Board of Adjustment

DATE: March 27, 2008 Session of the Board

PRESENT: Bruce Duckworth, Chair

Richard Vogt, Vice Chair

Ron Lestikow

Halsey Sprecher

Linda White

ABSENT: Robert Roloff

STAFF PRESENT: Dave Lorenz

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 White, seconded by Sprecher, motion carried 5-0.

The Board adopted the agenda for the March 27, 2008 session of the Board on a Motion by Vogt, seconded by White. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by White, seconded by Sprecher to adopt the December 20, 2007 minutes. Motion carried 4-0 with Lestikow abstaining.

COMMUNICATIONS:

None to report.

APPEALS:

A. Richard Ruppin (SP-01-08), requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading and a variance to authorize the construction of a boathouse on slopes of more than 20%. .

Duckworth ruled that the variance being requested is an area variance.

Dave Lorenz 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 a boulder from a neighboring retaining wall damaging the boathouse. Lorenz explained.

Vogt asked about the general condition of the boathouse structure. Lorenz stated that the structure didn't seem to be a problem, but the existing rear walls needs to be repaired.

White asked if there was another location on the lot that did not have 20% slopes. Lorenz stated that he did not see any other place that had less than 20% slopes.

White asked about the filling and grading permit putting them into compliance for a regular boathouse once that is done first. Lorenz stated he is not sure whether that meets the intent of the ordinance.

Duckworth asked when the original boathouse was built. Lorenz stated there are no permits on the boathouse, but is possible that it was built in the 1960's.

Duckworth asked if there is any description of the intent of filling and grading. Lorenz spoke of a topographic survey (Exhibit II,11) and a drawing of the area (Exhibit II,12) showing the landscaping and retaining walls and new boathouse location. Duckworth suggested there is no area specifically mapped out showing where the filling and grading will take place.

Vogt, referring to Exhibit II,13, showing the present boathouse and the proposed boathouse and asked about restrictions on how far from the water the boathouse can go. Lorenz explained that in this application they are not asking to make the boathouse larger than what is allowed or move the location, they simply will have the back corner within the 20% slopes.

Vogt asked if they could build the boathouse where they would not have to touch those slopes or move it towards the lake. Lorenz stated he doesn't feel it could get closer to the lake, but their may be the ability to built a smaller boathouse and stay off the 20% slopes.

Sprecher asked if he were to just repair the present boathouse he would merely need a permit, but not a board of adjustment. Lorenz stated that is correct.

Richard Ruppin, applicant, appearing in favor of the request. Duckworth explained the criteria needed to be addressed for a variance request.

Ruppin spoke of the history of the property and stated that the slope of the area runs along several properties near him as well as water runoff and direction. He also spoke of the photo's taken showing the repair of the boathouse as a result of the slope washing out as well as rotting the bottom of the walls on the boathouse.

He then spoke of the landscaping to be done with the filling and grading request. He feels that as far as the water quality is concerned, it will improve it by preventing some of the erosion going into the lake, as well as the appearance being the same, but improved. He then referred to his letter, page 3, included in the Boards packet that addressed much of the filling and grading results and improvements.

He concluded by speaking of the unnecessary hardship and feels that the ordinance prohibits the removing the rotting structure as well as the safety of the boathouse from the lack of maintaining the integrity of the neighboring retaining wall. He also feels it is an unnecessary hardship because the proposed boathouse would prevent necessary improvements.

Duckworth asked about the proposed filling and grading. Ruppin referred to Exhibit II,13 and spoke of the excavation width being 37 feet wide. Duckworth asked if any filling and grading will be done along the path up to the house. Ruppin stated there would be no grading up the path.

White asked how the new structure will be more protected from the neighbor's retaining wall versus the old boathouse. Ruppin stated the wall would be poured concrete which will take more force than the wooden one would. He also spoke of backfilling and sloping away from the boathouse and the stones should be slowed by the slope as well.

Vogt asked about the existing boathouse and the new boathouse will extend into the hillside and will be up to the original slope/ground line which will be approximately the same as what is there now. Referring to II,11, looking at the contours, he addressed his questioned again. Ruppin stated that was correct, but will be digging into the hillside 4½ feet, which was dug out originally.

White asked again about the hardship, having a boathouse now, being able to fix the existing one that is there and stated she needs to be convinced that a hardship exists. Ruppin stated that the problem with leaving it as is and fix it, the water is going to continue to erode down there and to do that, he has to build a concrete wall in there anyway and feels it would be hard to get equipment back there to do that.

