a contractor storage yard.

Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Specialist, appeared and gave the history and background of the request and the property. He then reviewed the photos and video of the site and concluded with the staff recommendation.

Kim Blum, application, appearing in favor of the request provided a history of the business and gave details of the buildings that are being proposed, access to the property, tree and/or fence buffer along the property lines and highway and the parking area.

Duckworth asked what was located on the property across from them. Blum stated that there is a house across from there.

Duckworth asked what the town board thought of the plans. Blum stated that they have met with the town board and they are in favor of the request.

Duckworth stated that the town board has asked for a storm water management plan and asked if they have provided that yet. Blum stated they have not.

Vogt asked about the purchasing of the property. Blum stated they have made an offer to purchase, but it is contingent on whether or not they get approval to use it for the business.

Wernecke asked what class soil is on the property. Blum stated she is not.

Vogt asked if the rest of the parcel will be left as agricultural fields. Blum stated it will be left, and they will only have the 2 buildings and parking area.

Duckworth asked what additional resources from either the Town or County would this require them to provide. Blum stated she doesn’t feel they wouldn’t have impact on the services.

White asked what kind of material would be stored other than equipment. Blum stated they would most likely have sand and gravel stored there. White verified that it wouldn’t be used asphalt or treated items. She also asked if the equipment will be maintained on site and provision for properly disposing of waste will be made. Blum stated that was correct.

Darlene Hill, appearing in favor of the request, stated that it is her land that the request is on and the neighbors all knew what was happening and had the opportunity to purchase the property. She gave the board a brief history of the property.

White asked if there are other contractor storage yards in the area. Hill stated they do have them and spoke of some of the larger mining pits in the area.

Jerry Dederich, appearing in opposition to the request, and gave a brief history of his own property and stated that his land is adjacent to the Hill property and spoke of his worry on what the proposed request would do to the beauty of the surrounding property and the Baraboo Hills.

Harry Woodbury, appearing in opposition to the request, explained where his property is and stated that is against the screening berms and the water flow along the property. He also presented Exhibit IX,1-4, photos and maps showing the layout of the property.

White asked if this would change the character of the neighborhood. Woodbury stated that it would as it is just farmland right now and it would turn into a construction site and change the overall view of the bluff.

Stacy Bonham, appearing in opposition to the request, stated that she is the house that is across from the proposed property request and feels that they will be running a business that they are not zoned for. She spoke of the view of the bluff, the wildlife and the surrounding scenery which will be impacted if their request is approved. She then read a letter, Exhibit X,1 from Robert Bonham and submitted to the Board, in opposition to the request.

George Bonham, appearing in opposition to the request, stated that he and his wife have owned the property for about 19 years and have nothing against the property owners and applications making the request, and feels that it’s not going to be just storage, it’s a full blown business. He also spoke of dry periods and the trucks loading and unloading materials and the dust and dirt that will be stirred up. He also spoke of other land that is owned by the applicant that he feels would be better suited for the proposed request. He also spoke of flooding issues and where would the water go.

White asked about the other property owned by the applicant. Bonham explained where the other property is located.

Shane Marsden, appearing in opposition, stated he owns the parcel to the northeast of the property and gave a brief background and history of the property and that he had also contacted the Blum’s about selling his property to them and after looking at their existing property in town, they felt it wasn’t a good idea. He also spoke of the Baraboo Land Use plan and that something of this kind of request would be unlikely because of what the plan suggests. He spoke of the view of the range and bluff which would be greatly disturbed and impacted by the proposed request.

Agnes Woodbury, appearing in opposition, stated her property lies east of the proposed request and spoke of the water damage that could happen and where would material wash to during rain and high water.

Duckworth asked if she went to any of the meetings held at the Town hall. Woodbury stated she did was not able to.

Kim Blum reappearing in favor.

White asked about the other rural property and how large the property is. Blum stated they have about 49 acres and believes it is about 75% swamp and just put a pond onto the property and would not have room for the buildings on the property, other than along the road. White asked how much of the property would not be wet. Blum stated about ¼ of the property. White stated that would be the same size as the parcel in question. Blum stated that was correct.

White asked why they didn’t consider putting it there. Blum stated they didn’t want to put their business where they live.

Duckworth asked about the water concerns of the neighbors. Blum stated they would have to do something with the water and try to make it so that the water doesn’t run on their property or anyone else’s.

Vogt asked if they have looked into the floodplain maps. Blum stated they did not.

Darlene Hill, reappearing, stated that the Blums will need a storm water management plan before they can build and she also spoke of all the neighbors purchasing their property from her family.

