November 20, 2008 Session of the Board
PRESENT: Richard Vogt, Acting Chair
Robert Roloff, Secretary
Halsey Sprecher
Linda White
David Wernecke, Alternate
ABSENT: Bruce Duckworth
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin
Dave Lorenz
Mark Steward
Steve Sorenson
OTHERS PRESENT: See individual appeal files for registration appearance slips.
Acting Chair Vogt called the session of the Sauk County Board of Adjustment (BOA) to order at approximately 9:00 A.M. The Chair 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 White.Motion carried 5-0.
The Board adopted the agenda for the November 20, 2008 session of the Board on a Motion by White, seconded by Roloff.Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Sprecher to adopt the October 23, 2008 minutes.Motion carried 3-0, with White and Vogt abstaining.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Sprecher spoke of a letter from the Planning & Zoning Department regarding open communications.The Board asked Steward to appear and explain.Steward spoke of the caution that needs to be taken when speaking to the public because of the chance of being a future case. He continued to explain the caution the Board must exercise when having outside communications with the general public relating to zoning matters.
APPEALS:
A. James Olson & Alice Bryne (SP-26-08) requesting two variances for an addition to an existing garage in excess of the maximum square footage permitted, within the minimum road setback.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental Zoning Technician, appeared and gave the history and background of the request as well as photos and a video of site.He then recommended conditions to be placed on the request if the variances were approved.
The Chair determined that the variances requested are area variances.
Roloff asked if there was also a height issue.Lorenz stated this is in excess of 20 feet, but the contractor suggested not including that in the variance, as he could adjust with the grade.
Roloff also asked about the building taking place and the stop work order.Lorenz stated that there was additional work that went on after the stop work order was posted, such as siding and paint.
Wernecke asked about a previous decision by the Board of Adjustment and asked if the applicant followed through on the conditions. Lorenz stated the garage did meet the conditions placed by the BOA at that time.Wernecke asked about vegetation.Lorenz stated he felt the site was vegetated.
Wernecke asked about the height issue and how you deal with that by adjusting the grade.Lorenz stated that the height is measured from the grade and explained in greater detail how it is measured.
Vogt asked if he feels it can be accomplished by doing that.Lorenz stated that with the slopes out there, he would be working on slopes in excess of 20% which would require a special exception permit.
Vogt asked about the size of the addition being quite a bit larger than what was originally approved for the garage.Lorenz spoke of the size of the addition.
Wernecke asked if this is one of the sites where the construction of the house and original garage was done prior to permits being obtained.Lorenz stated that the original garage was applied for prior to building.
Steve Sorenson, Assistant Zoning Administrator, appeared and also provided background of the request.He stated the original permit application showed the garage was too tall, larger square footage than could be permitted, and in the road right of way, however the garage was built without permits.He also spoke of citations issued to the contractor and the property owner for continuing to work without permits and with instructions to go to the Board of Adjustment.He also spoke of stop work orders being placed on the property, but the contractor removed them and continued to do work on the project, above and beyond what was allowed by the Department.
White asked about the height issue.Sorenson stated he believes the contractor can work with brining the height into compliance by possibly altering the grade.
Vogt reviewed the history of the request.
White asked if they were aware of the problems prior to them starting work.Sorenson stated that he contacted them several times about the permit, and believes there was no work that was started when the permit was initially sent into the Department.
Wernecke asked about the height of the garage. Sorenson stated the ordinance should say 20 feet verus 15 feet.
Cory Ruefer, agent, appearing for the applicant, stated that the actual building that was built was 24 x 24 set 63 feet off the centerline and the plan that the Board has is an original plan prior to him doing square footage and the second floor structure is 24 x30, which is 1,296 square feet.He stated he brought in the permit applicant and feels it was the following week that he received a letter stating he needed a variance.
Sprecher asked if it a usual practice to start building before you get the permits. Ruefer stated he made the assumption that everything was fine and had his crew start building expecting to receive the permit in the mail.
White asked about the paperwork for a variance and the fact that none of the numbers add up.Ruefer stated he mis-spoke on the distance from the road and it is not 63 feet from the centerline.
Vogt spoke of exhibit II,3, which is a measurement of 27 feet from the lot line and the right of way line should be 33 feet, which would amount to 63 feet.Ruefer stated his plan he submitted is not correct in showing accurate measurements or distances and suggested looking at the survey done by Blakeslee Land Surveying, which is exhibit VI, 3.
Vogt reviewed that he is stating he is 57 feet from centerline, the total square footage of the addition and original structure is 1,296 feet, and the height as it is now is 21 feet and the allowed is 20 feet.Ruefer agreed.
