DATE: December 18, 2008
PRESENT: Richard Vogt, Acting Chair
Robert Roloff, Secretary
Halsey Sprecher
Ron Lestikow, Alternate
ABSENT: Bruce Duckworth
STAFF PRESENT: Gina Templin
Dave Lorenz
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
The Board adopted the agenda for the
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Roloff to adopt the
COMMUNICATIONS:
No communication.
White present.
APPEALS:
A. John Muszynski (SP-28-08), requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% to stabilize eroded area along the shoreline of Lake Redstone.
Dave Lorenz, Environmenal 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 appeal if the request were approved.
Vogt asked about tree cutting and requiring an additional permit.Lorenz explained that 25% of the length of the shoreline within 35 feet of the shore is what is allowed, with a land use permit.The Board continued to discuss the vegetation along the shoreline.
Sprecher asked about the rocks shown in the photos.Lorenz referred the question to the applicant.
Vogt asked about riprap being shown in the photos and if there was a permit for that work.Lorenz stated he is not sure.
Mr. Dave Hyzer, Agent for the Applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the boulders that are in the photo are being stored on that lot for a project that is taking place on the adjacent lot and he doesn't believe this lot has any riprap installed on it at this time.He also spoke of regrading the area near the lake and steep hole being washed out, as well as tying in the property with the existing grades of the adjacent properties.
Vogt asked about lot 23, referring the contour map shown in Exhibit II,5.Hyzer explained.
Vogt asked about the tree cutting.Hyzer stated that in his letter of explanation, they do intend to remove a few of the leaning trees, but do not intend to remove any other large vegetation.He spoke of tree on the south property line that are leaning or dead.
White asked how many trees total.Hyzer stated no more than 6.
White stated she is concerned because there is no final project plan showing this is what will be removed, what will be replanted, and where riprap will be and feels the applicant asking the Board to approve a very broad request.
Vogt asked if the trees that will be removed will be replaced.Hyzer stated they will.
White asked what they will be replaced with and what size.Hyzer stated they will most likely be pine and is unsure of the size.They will disturb as little as possible and grade it to be as close to the adjacent lots as possible.
White asked about the Town acknowledgement form stating they didn't have enough information to make a decision.Hyzer stated that was done in November, but he did attend the December 8th meeting where the Town did sign off on the project.
White stated she has a problem approving something that doesn't have a final plan.Hyzer asked what she would like.White stated she wants a final plan showing what the slopes will be, what planting will take place, where the riprap will be, etc.
Hyzer concluded with stating that they will complete the work as soon as the weather allows and will have the project completed, seeded and mulched within 30 days of beginning, weather permitting.
Dave Lorenz, reappearing. Vogt asked about the tree removal and what is allowed and how will this impact the project so that the applicant doesn't cut too many trees.Lorenz suggested that the Board require a replanting plan, subject to the approval of the Board or Planning & Zoning.He also stated that in excess of 25% of it is already clear, and only extends 35 feet back and the trees that are dead or dying are not part of that requirement.
White stated it is difficult by the photos to tell what is dead or dying or part of winter dormancy.
Vogt stated he doesn't feel any of the trees shown in the photos are dead or dying, but feels requiring a replanting plan be subject to Planning & Zoning approval.He also asked if they would need a special exception permit for the clearing and replanting.Lorenz stated he felt the Board could make that part of this permit.Vogt also spoke of run off onto lot 23.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Acting Chair Vogt closed this portion of hearing at 9:25 a.m.
The Board discussed the request.
White stated she doesn't have enough information.
Lestikow asked for more information on the replanting of the trees and he would like to see the letter from the Town of LaValle.
Vogt asked if the Board was comfortable making these items a condition of the approval.White feels that is it should be tabled.
Sprecher feels they can make it part of the conditions of approval and have Planning & Zoning follow up.
Roloff stated that the applicant testified that the letter can be provided.
Motion by White, to table the request until the applicant can provide the information requested and the letter from the Township. Motion fails due to a second.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the request, subject to the letter from the
B. Warren Frank, (SP-29-08) requesting a special exception permit to authorize filling and grading on slopes of more than 20% for the reconstruction/repair (as completed) of a retaining wall.
Dave Lorenz, Environmenal 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 appeal is approved.
White stated that the applicant stated he didn't know a permit was required for this work and asked how the Department became knowledgeable of the wall.Lorenz stated that a neighbor called in asking about the work and if a permit was ever issued.