Duckworth asked how this fits within the Town of Baraboo Comprehensive Plan. Hill stated it fits nicely, but the Town has supported it and it is a suitable practice.

Vogt asked how this area is mapped in the comprehensive plan and what the future uses are projected for it. Hill stated she can’t say exactly, but she thinks agricultural. She stated it would fit best for a house and hobby farm, but no one wants to do that.

White asked when the other people purchased property from her, what did kind of neighborhood did they feel they were moving into. Hill stated just the way it is.

Stacy Bonham, reappearing in opposition, stated that the property is zoned agricultural and may have better luck selling the property if they appeal to small hobby farmers with the price of the land.

George Bonham, reappearing in opposition, spoke of the wind and the ability to blow sand and dirt and dust around and spoke of the speed of dump trucks. He also spoke of the flooding and water crossing the road and coming very close to crossing it on numerous occasions.

Dave Lorenz, reappearing.

Sprecher asked when this was brought to Planning and Zoning, was the floodplain area looked at. Lorenz stated it was not looked at during that time because there were no specific plans for buildings and such, however it would be at the time permits were requested.

Wernecke asked if the Town’s comprehensive plan was looked at when the request was brought in. Lorenz stated it was not.

Wernecke asked what he zoning is on the land and what a contractor storage yard is looked at and where it shifts to more of a commercial enterprise. Lorenz stated it is zoned general ag, and contractor storage yard is for the storage of machinery and materials. He stated that we don’t have a clear definition when a contractor storage yard makes the leap to commercial and that would be up to the Department Director.

Wernecke asked if the Director had an opportunity to review the request. Lorenz stated he had the opportunity but is no aware if he did or not.

Kim Blum reappearing.

Sprecher asked about the traffic and material to be stored on site. Blum stated that they get a lot of the different material from the quarries and would not be excessively stored and feels maybe about 100 yards (1 dump truck is about 15 yards per load).

Sprecher asked about the traffic. Blum stated they will start there and can’t say whether or not they would come back there to pick up material, but they get a lot of their material elsewhere. Their problem is that they have too much equipment and outgrowing what they have now.

White asked if they would be replacing their property they have the business on. Blum stated that they would be selling the property and/or not using it. The entire business would be located on site.

Duckworth stated that a contractor storage yard to him is where the equipment is parked at night and the employees would come park their cars and take the equipment out. Blum explained.

Shane Marsden, reappearing in opposition, asked if they were selling the lots in town and this is just for storage, where is the commercial base for the business. It seems as if the entire business is proposed to being moved out to the site.

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

White stated she feels this is going to be more than a storage yard and will be a full blown commercial business.

Duckworth stated he feels a contractor storage yard is a type of business that is allowed in this district by the county board.

White asked if all these other contractor storage yard is a full business or just storage.

Duckworth stated that most of them the home is located right there and they are operating the business out of the home and the yard is used for storage. He also said that it did go through the Town of Baraboo and did get approval from the Town Board and Planning Commission.

Vogt stated that it seems the objection is the scenic obstructions and spoke of the ordinance stating it shall not be visible from highway, etc. and feels the buffering seems to be the big issue. He also spoke of the floodplain issue and the effects on Skillet Creek and would have to be addressed in a storm water management plan and through Sauk County during the permit process.

Wernecke spoke of the screening and so that the contractor storage yard is not to be visible and what size trees are needed to shield the buildings and material and how many years do they have to complete that process.

Vogt spoke of the screening for mobile home parks.

White stated that the buildings are going to be much larger and taller than a mobile home.

Wernecke stated that the issue is up to the applicant that if they want to take the chance that after 5 years, their screening is not adequate and be open to review.

White read the ordinance relating to the desirability of the location, use, the public interest, and feels that this request will completely change the character of the area.

Motion by White, seconded by Wernecke, to deny the request for a special exception permit because the site is not consistent with what the ordinance asks for and feels this is not a site that shows the desirability for the specific purpose of the use requested. Wernecke also stated that he doesn’t feel the screening standards can not be met.

Vogt stated that the Town Board and Planning Commission have both approved this.

Duckworth asked if it can not be met here, where can it be met. White spoke of other locations where the property already has some of the screening necessary and read again from the ordinance.

Motion carried 3-2, with Sprecher and Vogt in opposition.

• Orrin Carr (SP-22-06) requesting variance pursuant to s.8.06(1)©2 and 8.05(3)(b) and (c) to authorize the construction of a detached garage within the minimum road setbacks on a substandard lot.

Duckworth ruled the variance as an area variance.

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.