Vogt stated it would be possible to put a new boathouse on the same footprint of the existing boathouse that would provide the same outcome. Ruppin stated it would be possible, but difficult, but it could be done.

White asked if the property is unique compared to the others around it. Ruppin stated that the property to the east has a larger problem, as their slopes goes all the way to the water, and the property to the west has a larger flat spot near the water.

Lorenz reappearing. White asked if the boathouse was built on the same footprint, but lowered 2 feet, as he is requesting, would that be covered in the filling and grading part of it. Lorenz stated if he stays in the existing footprint of the boathouse, that is no located in the 20% slopes.

Ruppin reappearing in favor, asked if the slope is determined by measuring from the water line to the present ground level and questioned that actual slope of where the existing boathouse sits.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:54 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Sprecher asked if he would not need a filling and grading for repair. White asked about using the original footprint. Vogt also spoke of using the original footprint of the existing boathouse and use the special exception permit to provide for the filling and grading.

The board first addressed the variance and the 3 items that need to be met. White feels there are physical limitations to the property, but it is not unique to the other properties in the area and feels it does meet the public interest and no harm would be done, however, there is no hardship that has been show.

Sprecher also feels that no hardship has been met.

Vogt stated that he can understand putting the boathouse lowered and can sympathize with the boat size into a boathouse, but that does not meet the conditions of a hardship and it also doesn't mean the boathouse needs to be 26 feet long.

Duckworth stated he can't see it being contrary to the public interest, as there is already a boathouse in the location, and while the property is similar on one side, but different on the other. He also feels it is unique in the fact that it already contains a legal boathouse. The hardship isn't met that he can tear the boathouse down and rebuild on the same footprint without a variance and there is no testimony showing that property is unusable on Lake Wisconsin without a boathouse and no testimony that property on Lake Wisconsin is unusable with a boathouse of this size.

Motion by White, seconded by Duckworth, to deny the variance as no hardship has been shown. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by White, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the special exception permit, so that work can be done to landscape around the boathouse, or remove the existing boathouse to permit a new, legal boathouse where the filling and grading would be needed for the excavation of that structure, with the recommended conditions by Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 5-0.

The board recessed for 5 minutes.

B. David Leatherberry (SP-02-08), requesting a special exception permit to authorize the location and operation of a quarry.

Duckworth asked for an Exhibit showing exactly which property is being requested for today. Lorenz stated on Exhibit II,20, and explained the area. Duckworth asked for a map showing the tax parcels. Lorenz referred to Exhibit VI,2.

White asked if this was a pit that was grandfathered. Lorenz stated this was a pit that was considered legal non-conforming, as it was in existence prior to the mining ordinance being adopted. He also explained the opinion of the Corporation Counsel to bring the property into compliance with the ordinance seeing as he has expanded his sites.

Vogt asked if they have complied with the administrative rule through the DNR. Lorenz stated that is correct.

Vogt asked if the property is an active farming operation. Lorenz stated that question will have to be addressed to the applicant.

Duckworth asked for an exhibit to show the nearest residential structures around this property. Lorenz stated to refer the question to Bremer.

Duckworth asked about the Township. Lorenz stated there is nothing from the Town other than receiving the acknowledgement form.

David Leatherberry, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, provided history of the property and there was an existing sand pit there since roughly 1968. His material is sand and gravel and is run by himself and his sons and grandsons. He stated that Mathy has a contract with him, as well as 15 other contractors that purchase sand out of there and briefly reviewed the reclamation plan.

Duckworth asked to define stones. Leatherberry explained it is glacial til. He also spoke of the different types of sand that is located there.

Duckworth asked if most of the material is used in Sauk County . Leatherberry stated most of it is used local. Duckworth also asked about blasting and crushing. Leatherberry stated there would be no blasting or crushing, it is merely a screening operation, and work 7 days a week.

Duckworth asked about the measurements of the residences located around the property. Leatherberry stated that you have to be 50 feet from a property line and there is already a berm built along Crawford Street . He also stated that there are 2 homes on the property and he owns both of them. He then stated there is a house to the west that is guestimated to be about 700-800 feet.