Vogt asked about the Town Board.Lorenz referred the Board to Exhibit IV,10.
Vogt asked when Steve was out there if the project was completed.Lorenz stated it was completed.
Roloff asked how many feet from the lake he is.Lorenz stated he is about 300 feet from the lake and the slope is greater than 20%.
Warren Frank, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the rain washed out the area down the hill and up against the garage and across the driveway and needed to fix it.He also spoke of the neighbor draining water from his residence right down the hill onto his property. The neighbor then extended the drain tile across his property to another place and drains in the ditch.
Vogt asked when the project was completed.Frank stated he is unsure, maybe in October.
Vogt asked if he has had any problems since the wall has been completed. Frank stated they have not, however, the test will be next spring.
White asked how long the neighbor has been on the hill.Frank stated maybe 25 years.White spoke of the requirement not to divert water onto the neighboring properties.
Vogt, referring to Exhibit II,5, and asked behind the garage, to the east of the garage where the wall wraps around, how will the water be treated that comes of the hill now.Frank stated a drain tile was put behind the wall behind the garage and backfilled with cracked-stone, as well as landscape fabric to have the water flow behind the retaining wall and garage.
Vogt asked where the water goes now.Frank stated it goes onto his property yet and drains down towards Hopi Court.
Vogt, referring to photo V,2, asked about the southeast corner of the garage and a swale in place that leads the water away.Frank stated that was correct.
Sprecher asked how long he has owned the property.Frank stated he purchased it in 2001.
Sprecher asked when he purchased the property if he was provided information on how to deal with certain issues prior to purchasing the property.Frank spoke of the Planning & Zoning Department providing training for Landscapers.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Acting Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:00 am.
White stated that she would like to see Mr. Frank be allowed to do repair work for 1 year without having to return to the Board.
Vogt stated that he feels the Planning & Zoning Department would have oversight as to how much of the work to be completed.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Roloff, to approve the request for a special exception permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning, with the added condition of allowing the applicant to do mitigating work at the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Department, within 1 year of this date, without having to return to the Board of Adjustment for further approval.Motion carried 5-0.
C. Bindl Bauer Limestone (SP-30-08) requesting a special exception permit to authorize the continued operation of a quarry.
Dave Lorenz, Environmenal 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 appeal isapproved.
Vogt asked about the Reclamation Plan and if the Department approves them.Lorenz stated they do have reclamation plans on file.
Vogt verified that this is to bring them into compliance with the current zoning regulations.
White asked about a 10 year permit versus a 5 year permit.
Joe Bauer, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the location of this site and did not realize there was a buffer zone for neighboring sites.He also stated that it is Sauk County's problem on the reclamation.
Vogt asked which neighbor raised an issue with the mining operation.Bauer stated it was Dan Ruetten.
White asked where the complaint was given, to him or the Department of Planning & Zoning.Bauer stated he contacted Planning & Zoning.
Vogt asked about Schwartz and if any contact has been made between him and this property owner.Bauer stated he has never spoke to him.
Bauer wanted the permit indefinitely.Vogt explained the reasoning behind the time limits.
White spoke of the review time-lines and why they are in place.
Fred Lins, appearing in favor of the request, spoke of the history of the quarry and has had no damage to any buildings or wells.
Vogt asked if there has been any complaints about trucking.Lins stated he has not heard of any complaints from neighbors.
Dan Ruetten, appearing as interest may appear, stated that he did not call and lobby a complaint, but he was aware there should have been something on file for a site of this type and wanted to review an operational plan. When he reviewed the only thing that was there, was only the reclamation plan, but no other permits. He stated the operators have been good operators and typically he hardly knows they are there.
Dave Lorenz, reappearing, stated that the bonding is generally what the Board imposed and the Board can adjust.
Vogt stated that in Chapter 24, it requires the financial assurance to follow the requirements Section 135.40 Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Vogt also asked about the permit being non-transferable.The Board discussed the permit being non-transferable.
White asked about the permission to the operating person, not the person who owns the pit.Lorenz explained.
Seeing as no one else wished to appear, Acting Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:35 a.m.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Lestikow, to approve the request for a special exception permit with the conditions listed by Planning & Zoning, with the permit being approved for 10 years versus 5.Motion carried 5-0.
The Board Recessed for 5 minutes.
Linda White has excused herself momentarily.
