DATE: October 26, 2006
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Halsey Sprecher Richard Vogt Robert Roloff David Wernecke, Alternate
ABSENT: Linda White
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin Dave LorenzLance 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 9:04 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 Roloff.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the October 26, 2006, session of the
Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by Wernecke.
Motion carried
4-0.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher to adopt the August 24, 2006 minutes.
Motion
carried 3-0, with Roloff and Wernecke abstaining.
Lorenz stated he received 1 phone call regarding the variance for the deck and stated they were neighbors and were opposed to the granting of a variance that close to a property line.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Evelyn Propp SP-33-06, tabled by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2006.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Sprecher to remove SP-33-06 from the
table.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Vogt to discontinue the hearing of this case as the Board of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction over this case and wishes to have the filing fee returned to the applicant, as they should have been advised that they did not need to appeal to the Board. Motion carried 5-0.
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.
Duckworth asked what the Town Board had to say about the appeal. Lorenz referred to the letter from the Town located in the Board’s packet.
Wernecke asked about ditch plugs and the bulk of the water should be captured by the sediment basis and if the overflow goes into the wetland areas. Lorenz explained that there are two overflow spillways and confirmed that it does eventually go towards and into the wetlands.
Gary Woolever, agent for the applicant, appearing in favor of the request.
Duckworth asked how this project got built before they came to see the Board. Woolever stated that there were several engineering firms involved and explained the background of the project and the involvement of the firms as well as working with the DNR and Sauk County. He stated that the 3 wetlands scrapes are not constructed at this time, however they will use that material to put in the ditch plugs. Much of the area will revert back to wetlands once the plugs are put in. He also stated that the owners worked with an engineering firm out of Madison on the subdivision itself.
Duckworth asked what negative impact this will have on the neighbors. Woolever stated it should not have any affect on the neighbors because of the level spreaders dispersing over the broader flat wetland area.
Wernecke asked how they came to choose the site where it is. Woolever stated that because of the original design having it there, they just used that and expanded on it.
Vogt asked if there is a provision for cleaning the sediment trap out periodically. Woolever stated it is up to the owner to maintain that through the residential lots and it is designed to take the next phase as well and once all the lots are built out, the sediment trap will go away. It is set up as a temporary thing. The City will then have to maintain it if the land is annexed.
Vogt asked about the area west of County Road K and asked if that was wetland. Woolever confirmed that it is not a wetland area and is the area that was agreed upon to be used as future multi-family residential.
Mr. Jed Seidel, appearing as interest may appear, stated he has the property right across from the detention pond and future housing. He stated that he was given the impression that all permits were taken care of and with a substantial project like this, what is to be done. He feels the Board has to rule in favor because if they deny it and make him to tear it out. He also spoke of the wetland area on his own property and feels that this project is going to affect the wetlands. He also questioned the future proposed multi family housing and asked about the parking lots, the slabs, etc., and who is researching how that is going to affect the wetlands.
Duckworth asked if his lands have been delineated as wetlands. Seidel stated the back ¼ of his property has been delineated as wetlands and explained that he can’t even mow the grass. He questions how the project across the road can take place when he can’t even mow his grass and questions their ability to explain what future impacts could be.
Roloff stated he hears his frustration and asked if he could suggest a remedy. Seidel stated he wished this meeting would have taken place before the project took place and feels a neutral party outside of the applicant determines the impact of the project before it goes any future.
Duckworth asked if he has spoken to the DNR. Seidel stated he has and the warden was under the impression that they had done a study and was also under the impression that the entire project had already been approved.
Wernecke stated that this project did get various DNR permits and the hearing today is for the placement of the project within the setback of the highways, not an impact statement. Seidel stated he understands this and asked if the Board can allow this to continue to take place.