Duckworth asked about the farmstead on the west side of the road and spoke of the requirement to be at least 600 feet from any building. Leatherberry stated that is where he lives. He also stated there are a couple residences, one which his daughter lives in and another owned by someone else.

White asked what the current hours of operation are. Leatherberry stated about 7 a.m. until evening.

White asked about any controversy in the neighborhood because of the operation. Leatherberry stated no one has ever come to him about any problems, but if they did he would address it.

Duckworth spoke of the hours of operation for quarries through the Board of Adjustment and asked what kind of issues he'd have it they didn't allow him to work on Sunday's. Leatherberry stated the operation doesn't make much noise, other than the back-up beepers.

Vogt reviewed where the homes are round the site. Leatherberry reviewed.

Vogt asked about a concrete batch plant. Leatherberry stated he has never had one and doesn't plan to have one. He also said he contract only goes for 2 more years with Mathy and after that his son would take over the operation.

Rick Giebel, appearing in favor of the request, stated that he lives about 300 yards and can oversee the entire farm and it doesn't really matter to him what he does, and feels it is his land and feels he can do whatever he pleases. He believes the truck traffic is annoying, but so is the car traffic since HoChunk went in. He also feels the dust isn't much of an issue.

Randy Puttkamer, appearing as interest may appear, Baraboo Town Board member, stated that he has questions about the conditions on the site. He stated there are members of the township that has been brought forward to the town board is the footage from the road right of way, the depth of the pit, and as the pit gets closer to Crawford street they feel there should be a barrier incase someone goes off the road other than the berm.

Duckworth asked if the Town Board sent a resolution. Puttkamer stated this matter has not been addressed at the Town Board yet.

White asked if there is a number that has been passed around. Puttkamer stated nothing has been brought to the Town on this site yet.

Duckworth asked that since October 16, 2007 , the Town Board has not had a public hearing on this item. Puttkamer stated that is correct.

Vogt asked if there is an actual dimension on the existing area and how much they want to expand to, as nothing is in this packet. Puttkamer stated they have never seen anything at the Town by this either.

Duckworth asked why the Town has not had a public meeting about it during those 4 months. Puttkamer stated they could not have a hearing because they did not have any information on it. He asked the Board to take in the concerns from the members on issues that have been brought forward.

Ken Knerzer, appearing as interest may appear, stated he is concerned about this, as he doesn't know where it is and what the plans are, how far they will expand, the noise factors, etc., and showed the board where his property is located.

Paul Hashieder, appearing as interest may appear, stated he is a Supervisor for the Town Board, and has some safety issues along Crawford Street , would like to see a fence around it.

Dave Leatherberry, reappearing in favor, stated that as far as the property to the South goes, they are hauling material up there and the old pit is being filled in and is a reclamation project and there is a berm along Crawford Street and spoke of the reclamation once its done.

White asked why it has no gone in front of the Township Board. Leatherberry stated he spoke to Darlene Hill and everyone knows about it already. White asked why he had not been to a township meeting showing them the information. Leatherberry stated that everyone already knows about it.

White asked if he would have a problem if the Board tabled it so he could meet with the Town Board and then come back to this Board.

Warren Trager, appearing as interest may appear, asked what a criteria for a grandfather clause is. Duckworth stated that is a legal question and they can not explain what it is.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Chair Duckworth closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:50 a.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

Duckworth is disappointed in the package, as that it is incomplete, however it is a small site. He feels the measurements to the existing structures was missing, is worried that he is encroaching within the 600 feet setbacks of those structures, and disappointed that the Town has not held a meeting on it, and he doesn't like the conditions that Planning & Zoning has put in and feel the conditions put on all other quarries should be imposed on this one.

Vogt stated there is no dimensions as to how big this thing could get and what the plans are.

White said it only speaks of existing areas and not an proposed or future areas.

Sprecher spoke of the 5 year review.

Duckworth stated that the document specifies that only 5 acres will be open at a time and the opened sites be reclaimed.

Lestikow stated a map should have been presented to show what will be opened.

White spoke of the permit being issued to David Leatherberry so if his son took over, would he have to come in and reapply. Duckworth stated that once he is no longer the owner of the property, the permit does not transfer. White asked if it is the property or the operation. Duckworth stated they have done it both ways and explained.

White stated she would be more comfortable if he came in with a more complete packet containing the Town Board recommendation, measurements of the proposed sites, measurements to the neighboring land owners, as well as signed waivers if there is anyone within the 600 feet.

