HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 04-28-11 ST. CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Thursday, April 28, 2011
8:30 a. m.
Government Center, Hudson, Wisconsin- County Board Room
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
B. OPEN MEETING LAW STATEMENT
C. ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES
D. DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS: May 26, 2011
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Derivative Developments — After- the -fact Special Exception —Tabled 1/27/11
2. Keith & Jennifer Willard —Variances —Tabled 3/24/11
3. Kath Properties LLC — request for reconsideration of conditions in #SE87147
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G NEW BUSINESS
1. Closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal
counsel concerning strategy to be adopted by the Board with respect to
litigation in which it is involved. Reconvene in open session.
H. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
L ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda not necessarily presented in this order.)
SUBMITTED BY: St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department
DATE: April 15, 2011
COPIES TO: County Board Office County Clerk
Board Members News Media/Notice Board
* CANCELLATIONS /CHANGE S /ADDITIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING MINUTES
April 28, 2011
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Clarence "Buck"
Malick at 8:31 a.m.
ROLL CALL — Members Present: Joe Hurtgen, David Peterson, Sue Nelson and Jerry
McAllister.
STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Grabau, Code Administrator; Alex Blackburn, Zoning
Specialist; Pam Quinn, Zoning Specialist; Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water
Conservation Department and Monica Lucht, Recorder.
Staff confirmed to the Board that this was a properly noticed meeting.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING: The next meeting for the Board is scheduled for
Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. in the County Board Room of the Government
Center in Hudson.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Derivative Developments — After - the -fact Special Exception — Tabled 1/27/11:
Grabau stated that no new information has been received after several attempts to contact
the applicant. Applicant has a May deadline to submit the information needed.
Keith & Jennifer Willard — Variances — Tabled 3/24/11: On March 24, 2011, the
Board of Adjustment tabled its decision on the applicant's variance requests for
expansion of the principle structure's roof. During testimony, it became apparent that
reconstruction of the deck would be part of the project and an additional variance would
be needed to reconstruct a nonconforming accessory structure (deck) attached to a
nonconforming principal structure located in the Ag Residential and Lower St. Croix
Riverway District. Specifically, the Board tabled its decision to obtain clarification of the
variance requests.
Staff presented the application and staff report. The Town of Troy reviewed the Willards'
concept permit application for reconstruction/expansion of a nonconforming area at their
March 3, 2011 meeting. The Willards' Troy Riverway application is scheduled to be
brought before the Town Plan Commission in May 2011. St. Croix County Land and
Water Conservation Department reviewed the variance application and submitted
comments as described in the March 24, 2011 staff report. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources reviewed the application and commented on the roof replacement in e-
mail correspondence as described in the March 24, 2011 staff report. The DNR also
maintains that the deck must be considered a nonconforming accessory structure and
support literal enforcement of Section 17.36.I.3.b., which prohibits reconstruction,
alteration or expansion of nonconforming accessory structures except for garages and
sheds.
Keith Willard signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He testified asking to be
allowed to keep the deck, but to bring it up to safe standards. He would like a good solid
roof because of the winters and structural concerns. All construction will be done within
the original footprints and for the overall good of making the house more usable
especially for access.
Jenny Willard signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. She testified that if the
access to the house is not safe, then the existing house is an issue for wheelchairs and
walkers.
Miles Cross, Cross Construction, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He
stated that all the variances requested by the Willards are to meet today's codes, and right
now the deck is very unsafe with insufficient footings.
No one spoke in opposition.
GB Curly's /Kath Properties — Request for reconsideration of conditions in Special
Exception: Quinn presented a letter to the Board stating that the applicant would like to
add a condition that would allow special events on the BP convenience store property and
modify condition #6 to allow parking on grassed areas as necessary to accommodate the
participants. Direction is needed from the Board as to how many events to authorize.
Malick stated he would like to consider the previous Willow River Saloon application
and the clarification of the current GB Curly's/Kath property application at the same time
due to integrated events. He asked Kath to clarify the event parking at the Willow River
Saloon. Motion by McAllister, second by Peterson to reconsider and reopen the permit
for Willow River Saloon with Mr. Kath's agreement to pay the publishing fee, and
allowance of the car show event this year. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board recessed for a break at 9:50 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 9:56 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Application #1 — Milestone Materials — Special Exception: The applicants request to
renew a special exception permit to continue to operate and expand the existing Downing
quarry in the Town of Springfield. The quarry totals 80 acres on two 40 -acre parcels, both
of which are zoned Ag Residential. The quarry also extends into Dunn County to the east.