Lance Gurney, Director of Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, stated that this project is a lack of communication between City and County Government and who jurisdiction applies. He gave the background of the project, the plat, the storm-water plans, however the City fails to recognize that this is a Shoreland-Wetland jurisdiction issue. He also stated that it was the Town Chair who called to complain about the project and asked the County to inspect, and noted that the Department issued citations on the project, full engineering plans have been submitted and reviewed and approved by the County Engineer.
Roloff asked who’s responsibility is it to maintain the basis. Gurney stated that it is the developers responsibility, however the County and the City will review to make sure it is being taken care of. He also confirmed that the City plans on annexing the property.
Vogt asked if the DNR permits were issued prior to all of this. Gurney stated that there were a certain number of permits issued early on, however the ones that were not issued were for the stormwater detention basin itself, but they are issued now.
Roloff asked what the purpose of the 3 wetland scrapes are. Gurney stated he can’t answer that.
Wernecke stated that they have to use the fill for the plugs that would come from the wetland scrapes. He also asked about the communications with the City of Reedsburg and if things will improve because of this. Gurney stated that he has had several conversations with the City. He also spoke of the lack of clarity that the legislature has provided on who has jurisdiction on certain projects.
Duckworth asked about the delineations and if the DNR reviews them. Gurney stated the DNR does review the wetland delineations.
Gary Woolever, reappearing in favor, stated that the wetlands that were delineated, other than the 3 drainage ditches are considerable further west than the property owned by the neighbor speaking in opposition. He stated that the intent with the wildlife scrapes was to put the plugs in the 3 drainages areas was to help restore the wetlands in the other fields.
Vogt referring to Exhibit II,5, asked about the line that runs north and south and shows designated wetlands and then goes west by the ditch plugs near the 100 year floodplain and asked if that is the delineation that was done. Woolever explained where the wetland boundary is and where the new assumed wetland boundary will be once the ditch plugs are put in.
Mr. Jed Seidel, reappearing as interest may appear, asked if it is possible for him to get copies of photos, property lines, etc., and stated that Planning & Zoning is a part of Sauk County asked why Planning & Zoning was brought on board with the project, shouldn’t the Board be notified of the project. Duckworth explained the notification process of the Board.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, acting Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:50 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
The Board reviewed the request for the pond and the wetland scrapes. Duckworth stated it is a typical project that they approve once they get the wetlands delineated by the experts in the field and asked if this is going to hurt Hay Creek or Mittlesteadt Drive.
Roloff was concerned with the timing and sequence of the project. Duckworth stated that if the outcome of the project does not meet the intent of the County ordinances then the Board can deny it, however, he hears no testimony that the project will injure the shoreline of Hay Creek or the Road. Roloff agreed that no such testimony was given.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Wernecke, to approve the request for the
special exception permits, with the Planning and Zoning conditions.
Motion
carried 5-0.
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.
Lawrence Pinger, application, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the project is a land reclamation project, its an idea spot for the pond to be built and the pond will be excavated into the ground and a small dam will be built. He also stated that he has spoken with and working with Brent from the Land Conservation Department and has done everything asked of him and received verbal ok’s from the neighbor who owns property across the road and the other adjacent neighbor.
Duckworth asked if the plans the Board received are the same plans that were given to the Town of Spring Green. Pinger stated they are the same and the only thing he would like is to maybe make it a little deeper, not any larger that would move it closer to the road.
Duckworth asked how this will negatively affect the road. Pinger stated that if the pond is built in compliance with what the ordinance states the dam would have to be built higher that would cause a negative impact, however, since the location that is proposed is closer to the road the dam can be built smaller and will not negatively impact anything.
Wernecke asked about the spring and the affects of water coming down towards the road. Pinger explained how the spring flows and that the pipe would divert the water to the same location so the flow would be less towards the road or the same as it is now.
Roloff asked if the watershed is upstream from the proposed pond. Pinger stated that it is all grassland and eventually plans to take the barnyard and create more of a swale so the water comes in front of the shed instead of behind it.
