Board of Adjustment

DATE: September 27, 2007

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair

Robert Roloff Halsey Sprecher Linda White

Dave Wernecke

ABSENT: Richard Vogt

STAFF PRESENT: Matt Bremer

Gina Templin

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 Roloff. Motion carried 5-0.

The Board adopted the agenda for the September 27, 2007 session of the Board on a Motion by White, seconded by Wernecke. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by White, seconded by Wernecke to adopt the August, 2007 minutes. Motion carried 4-0 with Roloff abstaining.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Wernecke stated that he verified a conflict of interest for him to be part of the Board during the SP-31-07 hearing and will remove himself from that case.

APPEALS:

A. Anna Pawlik (SP-30-07), a special exception permit to allow for filling and grading on slopes greater than 20% within a shoreland protection district, Town of Merrimac .

Matt Bremer 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.

Duckworth asked when owners come in for permits to build on lots like this, are they informed that they have these special requirements. Bremer stated this permit was applied for after the fact.

Wernecke asked how it was discovered that the home was started prior to permits. Bremer stated he believes this case was turned in by the neighbor once the ground was opened up.

White asked how they received a septic permit. Bremer stated that the permits were issued after the site was already opened up. White asked if this is a case of issuing the permit based on a plot plan. Bremer stated this is correct.

Sprecher asked about the stress on the erosion fences and if this is because the water is directed there by the building or if it is naturally flowing through there. Bremer stated both, the water does go through there somewhat, but would have gone more towards the north. He also described the soils and diversion of water because of the home building process.

Sprecher asked if the retaining walls placement will contain the water or direct it to a different spot. Bremer stated he prefers that the contractor answer that question.

Duckworth asked for clarification on whether or not the house was built prior to permits. Bremer stated that the land was disturbed prior to getting the permits, a stop order was placed on the site by Mr. Lorenz and a permit was issued to allow for the project to continue to move forward and stabilizing the site, as well as the requirement to go to Board of Adjustment.

Duckworth asked if there is information in the packet that shows the Board the extent of filling and grading they would like to do. Bremer stated he doesn't know.

White asked if the basement was in prior to getting the permit. Bremer stated it was. White mentioned her concern about penalties and enforcement on this type of activity.

Wernecke asked about the erosion and water flow and the response Mr. Bremer gave earlier and asked him to clarify his feelings on the landscaping plan. Bremer responded.

Wernecke asked if the engineer submitting a site map and topo map to show the extent of the slop on the land. Bremer believes it is already in their packet.

Ms. Anna Pawlik, applicant, appearing in favor of the request.

Duckworth asked how the house was built without permits. Pawlik stated she has all the permits from Planning & Zoning which was done the first week of December. She also spoke of the citations received from Planning & Zoning.

Duckworth asked if there is an exhibit showing the extent of the filling and grading. Pawlik stated in Exhibit 2 and 3 and is going through her contractor and is trusting she is doing he work and is just paying the bills. Pawlik referenced Exhibit IV,5.

Ms. Evon Stanek, appearing in favor of the applicant, stated she is the landscaping contractor and referring to Exhibit IV,5 and spoke of the walls and the new grade will be 3/5%, further up the property the walls will be at 3%. They will not be using boulder walls but will be using interlocking block walls.

Duckworth asked how close to the property lines they will be filling and grading. Stanek stated that they will be cleaning up any material that has already sifted down the hill, but the walls will be at least 10 feet from the property lines.

Sprecher asked about the water erosion. Stanek stated that there was much erosion and they will have to clean up.

White asked about the landscaping. Stanek stated that she came in after a fine was already issued and looked at the property and drew up these plans on how to fix the water flow and erosion on the property.

Roloff asked what is going to happen to the water once the terraces/walls put in. Stanek stated that the walls will be 6 feet high with a 6 inch footer, with draintile and fabric will make the property simulate a dry well.

White asked where the drain tile would run too. Stanek stated that they would come out the side of the walls, but would have dry wells around them.

Wernecke asked about #2-3 site plan, Exhibit IV4 and IV5, shows the walls in different locations and where are the topo line showing the slope and how the walls conform to that. What exactly are you planning. Stanek stated that because of the grade being so tall and at 20% they have to put the bottom wall in first and then build it up, as well as problems with staying away from the septic.

Wernecke asked about IV4 and IV5 and asked which drawing they are using. Stanek stated that they are the same drawing and they are asking for the same thing.

Duckworth stated the plans are different, they are not the same drawing. Stanek stated you should ignore IV4

Wernecke asked about IV4 and IV5 and asked which drawing they are using. Stanek stated that they are the same drawing and they are asking for the same thing.