Vogt feels the Town and neighboring land owners have questions that have not been addressed by the applicant.

Duckworth stated typically they give Planning & Zoning the descression to have a fence.

White stated that Mr. Leatherberry has not had the chance to review the conditions put on other pits and feels he should have the chance to review those conditions.

Motion by White, seconded by Vogt, to table the special exception request to allow the location and operation of a quarry. Motion carried 3-2, with Duckworth and Sprecher in opposition.

Duckworth and Lestikow have removed themselves from the Board.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to remove SP-23-07 from the table, motion carried 3-0.

C. Norbert and Donna Meunier (SP-23-07), a previously tabled request for a change of administrative decision to deny the operation of a business as a cottage industry and require that the property be rezoned to a commercial district.

Vogt stated the Board wanted to hear from the Town Board regarding the zoning issue.

Paul Johnson, appearing for the applicant, in favor of the request, gave a brief history of the request and feel that the Planning & Zoning Department has never given a reason why they feel the property does not meet the cottage industry standards. He also spoke of the document from the Town in opposition, but there is no reason given. He stated it is not an exact fit as a cottage industry, but feels it can. He also provided the Board with the business information of the applicant and went through each step/condition in how he feels the applicant meets the requirements of a cottage industry. He also spoke of the Town of Freedom Comprehensive Plan referring to preserving the rural community.

Sprecher asked about limiting to existing farm residents. Johnson stated that is a potential definition that you could use, but not the one he is using and doesn't feel you should use it, as its merely an addition option.

Vogt spoke of the minutes of the Town of Freedom meeting from 12/06/07 , and asked if the driveway has been resolved. Johnson stated that it has been resolved and they agreed to remove one of the driveways located on the property.

Vogt asked why he feels the Township has not agreed to call this a cottage industry. Johnson stated that he feels that the Town Board has animosity towards the property owners and feels the Town never really addressed whether this was a cottage industry or not and focused on the driveway issue. He felt they made several efforts.

White stated that he feels the majority of the business is what takes place in the office rather than what is taking place in all the buildings. Johnson stated that most of the business is taking place in the house, but the outside part is warehousing and maintenance of the machines.

White spoke more of the conditions. Johnson stated he doesn't feel the Town or County gave reasons to why it is not a cottage industry.

David Baumgarten, appearing in opposition, Chair of the Town of Freedom , stated that his main reason for being here is to reiterate the stance of the Town Board being that they agree with Planning and Zoning that the applicants business is not a cottage industry.

Vogt spoke of the business becoming too large to be considered incidental to the premises. Baumgarten spoke of how the Board feels or interprets incidental to the residential use. He did say that while the did not go through each and every step as Mr. Johnson did, they did agree with Planning & Zoning's interpretation of whether or not it is incidental. He also spoke of something that is produced on the property and feels this type of business would be better suited in a warehousing or industrial property where a commercial business of this type can operate.

White spoke of the applicant's testimony with 2 people living off the property and once she explained the rules for employees, the applicant then stated they all live on the property. Baumgarten stated he is unsure of all who are living in the residence.

Vogt asked if the township discussed rezoning to commercial district. Baumgarten stated it has been discussed.

Verla Klingenmeyer, appearing in opposition, stated that she is on the zoning board and they dealt with the issue and originally they did agree to cottage industry requirements, however once they got into the details, they agreed it did not fit the cottage industry and is a huge operation and started with permitting through agriculture rather than coming forward with the business. She stated they are not trying to exclude business and spoke of the comprehensive plan, however, a large business should be located near the cities or villages. She also spoke of the driveway issue and there are semi's turning around in the road.

Vogt asked about other commercial buildings. Klingenmeyer stated they have 1 and he does small engine/car repair - that is the only one.

White asked if someone came in with a request for this type of business, would they get the ok. Klingenmeyer, stated she can only speak for herself, but she would say no and direct them to someone that is more compatible such as near the cities or villages nearby.

Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Vice Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:40 p.m. and the Board went into deliberation.

White stated she has not heard enough to convince her that they should over-rule the Zoning office decision.

Vogt stated that it seems to be the decision to deny as a cottage industry is too large, permitted the sheds as personal storage rather than business storage.

Motion by Vogt, seconded by White, to uphold the decision of the Department of Planning & Zoning. Motion carried 3-0.

The Board adjourned at 11:42 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Vogt

Vice Chair