The existing active mining operation is approximately 31.6 acres in size and includes
service roads, a scale house and office, stockpiles, berms, and a staging and processing
area.
Staff presented the application and staff report. The Town of Springfield reviewed the
applicants request and recommends approval. The St. Croix County Highway
Department reviewed the request and has no objections or concerns with this application.
The Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the application and has no
objections. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was sent a copy of the
2
application and no comments have been received.
Candy Anderson, Milestone Materials, signed an oath and spoke in favor of this request.
She clarified that WPDES Section 3.3 relates to plans specific to when stormwater drains
off site - Milestones stays on site. She also does annual inspections for drainage and
stormwater pollutions and will make a copy of the report available to the Board
Malick questioned the potential truck damage to the Highway and if blasting procedures
will be different. Anthony Tomashek signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He
stated there may be an increased weight volume on the Highway, but Milestone Materials
will work with the Highway Department to maintain the road. He also stated that
Milestones already adheres to the WPDES fueling standards and that tarps are mandatory
on Mathy and Milestone trucks. Regarding the blasting procedures, Tomashek stated the
vibrations should be less. They are required to notify the neighbors through an extensive
call list when blasting, and will notify the Highway Department if blasting near the road.
Joe Walsh, Jim Michalski, Mark Stewart, Gene Schuldt, Cynthia Griffin and Tony Lewis
signed an oath and spoke in opposition of the request with issues such as well protection
plans with well testing that should be in place and included as part of the permit. Also,
suggested was more normal working hours, as well as increased restrictions on noise levels
created by the trucks. Blasting was also a concern and the effects on poured concrete and
windows.
Anthony Tomashek addressed their concerns by responding he is willing to concede on
reduced operational hours, but with the condition that extensions would be granted if
needed. He is also willing to administer and pay for one base line well test in residences
within a mile of the quarry that are listed on their blast list.
MINUTES
Motion by Peterson, second by Hurtgen to approve the March 24, 2011 minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Board recessed for a break at 11:55 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 2:00 p.m.
DECISIONS
After reviewing the material in the record, the Board rendered the following decisions:
Keith & Jennifer Willard — Variances — Tabled 3/24/11: Motion by Peterson, second
by Hurtgen to approve the three variances as amended, based on the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law:
1. The applicants are Keith and Jennifer Willard, property owners.
3
2. The site is located at 171 Glenmont Rd. in part of Gov't Lots 2 & 3, Section 26, T28N,
R20W, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, WI.
3. The Town of Troy Plan Commission reviewed the concept Riverway permit application
for reconstruction or expansion in a nonconforming area at their March 3, 2011
meeting. The Plan Commission agreed that the applicant could move forward with a
Riverway Application. The applicant was told that the following items would need to
be submitted in the application for a Riverway Permit and variance:
• A scale drawing showing the OHWM and 200 foot setback, the square
footage of the existing house, deck and the square footage of what is
proposed,
• Photos of the existing vegetation and topography and a statement that it will
not be disturbed,
• An erosion control plan or a statement that no earth will be disturbed, the
location of any silt fencing,
• A schedule of any reseeding if necessary,
• Verification that the existing wastewater treatment system meets Department
of Commerce Chapter 83 specifications.
4. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the
original special exception application and does not object to the replacement of the
roof. If additional impervious coverage is being proposed to the site with the enclosure
of a portion of the deck, then the department recommends a stormwater management
plan for the additional impervious coverage is provided consistent with §17.36 H.7.
5. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources staff reviewed the variance
application and commented that there is a clear approach available in the St. Croix
County zoning ordinance to allow for the replacement of the roof. Section I.2.d. of
Subchapter III.V Section 17.36 allows for the reconstruction of the nonconforming
structure as a special exception. This allows the reconstruction of the same style of
roof - no greater pitch than the 3:12 that currently exists. The proposed greater pitch
and cupola do not meet the requirements of this section. Neither does the enclosing of
the deck. The roof on this structure is certainly not "flat ". While there are no specific
definitions listed, sec. Comm 21.27(l)(b) implies that 3:12 is sloped, and thus not flat.
Note that according to the ordinance additional requirements must be met, including
submittal of a mitigation plan (it does not make exceptions for different types of
projects) (Section I.2.d. f)), and provide assurance the private on -site wastewater
treatment system is in compliance with the St. Croix County Sanitary Ordinance
(Section I.2.d. g)).