The board had questions about the size of the lot, where the variance is being proposed from and what distances need to be met and from where. Lorenz explained.

White asked if there were other lots similar to this. Lorenz stated there were, however they were older.

Wernecke asked if there was any communication from the Township. Lorenz stated that the office has not received any communication from the town.

Wernecke asked if the Department notifies the Town of the request. Lorenz stated we do notify them and the applicant is required to submit a form stating that they have notified the town of the request.

Duckworth reviewed the request in that you can’t build without a variance because the lot is too small and you can’t build without a variance to meet the setbacks.

Mr. Orrin Carr, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that as the property exists right now, there is no place to store yard equipment, store a boat, store a car, etc. They originally purchased the property as a second home and after his wife passed away, he made this his permanent residence. He also spoke of the plans for the aesthetics of the garage and other buildings are located right up to the edge of the road. He state the existing shed is dilapidated and will be demolished and feels that it will not affect public interest and has spoke to neighbors and they don’t have any issues with it, as well as no problem with water runoff and feels it would fit well within the neighborhood. He addressed the unique physical limitations of the property and the lot is not usable to him other than for outside storage as it exists right now and is the only lot in the area that is not improved.

White asked if this would have a driveway out to Park Street. Carr stated it would have a drive out to the south, which would help control any water problems.

White spoke of difficulty in finding a place to park a car. Carr stated that the lot that his home is on does not allow enough room for a drive and he has to park on the street. White asked if that is similar with the other homes there. Carr stated it is not, as most of them have drives and do not have to park on the street.

Toni Seebantz, appearing in favor, stated she owns the property adjacent to the property and would like to request that the garage not obstruct her view from one of the windows in her home. She also spoke of traffic on the road and would like to suggest the access on the north rather than the south.

White asked if the street to the north is wider than the street to the south. Seebantz stated it is wider than the one to the south.

White clarified the concerns and request. Seebantz explained.

Orrin Carr, reappearing in favor, stated that he has no objections to siting the building to fit the request of Ms. Seebantz if the variance will allow it and feels there is light traffic on the road and would like the building and entrance sited with a drive to the south as it will allow for less grading and moving dirt and not affect water runoff.

White asked if he was retired and if he is the only one living at the residence. Carr stated he is employed.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:45 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Duckworth stated he doesn’t feel the applicant has met the 3 requirements for a variance, but feels the county board needs to address the older subdivisions and make some rules for them.

White stated she has a tough time with this based on variances that were given at the last meeting where they didn’t meet the hardship standard and feels the board needs some sort of consistency.

Vogt stated that he can see some argument for the uniqueness of it and feels it would be in the public interest to get the vehicles put in a garage and off the street. However, the lot was purchased when it didn’t meet the standards.

White asked how the Board views variances for road right-aways on Lake Redstone and the board has given variances for garages in that area. Duckworth said its case by case and you consider the standards and each member has to make up their own minds.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by White to deny the variance because the unique property limitation and unnecessary hardship have not been met.
Motion carried 5-0.

White stated the board needs to be consistent with these standards.

• Jeffrey and Charlotte Coleman (SP-23-06) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05B(2)(b)1 to authorize the operation of a stable, paddock and equestrian trail.

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.

White asked if this has a stable permit. Lorenz stated it does not, but one was applied for and that is how this request came to be.

Duckworth asked about the operation being located on a different site. Lorenz stated that was correct.

White asked about the outdoor arena and the rented facility is being used on inclement days. Lorenz suggested asking the applicant that question.

Jeff Coleman, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that for the last 4 years, his wife, who is an occupational therapist, she has 1 child an hour out for “hippotherapy” for autistic, down syndrome or physically handicapped children and use the horses to help them with their therapy and teach different learning skills and use the rented facility when it would rain.

Duckworth asked how the children were transported to the facility. Coleman stated mostly by the parents.

Duckworth asked about signage and if the facility will be used by others for riding or tourist kind of things. Coleman stated they were not planning on any signage and will not be used for anything other than the therapy uses.

Duckworth spoke of the Town approval and the conditions the Town has requested. Coleman stated that they are aware of the conditions and have no issues with them, and also spoke of the spring, summer and fall sessions with the children and how long they last.

White asked if they anticipate that schedule changing with the use of an indoor heated shed. Coleman stated that they would like to use it during the winter time, but because of school, the scheduling would be much lighter.

Duckworth asked how this would impact the neighborhood. Coleman stated he doesn’t feel it would impact them at all and has spoken to the neighbors and they are ok with that.

Duckworth asked what kind of additional services would the town or county have to provide. Coleman stated they shouldn’t have any.