D. Matt and Karmen Lindner (SP-31-08) requesting a variance to authorize a porch addition to an existing residence within the minimum road setback.
Dave Lorenz, Environmenal 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 appeal is approved.
The Board confirmed that the variance is an area variance.Vogt provided the 3 issues that need to be addressed for a variance to be approved.
Karmen Lindner, applicant, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the hardship with the property is that the home was built 30+ years ago, situation on top of a hill with a steep slope surrounding the house.She also stated that with the location of home on the property with the setbacks do not provide room to build the porch and there are no other homes surrounding them that have similar characteristics of the lot. She also stated there is 2 other homes on this street that are the same style home and originally built at Chalets for Devils Head Ski Resort.
Vogt asked why it is a hardship to not have the porch.Lindner stated she can't put the porch anywhere else than where it is proposed.She referred to Exhibit II,7, and the stoop is 2 feet deep and comes out 3 feet from the house and the location of the front door of the house opens from the left and if you take one step over too far, you will fall off and makes for a safety issue.She also stated that the design of the house does not provide for gutters and eves and the rain water comes down and causes seepage in the front part of the crawl space.
Vogt asked about the unique characteristics.Lindner stated it is unique because of the location of the house being on top of the hill and the steep slopes on the property surrounding the house.
Vogt asked about landscaping to have drainage away from the house.Lindner stated that the rain will still run down the front of the house and cause problems.She referred them to Exhibit II,7 a proposed drawing.
Vogt asked if the land slopes off to the west.Lindner stated it does not slope that direction, but to the north and to the south.She stated they will intend to put eves on and funnel the water to the west and to the east, underground which will flow with the natural slope towards the road. She then spoke of the public interest and stated there are no safety issues relating to traffic, will not deter property owners values, will not increase danger to passing motorists, will not increase the size of the home, will not remove trees to construct the porch and the main point is to address water, mold and safety issues for the residents.
Roloff spoke of the 3 requirements that need to be met, the Board can't grant a variance.He continued to explain the 3 criteria and spoke in detail of an unnecessary hardship and the reasonable use of the property. Lindner spoke of the rain water and try to rectify the water runoff.
Vogt asked if they have looked at the drainage and water problems with a landscape architect.
Matt Lindner, appearing in favor of the request, referred Exhibit II,7, stated that it provides a second level for the rain to get caught and provide for better drainage and provides a usable exit/entrance.
Lestikow asked if there is anyone in the residents that is handicapped.Lindner stated that he does have a grandparent, but no one living in the home is handicapped.
Mark Lindner, appearing in favor, stated that there is a hardship, the water is undermining the construction and causing damage to the home.He also addressed the landscaping which would terrace to the road, terrace to the house, but you couldn't add enough soil to create the correct taper for run-off.The foundation of the home is being destroyed.
Vogt asked if there was a basement.Lindner stated there is only a 4 foot crawl space, no basement.He stated there is no way of landscaping to address the problems with the water issues.
Vogt asked if you could put gutters on the house.Lindner stated that you could, however it would not fully address the water problems.He referred to Exhibit V1 and showed the Board how the rain damages the foundation, with or without eves.
Vogt asked about drain tiles.Lindner stated it may help if it can be tapered out far enough.
Sprecher asked how the porch would solve that problem.Lindner stated that they would be able to grade it better and the two levels of gutters removing the water off to the side of the lot. He referred to II,7.
Dave Lorenz, reappearing, spoke of the question regarding hardship and spoke of the definition changing between an area variance and a use variance.
Vogt asked about the existing stoop, and if it was reconfigured to make it more accessible or usable, what would that require.Lorenz explained that to do anything with that stoop, would require a variance from the setback.
Lestikow asked if the stoop meets current code.Lorenz stated he does not believe so.
Lestikow spoke of history of these buildings and the lack of meeting code.
Roloff asked when the variance standard changed.Lorenz stated he doesn't recall the exact year, but happened under the previous Zoning Administrator.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Acting Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at
Vogt stated that he feels drainage problems could be provided away from the house to take care of the water problem.He then spoke of the proposed porch versus the existing stoop is unique, yet the request is for an entire porch and doesn't feel it meets the hardship requirement.He also does not believe it is a unique property.
Sprecher spoke of an area variance and the answer to an area problem is corrected by building.