6. When determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists, the Board of Adjustment
must identify unique physical characteristics of the property that would otherwise
prohibit the applicant from using the property for a permitted purpose, and then weigh
the burden placed on the applicant in meeting the requirements of the Ordinance against
the public interests being protected. The house is a legal nonconforming principle
structure constructed within the bluffline and town road setbacks prior to the adoption
4
of the County Riverway ordinance and after receiving variance approval from the
Board of Adjustment. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
create an unnecessary hardship due to the unique physical characteristics of the
property. The buildable portion of this parcel is small and the entire house is within the
40 foot bluffline setback, therefore an expansion parallel to the river would still be
within 40 feet of the bluffline. Any construction on the landward side of the house
would encroach within the town road setback, which would also require variance
approval. These site characteristics were not self - created by any actions of the property
owner.
7. The applicant is requesting minimal relief from the standards in the Ordinance. The
existing structure and proposed roof expansion meet the requirements in Section
17.36.I.2.e.1) with the exception of the 40 -foot bluffline setback and expansion
landward or parallel to the bluffline. The proposed roof extension would cover
approximately half of an existing deck on the riverward side of the house and the
screened enclosure would allow use of the deck during inclement weather. The roof
will not exceed the maximum height of 35 feet, will be earth -toned colors, will not
change the existing combined house and deck footprint, and the expansion will not
exceed the 2000 square foot maximum footprint specified in 17.36.I.2.e.1)i).
8. Substantial justice would be done by allowing the applicant to expand the roof on an
existing legal, nonconforming residence on the property, which is a permitted use in the
Lower St. Croix Riverway District. The proposed roof expansion would cover a
screened enclosure on an existing deck and will be visually inconspicuous, will comply
with requirements for earth -tone building materials, and will not disturb existing mature
trees that screen the house from the river. Denying this variance would limit the
applicant's ability to maintain their property value as compared to other residences in
the general vicinity (north and south) along the Riverway.
Item #1 (variance for expansion of a nonconforming principal structure in the
Lower St. Croix Riverway District)
Staff offers the following general findings of fact and conclusions of law pertinent to
Item #1 for the Board's consideration:
9. The applicants submitted an application to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment
for expansion of a legal nonconforming principal structure (roof) in the Lower St. Croix
Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.36.I.2 of the St. Croix County Zoning
Ordinance.
10. This request would not be contrary to the public interest, which is to prevent soil
erosion, maintain property values, and preserve and maintain the exceptional scenic,
cultural, and natural characteristics of the water and related land of the Lower St. Croix
Riverway. With the conditions to direct roof gutter discharge into runoff infiltration
structures away from the riverward slopes and to protect existing trees along the
bluffline to maintain slope stability along the riverward side of the property, the
5
exceptional scenic, cultural, and natural characteristics of the Riverway would be
preserved and maintained.
11. The roof will be visually inconspicuous, will not violate the spirit or general intent of
the chapter, and will not be contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare. This
request will not be a nuisance by reason of noise, dust, smoke or odor and may have a
positive affect on property values in the neighborhood.
12. The hardship is that the roof leaks, is in need of replacement, and does not meet current
Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC). There is no hardship demonstrated for the
construction plan that includes a cupola, but skylights are acceptable.
Item #2 (Variance for riverward expansion of a nonconforming principal
structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District) Staff offers the following
general findings of fact and conclusions of law pertinent to Item #2 for the Board's
consideration:
13. The applicants filed an addendum application with the Board of Adjustment for a
variance to expand the roof and add a screened enclosure over the deck on the
riverward side of a legal nonconforming principal structure within the bluffline setback
area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway district pursuant to Section 17.36.I.2.1).e.l)j of
the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
Item #3 (variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure
(deck) in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District) Staff offers the following general
findings of fact and conclusions of law pertinent to Item #3 for the Board's
consideration:
14. The applicants filed an addendum application with the Board of Adjustment for a
variance to reconstruct a nonconforming accessory structure (deck) within the bluffline
setback area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway district pursuant to Section 17.36.I.3.b of
the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The deck is attached to a legal,
nonconforming principle structure that was approved by the Board of the intent of the
ordinance in that:
• The reconstructed deck will be no larger than the original one, which is 450
square feet in area;
• No vegetation will be harmed during reconstruction;
• The public interest would not be harmed by granting the variance;
• The deck will be inconspicuous from the river;
• and property values will not be negatively affected.
15. The house and deck are legal nonconforming structures that were constructed within
the 40 -foot bluffline setback prior to adoption of the County Riverway ordinance and
after receiving variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. The deck's
dimensional nonconformity is a hardship that was not self - created by the property
owners. The deck meets all the requirements listed in 17.36.I.3 b.1) — 7) that would
6
allow a garage or shed to be reconstructed. Literal enforcement of the ordinance
prohibiting the reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure (except garages
or sheds) would limit the applicant's continued use of the deck as a safe, structurally -
sound platform for ingress and egress from existing doorways on the riverward side of
the house.