Vogt asked if this had to be taken to DNR for dam plan approval. Pinger stated that when he went to Brent with the Land Conservation Office, he met with the DNR on the site and it was determined that there was nothing they needed to permit.
Vogt stated if there is no plan approval from the DNR, it is not considered a dam. Pinger stated that when he spoke with Brent, the DNR representative stated it was fine.
Vogt asked how big the culvert is under the road. Pinger stated he isn’t sure, maybe about 18 inches. He also spoke of the lining in the pond.
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.
The Board discussed the pond request. Vogt stated that he does not see any issues with the project, it has been designed by the County Land Conservation Department.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the special exception
permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.
Motion
carried 5-0.
The Board recessed.
The Board reconvened at 10:19.
Chair 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.
Duckworth asked that they need a special exception permit for the kennel and a variance to be located within a 1000 feet to the neighbor. Lorenz stated that is correct.
Vogt asked if this is already in use. Lorenz stated it does exist currently and was not brought to the Departments attention by a complaint, but merely from a newspaper ad.
Theresa Bindl, applicant, appearing in favor of the request.
Duckworth explained to Bindl the requirements of the variance that must be proven with her testimony.
Bindl stated that their property was once a complete farm and split in half. She stated that they purchased the property in 1999 from that owner. She stated that her unique hardship is that the rest of the property is located in the floodplain and they could not build any structures anywhere else, so any place they would put the buildings would locate them within 1000 feet of any neighbor. She also spoke of the business and that they were unaware that they needed a special permit.
Duckworth stated she has run the kennel for a number of years with the knowledge of the Spring Green Town Board because they are licensed. Bindl stated that is correct.
Bindl asked where the distances are measured from. Bindl stated the measurement was made from the Barn. She stated that the main kennel is behind the barn and confirmed that there are 2 neighbors within 1000 feet. She then presented a letter from Peggy Algren, the neighbor within 1000 feet stating she has no opposition to the request.
Duckworth confirmed that there is a letter from the other property owner within 1000 feet located in the packet. He also asked if they have ever been contacted by the Town Board regarding complaints.
Bindl continued to explain that they talk to the neighbors regularly and have never had a complaint.
Duckworth asked about the conditions listed by the Town and if she agrees to them. Bindl stated the conditions are fine. She then spoke of the hardship and not being able to build a kennel anywhere on the property because of the floodplain, which is why they choose to use the existing buildings located at the site.
Duckworth asked how long the kennels have existed. Bindl stated they have had the property for 7 years, but the kennels have been there for 3 years.
Roloff asked about the Spring Green Plan Commission put in a condition that the number of dogs does not increase. Bindl stated she is fine with that. She has 24 adult dogs, not including puppies, and that number is more than enough.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:35 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
The Board discussed the variance first. Public interest protect – support from the Town Board and Planning Commission, as well as letters from the neighbors waiving their protecting in writing. Unique property limitations – rural property with neighbors on 3 sides of it. Unnecessary Hardship – Duckworth feels this project has jumped through the hoops and the neighbors waived their protection in writing.
Wernecke stated that he feels if the include the conditions that the Town did and by not transferring it to another owner, the management plan can carry on the same as it has in the past which the neighbors are used to.
Duckworth stated he would have a different opinion if the neighbors were here asking for their rights to be protected by the County Ordinance.
Sprecher stated he finds it difficult to say no to this considering they have been operating without issue.
Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request for
the variance and the special exception permit, as it has been shown that
public interest is protected, unique property limitation is that they neighbors
have waived their right for protection, and the unnecessary hardship has
been shown in that the kennel has been operating successfully without issue,
has the support of the Town and the neighbors and it would be a hardship
to make them discontinue their operation. The approval is with the conditions
listed by Planning & Zoning and the conditions listed by the Town of
Spring Green and Spring Green Planning Commission and per the testimony
given the number of adult dogs on site does not exceed 24.
Motion
carried 5-0.
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.
Wernecke asked about the layout of the interior of the house. Lorenz stated he does not have one.