Motion by Vogt, seconded by Sprecher, to deny the variance request based on the hardship or unique property feature not being met, as there are other means to resolve the drainage and water run-off issues without have a variance. Motion 3-1 with Lestikow in opposition and White absent.
E. Dominic Misasi (SP-32-08) requesting various variances to permit the structural repair and an addition to a nonconforming cottage.
Dave Lorenz, Environmenal 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. He also spoke of moving the addition to a different side of the home eliminating the need for a variance for the side yard setback.
Roloff asked if there is a bathroom in the structure.Lorenz stated he does not believe it does.Roloff asked if there is public water and sewer.Lorenz stated there is public sewer available.
Vogt asked if there were provisions that the Board was going to address with sub-standard lots and how to treat them differently.Lorenz stated that would take an ordinance amendment to address them in that way.
Vogt asked about the other work to be done and if the cost/value rule comes into affect.Lorenz explained.
Vogt explained the 3 requirements to be met for a variance to be granted.
Delores Misasi, appearing in favor of the request, stated that the unique situation is that the building was built in 1928 and feels that is unique.She also stated they are working with Baraboo on the sanitary district and they now have sewer and water available to them. She spoke of the foundation needing to be fixed as well as other structural repair.
Vogt asked about the thought of moving the bathroom onto the other side of the building.Misasi stated even if they moved it over, it still would not conform.
Vogt asked if there is heat in the building.Misasi stated there are propane gas tanks for a space heater arrangement.
Vogt confirmed that it is recreational use.He also asked about moving it to the north of the home.Misasi stated that the well was just installed in the last year.
Vogt asked about hardship.Misasi stated that the hardship is it can't be built elsewhere without needing variances.Vogt asked if it could be moved to the North corner. He also asked what the standpipe is shown on Exhibit II,5.Misasi stated that is for the septic and she also stated it is slightly moved from where the Exhibit shows.
Vogt confirmed that from a public safety standpoint it's a hardship.
Vogt asked about public interest.Masasi spoke of the DNR owning property all around this property.
Vogt asked if the DNR ever expressed any desire to purchase.Masasi stated that they offered several years ago when they had the funding to do so.
Sprecher asked about the Town of Baraboo.Masasi stated that the Town has not approved or disapproved of it.
Vogt asked why this request is in the public interest.Masasi stated she feels it will look better, but doesn't feel it will affect the public interest.
Pam Phelan, appearing as interest may appear, stated that she is representing the Department of Natural Resources and they are very interested in purchasing the property and looking to purchase the other small cottage properties and possibly relocate.
Dominic Misasi, applicant, appearing in favor, stated that they have already invested money to accommodate the sewer and water and doesn't feel they would entertain an offer to purchase and feels that money that was offered in the past does not come close to what they would want.
Vogt asked if they have approached them before.Misasi stated that several years ago they had it appraised and offered a purchase price, but they turned it down.
Seeing as no one else wished to speak, Acting Chair Vogt closed the public portion of the hearing at 12:00 p.m.
Roloff spoke of public interest to not allow the structure to have proper sanitary facilities is against public interest.He also stated there are unique property features with the two lots together being unbuildable, as you can't meet setbacks.He then spoke of the hardship, not allowing a bathroom facility to be put in, would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property.
Vogt stated that the 750 square foot requirement is not met, the double lot does not meet lot size, and the addition could be placed on the west or north side of the cottage to meet side yard setbacks.
Sprecher stated he does not feel they can justify giving the variance on a non-conforming structure.Lestikow agrees.
Vogt asked if they built on the north or west side with the bathroom addition, how would that affect the status of the building itself and if it would still require a variance.Lorenz stated it would still require a variance because of the minimum setback to the road, as the entire cottage is within that.
Vogt asked about the other issues.Lorenz explained that it is still non-conforming, but if the variances are granted, it becomes a legal non-conforming structure.
Motion by Roloff, seconded by Vogt, to deny the variance request, based on the applicant not proving hardship, the unique property is not met as there are other structures in the area facing the same issues. Motion carried 4-0 with White absent.
Roloff spoke of a previous applicant requesting to get special exception permit after the fact, and had learned that had the applicant known he could have gotten the permit for a $50 fee because of the emergency situation caused by the flooding. He was curious as to whether or not the Board could refund applicant their Board of Adjustment applicant fee in cases such as this.Mark Steward appeared and provided the Board with information on the County's policy of refunds.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Roloff,
Secretary