SAUK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 23, 2007 Session of the Board
PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair
Richard Vogt , Vice Chair
Halsey Sprecher
Linda White
Dave Wernecke
ABSENT: Robert Roloff
STAFF PRESENT: Dave Lorenz
Gina Templin
Mark Steward
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 White, seconded by Sprecher. Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the August 23, 2007 session of the Board on a Motion by Wernecke, seconded by Vogt. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by White, seconded by Vogt to adopt the June 28, 2007 minutes. Motion carried 4-0 with Duckworth abstaining.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None to report.
APPEALS:
A. Steve Blakeslee, LL JBP, LLC, (SP-28-07), requesting a special exception permit pursuant to s.7.09(2)(b)21 to authorize the construction of a pond less than 110 feet from a road or property line, located in a Commercial District.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental & Zoning Technician, appeared and gave the history and background of the request and the property, and concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions if the special exception permit is to be approved.
Vogt asked about wetlands or a drainage culvert that goes under highway 33. Lorenz stated he did not see any wetlands, and there is a drainage culvert located under highway 33 and 58.
Wernecke asked about the location of the storm retention structures, how close are they to the existing power lines and what affect will it have on that. Lorenz stated he believe that the structures would not be around the power lines and you can see by the video the day he was out there it was wet and there was no standing water at either locations.
Steve Blakeslee, Applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that this is a parcel that was granted a spec for a contractor storage yard and it is zoned commercial and their intent in the future is to build a building on the lower part of the parcel and know that storm water retention will be required. He also stated that in the last flood there was 5.6 inches of rain in the area, and there was no water in the culvert under the main highway. He also spoke of permits from the DNR for another culvert to cross the valley.
Duckworth asked how this will affect the roads in the area. Blakeslee stated it will not affect the roads. Duckworth asked if he has talked to the town board. Blakeslee stated he has.
Duckworth asked about the question about the power lines and easements. Blakeslee stated he will not be in any easements and they are all located and will be sure to stay out of them. He then spoke of how the storm water retention structures will be built.
White asked where the material will go that is being removed. Blakeslee stated that it will be stored in the contractor storage yard site on the adjacent parcel.
White asked about the dirt being removed. Blakeslee stated it will be removed.
Wernecke asked about when the development of the commercial site will begin. Blakeslee stated that the permit process is slow, so most likely within the next couple of year.
Wernecke asked about a proposed shed and parking or drive area. Blakeslee stated that was a drawing that was presented to the Town of LaValle and is not exactly what they are going to do, but what they used to meet with the town.
Wernecke asked if you do something similar to that plan, how much area will be disturbed. Blakeslee stated that the lifts for these buildings are already graded and will probably disturb about an acre or an acre and a half.
Wernecke asked about the state standards for storm water retention. Blakeslee stated that the upper one will most likely exceed the state standards.
Vogt asked if someone is doing the design for the pond. Blakeslee stated he designed it himself and spoke of his brother being an architect and Zobels doing the work.
Vogt asked if this project goes through the DNR. Blakeslee stated that the crossing will have to be permitted by the DNR.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth, closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:20 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
Vogt stated he does not see anything that he would have concerns about based on the testimony given.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to approve the special exception permit for the construction of a pond less than 110 feet from a road or property line with the conditions recommended by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Dale & Deb Fingerhut, (SP-29-07), requesting the granting of a variance pursuant to s.7.18(3)(b) to authorize the construction of a family room addition on an existing residence within the minimum road setback.
Chair Duckworth advised the Board that this request would be considered a request for an area variance.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental and Zoning Technician, appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site. Lorenz concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.
White asked how far the house is from the septic tank. Lorenz stated on Exhibit IV,4, it shows that at that time it was approximately 40 feet from the septic tank to the building, but he is unsure if that is to the house or the other building. He reminded the board the minimum setback is 5 feet.
Duckworth asked if the house is non- conforming. Lorenz stated that if you measure to the deck, it is non-conforming, however we do not have a permit for the deck, but if you measure from the house, it would be conforming.
Duckworth asked how they received a permit for a garage if the house is non-conforming. Lorenz explained the permitting process and the ability to permit the garage being that it was not making the house more non-conforming and it met the setback.
Duckworth stated that on the permit the setback from road was left empty, yet approved.
Dale Fingerhut, Applicant, appearing in favor of the request.
Duckworth reminded the applicant of the requirements of showing no harm to public interest, unique physical limitations of the property and unnecessary hardship.
Fingerhut spoke of his two children at age 5 and 7 years old and they need more space and would like to have the room to entertain themselves versus being with the kids. He also spoke of the proposed addition being set back further from the road than the corn crib and doesn't feel it will impact the view on the road there at all. He then spoke of where the well and septic is located, as well as the laundry room and entrance to the house being located and presented photos Exhibit VII,1-4.
Duckworth asked about the unique physical limitations of the property. Fingerhut stated he is unsure how to address this.
Duckworth asked why the family room was not put where the garage is being built. Fingerhut stated that because of the current layout of the house now, it was just easier.
White asked if you stayed at 12 feet or less, you would be located out of the right of way from the road. Fingerhut stated that is correct, however they want to go bigger so that they can put a sectional and big entertainment center in that room, so they need to go larger.
White asked when the deck was built. Fingerhut stated that his dad put it on about 30 years ago.
Vogt asked if there are 3 bedrooms upstairs. Fingerhut stated that there are 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom upstairs. Vogt confirmed that this addition is only for recreation purposes only. Fingerhut stated that is correct, it will be used for a reek-room.
Duckworth asked if there were any other items in the variance requirements that he would like to speak about. Fingerhut stated there were not.
Joe Prem, appearing in favor of the request, presented Exhibit IX, 1 a letter from the Town of Franklin in favor of the request. He also spoke of the comprehensive plan asking for rural character and asked that they take into consideration the standards set by the different townships and not just the state law and spoke of the size of the addition. He also stated that the house was there prior to the town roads being put in.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:45 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.
White stated that the request does not meet the hardship or the unique property limitations. The property can be used as a residence, as its been used in the past, there is more than 25 feet between the septic tank and house, allowing you to build on another side of the house. She also stated that she is the Chair on the comprehensive plan and have been told very specifically that they can be more restrictive than state law, but not less.
Vogt stated that the rural character issue discussed is somewhat not applicable here, as a12 foot smaller addition could be built in the location requested, meeting setbacks and still maintain the rural character of the area.
Duckworth stated that he has a problem when you can't build in one direction then all of a sudden you are building a garage in that direction. He also stated there are no unique physical limitations of the property and there are many properties similar to this with structures and homes within the setback of the town road. He is finding it difficult to see where this property meets any of the 3 criteria.
Wernecke stated that looking at the interior layout of the house, it makes sense that this is the easy way to go, but setbacks are setbacks and doesn't feel that just because the corn crib is a nonconforming use, you should build an additional nonconforming use.
White explained to the owner that if the corncrib blew down or fell down, it would be required to meet the road setbacks at that point.
Motion by White, seconded by Duckworth, to deny the variance requested to authorize the construction of a family room addition on an existing residence within the minimum road setback, as there was no testimony showing hardship because the property could continue to be used as a residence and the addition could be built in a different location, complying with all setback regulations, or even downsized to fit in that location, meeting the road setback criteria, no unique physical limitations of the property, as testimony showed that many older farm residences are located in similar areas near the road. The Board felt that public safety would not be harmed whether or not the variance was granted. Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adjourned at 10:00.p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Roloff
Secretary