16. In Chapter NR 118.08(3) ordinary maintenance and repair of nonconforming accessory
structures is allowed, but "Nonconforming accessory structures may not be structurally
altered, reconstructed or expanded ". Ordinary maintenance and repair of the existing
30 year old accessory structure is no longer sufficient to prevent deterioration or meet
decay prevention requirements in Comm 21.10 of Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce
Chapter Comm 21 Construction Standards. The applicant's request would also bring
the deck into compliance with state specifications for safe handrails, footings, frost
protection, and structural support/attachment to the principal structure. However, the
applicants cannot comply with Comm 21.225 without alteration or reconstruction of the
deck, which would be a violation of prohibitions contained in NR 118.08(3) and
Section 17.36.I.3.b of the St. Croix County Riverway ordinance. Conflicting statutory
requirements contained in separate state regulations is a hardship that was not self -
created by the applicants.
17. Substantial justice would be done by allowing the applicants continued use of the
nonconforming accessory structure on the property, which is allowed in the Lower St.
Croix Riverway District, and which will be reconstructed within the footprint of the
original deck. The reconstruction will not expand the existing nonconforming
accessory structure's foundation /footprint or increase its encroachment into the
bluffline setback. The stormwater management plan and runoff calculations for the
roof expansion demonstrate that the reconstructed accessory structure (deck) will
comply with the requirements and standards in Section 17.36.H.7. With conditions for
recording an affidavit that describes the approved stormwater management plan and
discloses its maintenance requirements pursuant to Section 17.36.H.7.g,1) & 2), the
reconstructed deck and screened enclosure will meet the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance and comply with mitigation requirements in Section 17.36.I.5.a., b., and c.3).
With the following conditions:
1. The variance requests will allow the applicants to replace and expand the roof, with the
exception of the proposed cupola for which skylights may be substituted, and reconstruct
a deck on the property in accordance with the plans submitted on February 4, 2011, and
as provided in the conditions below. This approval does not include any additional
structures, impervious coverage, filling and grading, or other activities.
2. The applicants shall secure all necessary permits and approvals from the Town of Troy
and obtain any other required local, state, or federal permits and approvals.
7
3. The applicants will direct all roof gutter discharge, including the expanded roof, away
from the riverward slopes into approved stormwater structures and protect existing trees
along the bluffline to maintain slope stability and visual screening.
4. As indicated in the plans submitted by the applicant, the proposed project will be visually
inconspicuous, will comply with requirements for earth -tone building materials, and will
not require removal of existing mature trees that screen the house from the river.
5. Within 30 days of the Board's decision, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater
Management Plan, which meets standards specified in Section 17.36 H.7.d. Upon
approval by the County, the applicants shall record an affidavit against the property
referencing the decision and stormwater management plan, including a long -term
maintenance agreement for runoff infiltration structures. The applicants shall submit a
recorded copy of the affidavit to the Zoning Administrator at this time. The intent is to
make future owners aware of the limitations and responsibilities incurred as part of the
Board of Adjustment's variance decision.
6. Any minor change or addition to the project, including but not limited to design of the
project, shall require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to making
the change or addition. Any major change or addition to the originally approved plan
will have to go through the variance approval process.
7. The applicant shall have one (1) year from the issuance of these approvals to commence
replacement of the roof and two (2) years to complete it. Failure to do so may result in
expiration or revocation of this decision, after which time the applicant will be required to
secure a new variance before starting or completing the project.
8. These conditions may be amended or additional conditions may be added if unanticipated
circumstances arise that would affect the health and /or safety of citizens or degrade the
natural resources of St. Croix County. Conditions will not be amended or added without
notice to the applicant and an opportunity for a hearing.
9. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read, understands, and agrees to all
conditions of this decision.
Motion carried unanimously.
Application #1— Milestone Materials — Special Exception: Motion by Nelson, second by
Malick to approve the Special Exception for Mathy Construction as amended, based on the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The applicant is Thomas Simons, etal, property owner, and Milestone Materials, the
operator.
2. The site is located on Highway W in Section 1, T29N, R15W, in the Town of
Springfield.
8
3. The applicant filed with the Planning and Zoning Department an application to renew a
special exception permit for an existing non - metallic mining operation pursuant to
Section 17.15(6)(g) and subject to provisions of Chapter 14, Nonmetallic Mining
Ordinance.
4. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the special exception permit
approved on May 3, 2006, and has no violations on record with the County.