Duckworth stated the plans are different, they are not the same drawing. Stanek stated you should ignore IV4.

Roloff asked if there is a topographical map included. Stanek stated there is not a map.

White stated that one of the things they look at as a committee is what the original ground slope was and there is nothing that is included showing what the actual slope is. Stanek stated the slope is right on 20%, but it does go from 22% to 20% grade. She also said that Planning & Zoning assured her that the original plot would be provided to the Board by them and would not need to include this.

Duckworth asked if any material will be brought in. Stanek stated after the walls are built, fill will be bought into the site.

Roloff asked if the dirt is for fill or grass. Stanek stated it will be topsoil for grass. She continued to explain the erosion mat that will be used.

Roloff asked about the design, through field observation, drew up this plan without a topographical map. Stanek stated that she does this all the time and has no problem making the plans without a topographical map.

Duckworth asked about the neighboring property. Stanek stated that the applicant owns the neighboring property on the south and on the east part of the lot, which is where the water runs to and will have erosion control put in.

Roloff stated that it would be of assistance to the Board of there was information showing who the adjacent property owners are and a topographical map so you can see how the water flowed on the property prior to breaking ground.

Mr. Jim Boisa, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he is a neighbor and is concerned about where the water is flowing and the lot which is adjacent to him, which is extremely steep isn't one that is being filled in down the road simply because of a clerical error.

Duckworth asked him to clarify his question. Boisa stated that the lot is so steep and there was talk of filling it and wants to make sure that the filling is only happening around the house and not on the other lot.

The Board referred to Exhibit IV,1, which shows that lot 46 is the lot in question and not lot 45, as all the paperwork shows. Bremer appeared and stated that IV2 is not a map that belongs in the packet or refers to this case in anyway.

Duckworth asked Bremer to reappear and asked according to Planning & Zoning there is no filling and grading to take place on Lot 45, and all filling and grading will take place on Lot 46. Any filling on lot 45 will need another filling and grading permit.

Wernecke asked if the applicant stated that no topographical map would be required and if that is correct. Bremer stated he is unsure if that was stated by any Planning & Zoning staff and believes that the topographical map would assist greatly.

Duckworth asked if the water will contained on lot 46. Bremer feels it will.

Wernecke asked if the erosion control measures could have been cleaned up and better kept. Bremer stated he is unsure.

Duckworth asked what was meant that the boundaries be cleaned up. Bremer stated that he feels the applicants meant that would use further seeding to prevent erosion around the "clean up" areas that she referred to.

Duckworth asked with her testimony Planning and Zoning would or would not have any problem enforcing the boards decision. Bremer stated depending on the conditions placed and the good growing conditions this fall.

White asked if the permit were or were not in order. Bremer stated that the applicant applied for permits and when it was discovered what kind of slopes there were, there was a stop work order put on that property. White asked if the permits were issued in December and construction took place in April or May? Bremer stated he feels that is correct.

Wernecke asked if the application in December revealed slopes. Bremer stated that the builders plans revealed a much less slope than was actually on the property.

Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Chair Duckworth, closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:45 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

White stated that it appears to be a thought out plan and likes that it includes the entire lot and no the portions just downhill.

Wernecke stated that when he looks at the conditions listed, he feels that it would be necessary to require that the landscaper provide drawings of the proposed walls and erosion control and a property scaled topographical map, allowing Planning & Zoning to verify the project.

Motion by Wernecke, seconded by White, to approve the special exception request for filling and grading with the condition added that the applicant provide drawings of the proposed walls and erosion control measures on a topographical map to aid the planning and zoning staff with the completion of this project, along with the conditions listed by the Planning and Zoning Department. Motion carried 5-0.

B. Jane Stevens (SP-31-07), a special exception permit to authorize the operation of an agricultural related business, located in the Resource Conservancy 35 district, Town of Freedom .

David Wernecke recused himself from the Board.

Matt Bremer appeared and presented the history and background of the request and reviewed the photos and video of the site then concluded with the staff recommendation of conditions to be placed on the request if approved by the Board.

White asked about II,2 and the bottom of the page appears to end mid sentence. Bremer stated that he did not copy the second page of letter and read from his copy.

White asked how long the business has been there without a permit. Bremer stated that he defers this to the applicant.

Duckworth asked if they are hear because they are growing, processing or had retail sales. Bremer stated that this came up because of the need for a new septic system and in looking at the new septic for the business, it was discovered by staff that there was no authorization for the business.

Duckworth stated the question was not answered, is it growing, processing or retail sales. Bremer stated it all of the above. Duckworth stated that they would need a permit to grow herbs in the Town of Freedom . Bremer stated no, its more processing or sales.

