December 21, 2006 Session of the Board
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair Halsey Sprecher Robert Roloff Linda White David Wernecke, Alternate
ABSENT: Richard Vogt
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 9:04 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
Roloff seconded by Sprecher.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the December 21, 2006, session of the
Board on a Motion by White, seconded by Wernecke.
Motion carried
5-0.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by White to adopt the November 2006 minutes.
Motion
carried 3-0, with Duckworth and Wernecke abstaining.
None to report.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff to approve the dates for the 2007
Board of Adjustment hearings as presented by Planning & Zoning staff.
Motion
carried 5-0.
APPEALS:
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.
Roloff questioned the ownership as stated on the legal notice and what was read by staff for the public hearing. Lorenz explained that the applicant has since closed on the property since the posting and they are now the current owners.
Wernecke asked if this request is considered a lodging house and if the staff consider a lodging house as a cottage industry. Lorenz stated that it does not specifically suggest that a lodging house is a cottage industry, but after working with the town and not wanting to rezone the property and keep the farm in tact, this was what was suggested.
Duckworth stated that the wording between a bed and breakfast and lodging houses are very much the same and asked if they will have to abide by state and county rules similar to that of lodging houses. Lorenz stated they would.
Brenda Kozlowski, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they intend to do a short term rental, which could mean weekly or just weekend and have contacted someone from First Weber who does relocation consulting for people who are relocating to the area and would need short term living arrangements for something like 3 months or so. They are seeking this permit because at this time they are trying to keep their options open, but realize they need a permit. She also stated that she doesn’t feel they will affect the neighbors, as the closest one is probably about a ¼ mile from the house and the majority of the land is work land and in ag property.
Duckworth asked if they are planning on handling the rental process themselves or contract it out. Kozlowski stated that they are currently planning on handling it themselves. She also stated that they are getting help from their attorney as far as rental contracts, etc.
White asked if this will be rented as a furnished home. Kozlowski stated it will be furnished.
Sprecher asked if any activities will be planned to draw people in. Kozlowski stated that there is enough around the Reedsburg area to draw the people to the area and they will rely on that.
Sprecher asked about the buildings to be used and if persons will be around the property. Kozlowski stated that they will use the pasture land for cows, but fences and padlocks need to be updated for liability.
White asked how far away their home is from this farm. Kozlowski stated their home is about a mile.
Wernecke stated that the application stated they intended to rent for days/weeks and testimony now states it could be up to 3 months. Kozlowski stated that since the application was made, they have closed on the property and the intent is still very much up in the air, but wanted to have the permit in place that would give them the option for short term rental.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, acting Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:20 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
White stated this wouldn’t be typical cottage industry as the owner would be living on the site and it doesn’t comply with the ordinance (White read the ordinance pertaining the residential use of the premise).
Duckworth stated that when he read the ordinance pertaining to cottage industry and lodging houses and viewed the wording to be very much the same, he decided that short term rental property such as this would fit under the cottage industry standard. He stated that he feels this is a judgment call on the Boards part.
Wernecke stated that he feels this is not a conflict with the intent of the district the property is located in.
White asked if this was going to create something in Exclusive Ag that they are not looking for and will it set precedence for someone out of the area looking to run a cottage industry where they don’t live.
Duckworth stated that it appears it is an allowed use even though it is not quite spelled out.
White asked how this does not set precedence for someone who lives out of Town to come into the area and apply for a lodging house. She also stated that she feels this is going to open up Exclusive Ag to things that it was not intended for and don’t believe this is in the best interest of the district.
Wernecke stated that he would also like to have a clear statement or a clarification built into the ordinance so that the issue of lodging houses is dealt with in some way in the zoning district.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff, to approve the request for the
special exception permits, with the Planning and Zoning conditions.
Motion
carried 3-2 with White and Duckworth in opposition.
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 reviewed the ordinance in reference to screening of a contractor storage yard. Roloff also stated that that was a condition from the Town Board as well.
Wernecke asked that based on the viewing of the site, is this site able to be screened in a way that residences and travelers would not be able to see through to the property. Lorenz spoke of the requirements of what the ordinance requested and stated that if the property was screened in the way that the ordinance calls for, it would successfully be screened.
White asked about the residence on Hwy 58 on the hillside and asked if it could be screened effectively from their property. Lorenz stated that could be an issue.
Steve Blakeslee, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that over the past 10 years there has been a stock pile area operated at this site and spoke of the other landscaping areas on Highway 33 and the stockpile and shed that the County Highway Department has. He also stated that the erosion control is already in place and he is the owner of the land immediately to the south and is zoned commercial.