Vogt asked about the existing deck and steps which lead to the entrances and the ramp and deck leading to the new patio doors. Lorenz confirmed.
Roloff, referring to Exhibit IV,2, letter from Town of Merrimac, they recommend to the Board of Adjustment to deny the request and asked if there was any additional information from the Town Board. Lorenz stated all they had was the Exhibit.
Vogt asked about the phone call referred to in the communications part of the hearing. Lorenz explained.
Duckworth asked if the Town provided the acknowledgement form. Lorenz stated it was signed by the Town Chair, but have not received anything else from them.
Duckworth asked if this would be a legal non-conforming structure. Lorenz stated he felt the house pre-dates the ordinance and could not find any permits on it. Duckworth asked if the addition was permitted. Lorenz stated it was not.
Roloff asked about the drawing and scale. Lorenz explained.
Vogt asked about lot 9 and if there was a house there. Lorenz stated there is a small cottage there, but doesn’t appear to be occupied. Vogt asked if it is a similar size lot. Lorenz stated it is.
Duckworth ruled that the variance request would be for an area variance.
Edmund Orlowski, application, appearing in favor of the request, presented Exhibit VIII,1 a letter from neighbors in support of his request. He also stated that the reasons for putting the deck in place include that there was only 1 entrance/exit into the building, the second reason is that he has two large dogs, and one can not take the stairs any longer, so the only way to get him into the house is to get a ramp built. Prior to building the deck, he contacted the owners of lot 9 and they told him they were ok with him building a ramp that close to the lot line. He stated that he did not get a permit, but that is based on ignorance on his part.
Duckworth asked why the ramp can’t be put on the other deck. Orlowski stated that the stairs are steep and right next to the stairs there is a large tree and would have to remove or damage the tree to make the ramp useable, not as steep. If he extended the ramp out, he would run into his septic system.
Vogt stated that there are stairs and the start of the deck right where the tree is, so instead of the stairs, why can’t you have a ramp. Orlowski stated that he would have had to bring the ramp in a zig zag pattern so that it would not be so steep.
Wernecke asked why you couldn’t bring it the same direction back to change the angle. Orlowski stated that he doesn’t know and he might have been able to do that, but he was afraid to damage the roots of the tree.
Duckworth asked how long he has owned the house. Orlowski stated he purchased in 2005, but did not take occupancy until April 2006.
Wernecke asked if he submitted a floor plan. Orlowski submitted them as Exhibit IX,1.
Vogt asked where the entrance to the house is now. Orlowski stated it is on the lake side on the existing deck.
Duckworth asked if that was the only entrance to the house when it was purchased. Orlowski stated that was correct. Duckworth also stated he is having a difficult time seeing why a ramp couldn’t be made where the existing steps are.
Vogt confirmed that it is not a handicap ramp other than for the dogs. Orlowski stated that he felt he might run into his septic.
Duckworth confirmed that he is worried about the drainpipe that comes out of the house and not the septic itself. Orlowski stated that is correct.
Wernecke asked where the original stairs are, is there equipment or storage area underneath the house. Orlowski stated there is junk underneath there.
Vogt stated from the ground to the elevation of the floor of the deck is 5 feet. Orlowski feels it is a little taller than that, but can’t say for sure.
Vogt asked how long the original deck has been on the house. Orlowski stated he does not know as it was there when he purchased the home.
Duckworth asked if they require building permits in Illinois. Orlowski stated they do require permits and property in Northern Wisconsin didn’t require permits and he just felt it carried through.
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.
Roloff stated he doesn’t feel this request for a variance meets any of the 3 criteria, there was no hardship presented, there are no unique property limitations and feels it would be against public interest.
Duckworth stated he agrees and wonders if the lot next door could be purchased to increase the lot size.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Duckworth, to deny the request based on
there being no testimony proving that the request met the 3 criteria for
a variance to be approved.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Robert Roloff, Secretary