5. This request does not violate the spirit or general intent of the Ordinance since
nonmetallic mining is a permitted use in the Ag Residential District and is an industry
that contributes to the County's economic well being.
6. With conditions to maintain the vegetated berms and 100 foot buffer, following the
storm water pollution prevention plan, maintaining a 5 foot separation to the
groundwater and implementing the reclamation plan, the existing mine and proposed
expansion will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or general welfare or be
substantially adverse to property values in the neighborhood.
7. With conditions to implement dust control measures and conditions on the hours of
operation this request will not be a nuisance by reason of noise or dust. There will not
be any significant smoke or odors generated.
8. The following findings are in reference to the requirements of Chapter 14, Nonmetallic
Mining:
a) The native habitat will be restored upon reclamation.
b) The storm water is contained on site.
c) A 100 foot buffer will be maintained.
d) There will be no mining into the groundwater. A five foot separation will be
maintained.
e) Topsoil is being stockpiled for reclamation.
f) A letter of credit is on file for $119,870.00
9. The Town of Springfield recommends approval of this special exception request.
10. The Highway Department has no objections or concerns with this request.
11. The Land and Water Conservation Department has no objections with this request.
12. A hydrogeology report was submitted to determine the groundwater elevation.
13. A financial assurance in the form of a bond for $119, 870 was submitted to the county
on July 24, 2006.
9
14. The Wisconsin DNR recommends that the applicants adhere to the storm water permit,
specifically sections 3, 3.1 and 3.2. The DNR also recommends that fueling and
maintenance of vehicles be conducted in the entrance /scale area.
With the following conditions:
1. This special exception permit allows nonmetallic mining to proceed according to the
plans submitted March 3, 2011. Approval does not include any expansion in area or
operations not indicated in those plans.
2. The applicant must continue to meet the conditions of the May 3, 2006, special
exception decision, unless stated otherwise in conditions that are a part of this approval.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all other necessary local, state, and
federal permits and approvals throughout the duration of the mining operation.
4. Applicants shall appear before the Board of Adjustment for discussion of compliance
with the permit in October 2013. This permit is valid for a period of five years and
expires April 28, 2016, after which time it must be renewed pursuant to Section 14.3
A.6.a. of the Nonmetallic Mining Ordinance.
5. The applicants shall maintain the vegetated berms, and 100 foot buffer including the
existing trees along Hwy. W.
6. Applicants shall maintain the 5 foot separation to groundwater.
7. The applicants shall follow the storm water pollution prevention plan and implement
the reclamation plan.
8. Hours of operation shall not extend beyond 6 AM — 8 PM Monday through Thursday
and 6 AM to 6 PM on Friday. Maintenance can be conducted 7 days a week.
Maintenance does not include any activity that will activate the back up beepers,
crushing, or hauling. The mine operator may submit a written request for
occasional /limited extended hours to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval
ahead of time.
9. The applicants shall implement dust control measures.
10. The applicants shall submit seismograph calibration reports annually.
11. The inspection report that is provided as part of 3.2 of the WPDES permit shall be sent
to the Zoning office annually.
10
12. The applicant will provide base line water testing of all the wells within one mile upon
request. The applicants shall notify all the well owners within one mile. Follow up
tests will be the responsibility of the well owner. Water shall be tested for pH and
turbidity and total organic chemical content.
13. Applicants shall place adequate "no engine / jake braking" signs along Highway W.
Number and location of signs to be determined by the Highway Department.
14. The applicants shall adhere to the storm water permit, specifically sections 3, 3.1 and
3.2 and all fueling and maintenance of vehicles shall be conducted in the entrance /scale
area.
15. Upon any change in ownership or operation of the mine, the applicant shall submit to
the Zoning Administrator the name and contact information of the owner and primary
mine operator. The operator shall comply with all of the general requirements and
conditions listed in the nonmetallic mining and reclamation standards in Chapter 14 —
Nonmetallic Mining Ordinance (unless varied per conditions).
16. Any minor change (or addition) in area or use beyond what is shown in the plans shall
require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Major changes, including but
not limited to mining below the groundwater table, shall require the special exception
approval process, as stated in the Ordinance.
17. These conditions may be amended or additional conditions may be added if
unanticipated conditions arise that would affect the health and /or safety of citizens or
degrade the natural resources of St. Croix County. Conditions will not be amended or
added without notice to the applicant and an opportunity for a hearing.
18. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read, understands and agrees to all
conditions of this decision.
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Malick at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C.W. Malick, Chairman Monica Lucht, Recording Secretary
April 28, 2011
11