White asked if anything other than dirt has ever been stored at the site. Blakeslee stated that the land to the south is zoned commercial and they have a permit from the Town of LaValle to store machinery and build a building. He also stated that he planted 4 year old Spruce that he took from another site that is planted on that site and he spoke of the screening plan which was submitted to the Board.
White asked if he owns the house the is in view of the site. Blakeslee stated he does not. White stated that in order to comply with the ordinance, you would be required to screen this site from that house, which is at least 20 feet. Blakeslee stated that is correct.
Duckworth asked about the other piece of the property that is zoned commercial and if that is located in the Village of LaValle. Blakeslee stated it is located in the Town and 10 acres of this parcel is zoned commercial.
Roloff stated that in Section 7.04 they talk about screening and in (6)b, it talks about grown or maintained to a height of not less than 15 feet. He asked about the screening to shield it from Highway 58, the plan does not include screening around to Sefkar road. Blakeslee said he didn’t include that because he would be screening his stockpile from another stockpile and doesn’t think he should have to since they don’t have a permit either. He did say that he would be willing to go along with whatever is necessary.
White referred to a photo and asked if that is the trees that he already has planted. Blakeslee stated that the photo does accurately show the trees located on the site.
Wernecke asked if it is his intent to only store stockpile and gravel on the site. Blakeslee stated that the would only store black dirt and sand and occasionally washed stone, no equipment or building materials. This is strictly sand and topsoil.
Wernecke asked about the screening and the trees shall be of a number and so arranged that within 10 years they will resemble a solid wall and not less than 50 feet and asked if he would be willing to follow these guidelines. Blakeslee stated he would be able to follow them at the site in question. He stated he will add at least 5 or 6 rows to get the adequate screening.
White asked that if you can get a contractor storage yard it will prevent from coming back for temporary permits. Blakeslee stated that is correct and this will prevent him from being considered in non-metallic mining and doesn’t feel that he has to keep spending money to come back here and then if you don’t do what you are told to do or follow the rules, they can stop you in your tracks and doesn’t feel that is right.
Wernecke stated that the point of the 5 year permit is not to extract more money but to make sure that the applicants follow the plans they submit.
White asked if you could get your stockpiling permit for longer than 3 years would you need this. Blakeslee stated he feels that this is the only way to go.
White stated her issue is that this property has to be screened from all houses and questions the ability for this site to be screened from the house. Blakeslee stated he has 10 years to provide the screening.
White asked if he has spoke to the adjacent neighbors. Blakeslee stated he has not, but that he has gone to the Town Board and received approval.
White asked where most of the material comes from. Blakeslee stated it depends, it can come from anywhere such as ditch digging, road projects, etc.
White asked when he anticipates putting up the building. Blakeslee stated he is not sure, might be next year or the year after.
Wernecke spoke of the tax parcel just to the east of the property that doesn’t have a residence. Blakeslee explained that through this property is a large, high pressure gas line that feeds the northern part of the State, and has a 40 foot easement on it that goes right up through the middle of this property and is owned by a telecommunication company and the 1 acre parcel that Wernecke is speaking of is owned by them.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:03 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Wernecke asked that only soil, gravel and other fill material be placed at the site. No equipment or items that contractor storage yards have will not be allowed.
White asked that no equipment other than that equipment directly related to moving the fill on that site is allowed. Wernecke does not agree.
White asked if the Board believes the screening can be complete in 10 years that effectively screens the property. Roloff stated he does not know.
Duckworth asked if the site is grandfathered in and can’t see approving a contractor storage yard and telling them they can not store equipment.
Lorenz stated it has been permitted under a mineral extraction permit, as the stockpiling of material is considered an mining activity, as opposed to rezoning it or having a special exception permit for a contractor storage yard.
The Board also speaks of rezoning to Commercial or the intent to screen from one house onto a hill.
White stated she feels she should vote for it that it is a 5 year permit and if the screening can not fit for the house, that instead of coming back for another permit, that they seek out commercial zoning versus the special exception permit. Wernecke agrees.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the special exception
permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning, in addition
to the language in Section 7.05(2)(l)2 that relates to contractor storage
yard screening, which is also spelled out in Section 7.04, which would
address the concern of the Town of LaValle in their letter of support.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board recessed for 5 minutes.
Chair Duckworth ruled that the request for each separate variance request will all be for area variances.
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 averaging and if it would be used. Lorenz stated you could not use averaging and explained.