Wernecke asked how he would adjust the height. Ruefer suggested filling against the east exposure of the lower level of the building.
Wernecke asked how he would secure that ground and how would he work on slopes of more than 20%.Ruefer stated he would simply slope it and birm it up.
Vogt asked the applicant to provide the 3 criteria that need to be met for the variances to be approved and explained what they were.
Ruefer spoke of the adjoining properties have all detached garages that are close the roadway or within the setback, however they are not any closer, so the are not able to do averaging.
Vogt asked if the other properties have had variances.Ruefer stated he doesn’t know.He then spoke of the slopes on the lot and feels there is no other location to move the building.He doesn’t feel it affects the common good of the neighbors since they all have the same thing going on.He also stated he feels the unique property limitation is the fact that the garage is already there and cant move it.
Vogt asked about exceeding the square footage.Ruefer stated that he intended to cut it back, but his carpenters framed it larger, as shown on the plans they had.
Vogt asked about hardship.Ruefer stated the owner will be moving here full time and has an extensive woodshop in his main home and plans to move it all here and there is no other location to have his woodshop and the house he has now, does not have a garage on it.
White asked if he is the agent and representing Northern Exports.Ruefer stated he is the agent/contractor.White asked if the intent for a woodshop will be for personal use or if he’ll be selling items.Ruefer stated he believes it is forpersonal use, but he doesn’t know that he wouldn’t make something and sell it, but doesn’t feel it will be a business to his knowledge.
Vogt asked about the original variance and if it was not granted to the present owner.Ruefer stated that was correct.
Vogt asked if he appeared before the Town Board.Ruefer stated he did not because he didn’t know he was on the agenda, but the Town acknowledgment form stated they would discuss it on November 10th, but he wasn’t sure they should be there.
White asked if he has built in the Lake Redstone area before.Reufer stated he has and has around 12 years of experience in the construction business in Sauk County .
Wernecke asked if he has been through a variance or special exception project before.Ruefer stated he has for grading and retaining walls.Wernecke asked if he is familiar with the shoreland protection and zoning laws.Ruefer stated he is.Wernecke spoke of his disappointment in the fact that with the years of experience in the construction business in Sauk County as well as being familiar with the requirements to go to the Board of Adjustment and his history of being here before, that he should have been here prior to starting construction and working after stop work orders were issued.
White spoke of the square foot issue and the fact that they reduced the size of the building once, yet it still ended up wrong.
Mark Steward, Director of Planning & Zoning, appearing as interest may appear, stated that there are 3 points, the road setback, square footage and height.The original variance in 1995 granted 50 feet to the centerline of the road.He also spoke of averaging applying to this structure, but because a variance was granted, he can not use averaging.He then spoke of the height and the difference being measured from the floor level of the garage to the peak and spoke of the fill being used to determine the height will not apply.He then spoke of the square footage.He asked what is unique about the property that it has to be taller or larger than what the ordinance allows and personal preference is not a reason for a variance being granted.
White asked if they had come in using the same footprint and putting a second story on the building, would they be here today.Steward stated that he has not seen the previous variance to know what the exact restrictions were.He explained how a variance works and what is approved at that time and any adjustment to that would require a new variance.
Vogt spoke of the previous decision, maximum allowance shall not exceed 13 feet for locating the garage.
Wernecke asked about the 20 feet height versus 15 feet.
Vogt asked if the height and square footage are resolved, is this a variance application.Steward stated he felt they would not be here for a variance if those two issues would be resolved.
Vogt spoke of the building being 3 feet off of the right of way line to the highway.
White asked about the application for a variance for road setback and floor space, and not asking for a variance for the height.Steward stated if they are not asking for it, you can state that they have to retain the height ordinance of the ordinance in the conditions.
Wernecke asked if he believes if they scale the drawing to meet the requirements of the ordinance that the 2nd story would be useable for anything. Steward stated he did not look at the height of the lower level to the upper level.
White asked about the height issue again.Steward explained.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Acting Chair Vogt closed this portion of hearing at 10:15 a.m.
The Board discussed the request.
Motion by Roloff, to approve the variance with the conditions to modify the total square footage and the height of the structure to meet the ordinance requirements. Motion fails for lack of a second.
Vogt stated the applicant does not meet the hardship requirements.White agreed that the hardship requirements have not been met.
The Board asked to hear from Steward.Steward appeared and stated that according to minutes of January 2004 Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee meeting, the primary intent of the amendment is to adjust the height limitation of residential accessory structure outside of shoreland zoning, to 20 feet from 15 feet.Therefore, because this is shoreland zoning, the peak height requirement is 15 feet.