Sprecher asked how large of an area do children come from. Coleman stated that they come from all over and is recommended by schools, other families, physicians, etc.

Joe Prem, appearing in favor of the request, stated he is the Town Chair for Franklin and both the Board and Plan Commission approved his request.

Duckworth asked if the town has had any complaints. Prem stated they have not.

Wernecke asked if this meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan. Prem stated it does.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:10 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the special exception permit, with conditions listed by Planning & Zoning and the conditions listed in Exhibit IV,1, as requested by the Town of Franklin.
Motion carried 5-0.

• Craig and Jamie Hubertz (SP-24-06) requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.8.08(3)(a)1 to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% for the construction of a detached garage.

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 about the last special exception permit that was approved and did they ask for the garage then. Lorenz stated they did not ask for the garage.

Wernecke asked if the location of the well can be shown. Lorenz explained.

Craig Hubertz, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, explained the background and history of the lot and the previous Board of Adjustment request.

Duckworth asked if it is the same excavator that was used before. Hubertz stated they will be using the same contractors.

Duckworth asked if the garage was going to be 2 stories. Hubertz explained that because of the slope, instead of filling in on the one side, it can be used for storage for lawn and garden equipment and patio furniture.

Duckworth asked what will be done with the spoils. Hubertz stated that most of it will be carried out, but some will be used for the construction of the retaining wall. He also explained the septic layout and the design and size of the garage to incorporate landscaping and a walkway/stairway, as part of the garage with a cover, and has been sized to stay within the minimum setback of the side yard. He also stated that this is the only available site for the garage.

Wernecke asked where the septic take out and the well are located. Hubertz showed the Board using Exhibit II,3.

Kathy Kolb, appearing as interest may appear, stated she is the neighbor that owns the outcropping that his house faces, and is concerned about the water runoff and what can be expected during construction and concerned with tree damage from roots that are located on the Hubertz property.

White asked how far her house is from this tree. Kolb stated she has 2 lots, and it is on the extra lot, but can’t tell you for sure and she just wants to keep the tree.

Craig Hubertz, reappearing, stated that during construction Zobel installs fabric dug in silt fence which will be located between the building site of the garage and the retaining wall that has been installed to protect the area where the holding tank is and afterwards there will be gutters and underground pipes to allow the water management to flow and keep on his own property, as well as a trench to maintain the water flow on his side of the lot line. He also said that he is actually lower than the neighbor’s property. He then addressed the tree issue and stated that the local board gave him a permit to install the drive and they have been on site and they have discussed leaving the drive gravel to help with water run off, but they also considered a blacktop drive, but would leave the area around the tree as gravel. He also stated that he would ask an arborist himself to see what would need to be done and what affects anything would have on the tree.

Vogt asked about Exhibit V, 1, picture 2, and the pine in question is the one shown in this picture and asked where the property line is. Hubertz explained where the lot line is using that photo.

Vogt asked about the other maple tree. Hubertz explained.

White asked about the width of the driveway on top. Hubertz stated that it is a construction driveway right now and explained that process and at the road it is between the two pipes that define the 12 feet clearance. He stated that some of the crusher run could naturally get kicked out as the construction vehicles use the drive, but he assured her that once things were done, they would remove the material that got kicked and the drive would be within the 12 foot allowed, all on his own property. He also said he would ask the contractor to respect the tree or put a fence around it or even put a fence on the lot line so the contractors don’t cross the lot line.

Vogt asked about the placement of the garage using Exhibit V,1. Hubertz explained and also mentioned that he has not cut down 1 tree since owning the property.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:50 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Wernecke asked Lorenz about the erosion control and no silt fence on the top portion of the property and asked if that is appropriate for the site and if he feels the same based on site visits. Lorenz stated up near the cul de sac, it is the lowest point on the road and there is already water runoff that comes down and impacts that area, so it may be wise to install silt fence to keep it from going to the neighbor property on the west.

Vogt spoke of the rock outcropping on the west side would prevent water going onto the adjacent property and it appears on the east side it is the same scenario and further towards the lake that has been addressed when the construction of the house was done. Lorenz confirmed that both the adjacent lots are at a higher elevation than this property.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the special exception permit requested, along with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion carried 5-0.

• James Fish (SP-25-06) requesting a variance pursuant to s.7.18(3)(b) and 8.06(1)(c)2 to authorize the construction of a detached garage within the minimum road setback.

Duckworth ruled that this is an area variance.

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.