Duckworth asked how this business fits into the Town of Freedom 's smart growth plan. Bremer stated he does not know. White asked that in the future, staff should include a reference to the specific Town Plan.

The Board also stated that there is no information from the Town of Freedom .

Sprecher asked if this would be spot zoning. Bremer stated it would not.

Sprecher asked under condition C, and is there a reason that you want this permit to be good for only 5 years. Bremer stated that is more of a conformity for past ag related businesses, that the Board requests only 5 years.

Duckworth asked if Planning & Zoning received any complaints, and it was merely discovered through a routine inspection for a different request. Bremer stated that is correct.

Duckworth asked if the business would provided for more traffic or heavy truck or semi traffic in and out. Bremer stated he does not feel so.

Ms. Jane Stevens, applicant, appearing in favor of the request.

Duckworth reminded the applicant that she needs to discuss the public health, safety and welfare. Stevens stated that both she and her husband have horticulture degrees and are able to develop a small value added business on their farm, using the farm provided. Its an asset to the community to provide fresh organic produce and herbs. They also do tours offering information on ag related business and organic growing. She also provides a few part time jobs for local women.

Roloff asked how long she has been processing and retail of the herbs. Stevens stated that she doesn't do much retail, but focuses on wholesale, so she ships most of her orders out and have no retail hours, except for when small groups come for tours. She also stated that 16 years at this location. She stated the State inspects her and the township was always aware of her business, as well.

Roloff stated this all came to the surface when the drain plugged. Stevens stated that is correct.

Duckworth asked if during the processing she is using dangerous chemicals. Stevens stated she is not and the State has said that she can distribute the gray water out of the side of the building.

Duckworth asked about the impact of traffic. Stevens stated a van size UPS truck comes in 5 days a week, as well as using the road herself. She also has a couple part time employees and that is about it.

White stated it is a nice use of rural property. Stevens explained her gratitude and appreciation of Wisconsin agriculture.

Duckworth asked if she is aware of why the town didn't respond. Stevens stated that Planning & Zoning asked her to complete a town acknowledgement form and that was it. She also presented Exhibit VIII,1.

Gurd Muehllehner, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he was at the town meeting where this was discussed and the question was whether she could get an exception to the home occupation which limits the number of employees to 1. The Town stated that they would allow her to have more than 1 employee at the site and have no objection would send a letter stating that.

Duckworth asked when this meeting was. Muehllehner stated it is held on the 2 nd Tuesday in September.

Stevens reappearing, asked if the home business versus ag related business and she understands that she is under the ag related business which allows for more employees. She also stated that she is considering doing bio-diesel for farm use also, and would like to make sure that is included in this application.

The Board decided that if they were going to consider that, they would need more information, where at this time, they have none.

Bremer reappeared and stated that a cottage industry allows 1 employee other than family and she is not applying for a cottage industry. She is applying for an ag related business which does not have a limit on employees, as long as it is appropriate.

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.

Sprecher stated he had the opportunity to visit this place and doesn't feel anything is being changed other than the correction of the septic system Duckworth stated that they would be making the use conforming as an ag related business and consistent with the county ordinance and does not harm the public health, safety and welfare.

Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher, to grant the special exception permit to authorize the ag related business, which a change to condition C, altering the 5 year renewal date to 10 years, as well as the remaining conditions provided by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

C. B&G Builders, agent (SP-32-07), a special exception permit to allow filling and grading on slopes of 20% located in the shoreland protection district.

Duckworth advised the Board that Bremer had handed out Exhibit VIII,1 a revised certified survey map. He also asked about the rock retaining walls that the applicant is proposing meets the county code. Bremer stated that they are proposing boulder walls and natural material is the only material allowed within side yard setbacks.

Duckworth asked if there is an exhibit that shows the filling and grading plans. Bremer stated that he is not aware of any plans, other than page 3.

Duckworth stated that Bremer testified that they will not be filling between the house and the water, but the exhibit shows something possibly different as the finished grades show something different. Bremer stated he defers that to the owner.

Wernecke asked if he feels the retaining walls will do what they are suppose to do and he doesn't see the length of the retaining walls and does staff feel these walls will work as to whether or not the erosion control will be adequate. Bremer stated he defers this question to the building/owner, as feels the walls were for the driveway and not necessarily for erosion control.

Wernecke asked about the rock retaining wall along the property line being one or two. Bremer thought the wall is designed as one, but is actually a 2 segment wall.