White asked if shoreland zoning trumps single family residential.Steward stated that is correct.
Motion by Wernecke, seconded by Roloff, to deny the variances as requested, due to the applicant not meeting the 3 requirements of a variance, with the understanding that the setback issues from the road is a mute point, as a variance has already been granted for the road setback, and they are not encroaching any closer.Motion carried 5-0
The Board recessed at 10: 25 until 10:30 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
B. Carl & Theresa Dvorak, (SP-27-08) requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% for the reconstruction/repair (as completed) of a number of retaining walls.
Dave Lorenz, Environmental Zoning Technician, appeared and gave the history and background of the request as well as photos and a video of site.He then recommended conditions to be considered on the request if the approved.
White asked if this is in reference to all of the retaining wall work or just parts of it and if citations were issued.Lorenz stated it is for all and citations have been issued.
White asked what happens if the request is denied.
White asked how long the house has been there.Lorenz stated he isn’t positive, but the original walls may have been included as part of a previous board of adjustment request.He advised that the new walls were placed because the old walls had failed.
Vogt asked if he was granted a permit to building the walls in 1997, the walls had failed and rebuilt without new permits.
Wernecke spoke of the 1997 permit that was granted, and if the applicant followed the guidelines of that permit.Lorenz stated he didn’t see anything that said they did not follow the conditions or that there was problems.
Wernecke asked if the Department went to the site and viewed the previous wall.Lorenz stated the staff does have photographs of the wall.
Wernecke spoke of the requirement in 1997 about the failure of the walls and how to repair them.He asked if the current wall will remain stable and not fail as the last one.Lorenz stated he has spoke to the contractor in detail about how the wall was built and what is in place to control water run off and such, but there are no plan in writing.
Steve Sorenson, Assistant Zoning Administrator, appearing stated that he and Mark Steward had viewed the site in 2007 and could see the collapsed walls in varying degrees on the property and informed the contractor of what was needed.He then spoke of the citations that were issued for completing the wall that is in place for doing it without the permit.
White asked about Contractors doing jobs without getting permits.Sorenson stated that the county has several contractors that do work without getting permits. White stated that the Department should be writing citations every day, and not waiting.
Sorenson continued to speak of the walls and stated that they did hold up to the June floods and feels the contractor did a good job in building the walls and feels that the Board accept it as a completed project that was built to work.
Jerry Maj, agent for the applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the walls had failed and it was an emergency situation and he did apply for a land use permit, but was not aware of the need for a special exception permit at that time.The walls failed due to the heavy rains in 2007.He referred to Exhibit V1, photo 2, looking in the lower left corner, there is a 3,000 gallon holding tank which was exposed when the wall failed.At this time, he was informed of the need for a filling and grading permit.He took the action on his own to get the walls and ground stabilized and get the exposure of the holding tank covered.He did try to get the application filed but because of the exposed ground and the lack of getting an emergency meeting called, he did go ahead and complete the walls.He spoke of water running down the blacktop driveway and causing erosion on both sides of the house.He then explained the methods they used to retain the water run-off to avoid erosion and not displace onto neighboring properties.
Vogt asked why he didn’t submit or at least have a drawing itemizing what he was going to do here.Maj stated that when he applied for the permit, he used the plan provided, but he can show where they are.Vogt suggested what is needed when applying for a permit to review the plans associated with the work to be done.
White asked why this is being requested 12 months later rather than 2 months later.Maj apologized and stated there is no good reason.
Wernecke spoke of the land use permit last fall and how much detail was provided with that.Maj stated that he did apply for the permit and the drawing the Board has was submitted at that time.
Wernecke asked how much time took place between the permit being applied for and the need for a BOA.Maj stated that it all took place last fall.He also stated that he went in front of the Town Board of La Valle last year and received approval.He stated the first letter did take place in 2007, however, the faxed letter came from him last month and he is unaware of the newest letter stating they were taking no action.
Sprecher asked about what effort was made for the Town needing a permit.Maj stated that the Town of LaValle does not require permits for landscaping.
Acting Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:55 am..
Roloff spoke of the fact that Mr. Maj promised to get permits before the work was done and Mr. Sorenson stated he would issue more citations.
The Board discussed the lack of effort to get to the Board of Adjustment.
White stated that staff said it was a good project and did what it set out to do.
Roloff spoke of the need for improvements that need to be made so that the after the fact requests stop coming in.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by White, to approve the request for a special exception permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning.Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Roloff,
Secretary