Duckworth asked about the survey. Lorenz spoke of the meander line and survey tool that is used on shoreland properties and explained what it is used for.
Roloff asked about the structure that is located on the survey and if that is the existing structure or proposed structure. Lorenz stated that on page 5 is the proposed structure, page 1 is the existing structure and explained that the side yard setback variance is needed because you need an aggregate setback of 25 feet, which they do not have.
White asked if they ran the house parallel to the property lines would they meet that requirement. Lorenz stated they could meet the requirement if they changed the layout of the house.
Wernecke asked about Chapter 7 side yard setbacks. Lorenz explained that we are dealing with Chapter 8, as we do not have zoning jurisdiction in Merrimac where Chapter 7 would be used.
Daniel Winz, agent and son of applicant, representing the applicant, appearing in favor. Duckworth explained to the applicant the requirements he must prove to qualify for each variance requested.
Winz stated that the side variance, even though they are not technically making it, they are making it. They could make it work, but they want the house to face the lake, versus facing the neighbor’s house. He stated that the house is falling down and they are trying to see what they can do with the property and it needs some work from the roof to the plumbing. He also spoke of a loft area and having the home have 2 stories. He addressed the hardship and stated that the property can’t be used as it was intended in the state that it is in and feels that he is putting a better structure back onto the property. He also stated that he is the neighbor to the west and have no problem with the request. He said that he has 4 brothers and sisters and they would all like a bedroom and all like a bathroom and does not know how to prove a hardship and just feels that a lot of people in the area would be interested in the outcome of this because they are in a similar situation.
Duckworth asked about the 3 requirements for a variance. Winz stated that the setbacks are an unrealistic number for setbacks.
Duckworth asked about the size of the lot. Winz stated that several properties around Lake Wisconsin are like this. He also spoke of properties annexing into the Village. He doesn’t feel there is no real answer for the variance questions.
The board recessed for 5 minutes so the applicant and agent could confer.
The board reconvened.
Winz stated that the reason they are requesting the variance is that they have no room to build within the guidelines the ordinance set out. He stated that if they can’t do anything, then they will work with the house they have. The applicant wants to build a home for his parents’ retirement.
Kathy Prescott, appearing in favor of the request, stated that no one is compliant and it is the oldest subdivision in Sauk County and the existing lots do not meet any of the newer regulations. She stated they are all in the same boat. If they are not able to replace what they have to get something better, she feels that is a hardship. She also spoke of average house values.
Martha Chandler, appearing in favor of the request, stated that they own property in that area as well and feels the hardship is that all the property owners who have the small substandard lots and cottages can’t do anything with them. Who would want to buy a lot that they can’t do anything with. She sympathizes and wants to support the applicant, as they would like the opportunity to be able to do the same.
Duckworth asked how this property is unique from the neighboring properties. Chandler stated there is very little unique about this property from all the surrounding properties.
Max Winz, applicant, appearing in favor of the request.
Duckworth explained the requirements that must be shown for all the variances to be approved.
M. Winz stated that there are restrictions that are impossible to meet if they remove the house they have on the lot. He stated that if they have to, they can build up something that they can enjoy through retirement on the home that is already there. He stated there was a house there when they bought it and room for it when they bought it, but just want to clean the place up. He feels building a new house would improve the neighborhood. He feels the hardship is that he can’t meet the criteria for a variance.
Carl Chandler, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the notice was sent to the wrong address, their street address, rather than their post office box. He stated he feels the board should approve what they want to do.
Duckworth asked if any of the requirements for a variance could be addressed. Chandler stated all of these already have been addressed and the Board should know how they feel about this.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:00 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Duckworth spoke of the 4 variances being requested and stated he has not heard any arguments of the 3 items that the State Supreme Court requires them to be considered for the variance. He also spoke of the rights to repair homes on substandard lots, but not the ability to rebuild them.
White stated that we have a Town Acknowledgement form from Merrimac, but has anything else been received. Lorenz stated there is not.
Duckworth stated they could be annexed into the Village or if the Sauk County board decides that they want to do something with this, but they have been reluctant to deal with these small lots over the years.
Roloff stated that he feels they are pretty much in a position where they have to try to fix the property in the best manner they can which is allowed by law and doesn’t see the ability to grant a variance.
White spoke of the hardship requirement and the Board be restricted by the letter of the law and agrees that it would be a great thing for the neighborhood, but the lot is not unique either. The best recourse is to maybe talk to neighbors and get everyone annexed into the Village.
Motion by White, seconded by Duckworth, to deny the request based on no
requirements for a variance have been shown.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: Robert Roloff, Secretary