Mr. Gary Barbknecht, B&G Custom Builders, agent for the applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that on page 3 of 12, the numbers in black underlined in red show both existing and finished grade and will not be any filling in that area. He also stated they will do some grading where the rock retaining wall is near the house as well as lessen the slope of the driveway, and the rock retaining wall by the driveway will keep that slope stable.

Duckworth confirmed that the black numbers show the drive is sloping there and when the proposed project is done it will be about 84. Barbknecht stated that was correct.

Duckworth asked if material will be brought into the site. Barbknecht stated they will not be able to use existing material, so fill will be brought onto the existing property.

Wernecke stated that it plans drop 7 feet for final grade next to the house and garage and asked what the drainage will be near that 7 foot drop. Barbknecht stated that it will run over the rock retaining wall and between the house and the south/east lot line (shown at the bottom of the page).

Duckworth asked if the drive will be paved. Barbknecht stated it will be gravel.

Wernecke asked if any water will be diverted to the adjacent lot. Barbknecht stated it will not be diverted to the adjacent lot and does not feel absorption is a possibility, so the water will be diverted to the lake.

Duckworth asked about the upper end of the drive and if there is a lot of fill that way. Barbknecht stated there would not other than removing the large rocks and putting in fabric and confirmed most of the grading and fill is around the house. He also stated that page 8 of 12, the sunroom on the lower left corner, rather than being interior will only be an open deck, and still meet the 75' setback from the water.

Wernecke asked if there is any estimate of the division of water and how that concentrates the volume of water from the present time. Barbknecht stated he understand the concern, and believes that the rocky smaller material is what will be used near the side of the house and the vegetation is limited and will not try to make lawn out of any of that.

Mr. William Kuschman, appearing in opposition, stated that he has met with them twice to express his concerns and have no problem with the building on the lot, but the size and location of the structure concerns them. The runoff and absorption of the water, with the home being built as close to the water and lot lines as possible on a small lot. He also questions the runoff from the roof, gutters on the house, draintile directing the water to the south side of the slope into the lake.

Duckworth asked if he is concerned that the water will run onto your property. Kuschman stated he is and reiterated that the met with the owner and asked him to move his house back from where they are proposing to locate it. He is also concerned about his view being disturbed and his market value being changed.

Mr. Barbknecht, reappearing. White asked if the neighbors were taken into affect when the location of the house was put in place. Barbknecht stated that when he got involved in the project, the house had already been located and the plans designed around that specific lot.

Roloff stated that no water can be diverted onto neighboring property. Barbknecht stated it will be diverted to the west towards the lake and gutters and downspouts will be in place for runoff from the roof. He also explained that they are not going to change the water runoff on the northern part of the lot as it is now.

Ms. Mary Ann Kwiatkowski, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. White stated that if the house were backed up a little further, the slopes would not be an issue possibly and asked when they selected the location for the house, were the neighbors in mind. Kwiatkowski, stated she purchased the property in May of 2004 and the spot was chosen because of the natural slope allows for a natural walk out basement and has had several professionals out picking the most environmental safe place for the house.

Roloff asked if this out of sensitivity for the neighbor to the north were moved back 25 feet, would it make it impossible to have a walk out basement. Kwiatkowski stated that at the front section of the house, there seems to be a rock wall and pushing it back would eliminate the ability for a walkout basement without using dynamite to remove the rock.

White stated that the rock to be removed for the basement would be used for the wall. Kwiatkowski state the rock that will be used if from the driveway where there are huge boulders.

Wernecke asked about the flow of the water off of the roof. Kwiatkowski stated there will be gutters going towards the other side of the house and referred the engineered part to the builder. She stated that her location and property layout is keeping the property to look as natural as possible.

Mr. Barbknecht, reappearing, stated that the issue of the pushing the house 25 feet back up the hill will cause the natural rock outcropping and the requirement to get into the hard rock surface, where right now all they are doing is removing the rubble and does not feel you can go back 25 feet. He also stated that the gutters and downspouts are directed to tubing and directed away from the house to the lake.

White stated that in most of the requests they have got like this the lots don't allow for the ability to resituate the house to avoid the permit and that concerns her.

Duckworth stated that for some of the other projects they have seen, this is a fairly minimal filling and grading request. He also stated the have explained how the water will be diverted and directed towards the lake and not the neighbors, and the siting of the house is beyond the control of the committee and they are not given the power to take into account the view from the neighboring property. It also seems that the grading information is complete and they have not started work yet, which is commendable.

Roloff stated the Town is in favor of this request.

Motion by Duckworth, seconded by Wernecke, to approve the special exception permit with the recommendations of the conditions by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

Duckworth discussed the information on a training program at Stevens Point in October and to contact Planning & Zoning.

The Board adjourned at 11:00.p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Roloff

Secretary