James Fish, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the public interest and the arborvitae lining the road and feels that 80% of that garage will be screened from the neighbors and from the road. He then presented photos from neighboring properties on West Redstone (Exhibit VIII, 1) showing that the proposed building will not compromise the neighborhood. He addressed the unique property limitations and the slopes of the property and the hardship is that they would have to bring in a lot of fill to build the garage closer to the residence which will cause runoff to the lake.

Duckworth asked why the garage can’t be put where the split rail fences are located. Fish stated that the roof of the home sticks out considerably from the front door, about 30 feet, to where the split rail is.

Wernecke spoke of Exhibit II,3, and what prevents the garage being moved 27 feet closer to the house which would meet the setback.

Vogt asked about the measurements shown on the exhibit. Fish stated he will defer to his builder.

White asked how close the photos of additional garages are to his property. Fish stated they are within 5 or 6 residences and a couple others are just past Canary Court, but within a mile.

Sprecher asked if he appeared at the LaValle Town Board. Fish stated due to lack of experience, he did not.

Jon Baker, appearing in favor of the request, stated he is the contractor for the proposed garage.

Duckworth asked about the hardship moving the garage back away from the road. Baker talked of the slope and no way to retain the fill if they moved the garage back.

Vogt asked about the 40+ feet between where the garage is proposed and the house and asked why the garage can not be moved 27 feet to the north and you would not need the variance. Baker stated that the garage was staked out where they put it because of the existing drive and the location of all other garages in the area. He also spoke of talking to Ed Bodendein, Town Chair of LaValle.

Wernecke asked if the neighbors on either side of the property, do any of them have their garage within 63 feet to the road. Baker stated that there are homes within view of his driveway that have their garages much closer than 63 feet and that they didn’t research placing the garage somewhere else.

Vogt stated it would have helped if there were some topo information for out there that would have given more information than the photos.

James Fish, reappearing in favor, stated that both neighbors are well aware of the project and they have not had any negative feedback from either of them.

Dave Lorenz, reappearing. White asked about the ordinance and the averaging setback where other buildings located within a certain amount of space allows it. Lorenz also stated that Corporation Counsels opinion that when there is a discrepancy between ordinances, that the more strict ordinance applies.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 12:20 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Vogt stated that it appears the garage can be fit within the allowed setbacks if you move it closer to the house. Duckworth agrees and is uncertain if the distance measurements on Exhibit II,3 are correct, but the applicant feels they are correct and based on the information presented, there is room for the garage to be placed closer to the home and be compliant.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Vogt, to deny the variance request, based on the testimony given that the garage can be built without the need for a variance.
Motion carried 5-0.

David Wernecke has left the board at this time.

• Dean and Audrey Throndsen (SP-26-06) request a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.05(2)(k)20 to authorize the location of an agricultural related business.

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.

Amy Throndsen, applicant, appearing in favor of the requesting, stated that she is the daughter of the applicants who could not make it today and the family has gone to the Town for approval and explained that the business would not employee any others than family and there would be no retail sales.

Duckworth asked who buys this type of equipment. Throndsen stated that farm equipment dealers will purchase this equipment, not be sold to individual farmers.

Duckworth asked about signage. Throndsen stated she doesn’t believe there would be signage.

Sprecher asked if dealers come to them or if they deliver to dealers. Throndsen stated that they deliver to the dealers.

Duane Brooks, appearing in favor, stated he is the Chair for the Town of Dellona and that the Board supports the request unanimously. He also said he would be a neighboring land owner to the east and feels there would be no problem and if you don’t know where to look for the shed, you won’t ever see it.

Duckworth asked if he sees any problem with delivery of equipment blocking the road. Brooks stated he does not.

Pat O’Brien, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he is a real estate broker and the area is well wooded around the entire property and spoke of the loading area to unload the scrapers, and use the existing blacktop driveway and there will not be an issue with erosion.

Duckworth asked if this will have any negative effect on the neighboring properties. O’Brien stated he went around to all the neighbors and made sure they understood what was going on and they had no problem with it.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed this portion of the hearing at 12:40 p.m. and went into deliberation.

Duckworth clarified that the decision by the Board is only for having the business at the home and not for the loading and unloading near the road.

Motion by White, seconded by Duckworth to approve the request with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning and strike condition C and replace it with the the text that “this permit is not transferable.”
Motion carried 5-0.

The Board discussed directing Planning and Zoning what to do with EPI.

Duckworth stated that nothing is going on production wise, so he feels letting it stay tabled is fine.

Vogt stated there is nothing more to discuss unless they come back with more answers or withdraw

White stated it is not fair to close out the process before they are ready to do anything.

The Board adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted: Halsey Sprecher, Secretary