Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 07-28-11 ST. CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, July 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 MEETING: August 25, 2011 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Anderson Excavating non - metallic mining renewal tabled on May 26, 2011 2. Request for reconsideration for Derivative Developments special exception request denied on June 23, 2011. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS G NEW BUSINESS 1. Rehearing on Waldroff Appeal of Highway Commissioner Revocation of Driveway Permits. 2. 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: July 22, 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 July 28, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Clarence "Buck" Malick at 8:30 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; Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department and Bonita Clum, 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, August 25, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. in the County Board Room of the Government Center in Hudson. PUBLIC HEARING Application #3 - Douglas and Ann McMillan Variance Reconsideration: Blackburn began by stating that Don Gillen was present to answer any questions, and Malick commented that he has had communications outside of the meeting. The McMillans were represented by Thomas Boyd, their attorney and agent. Boyd will be drafting the decision on behalf of his clients. Boyd contends that because the foot print of the home will not change, and the height of the home, after renovations, will not exceed the maximum heights specified by statutes, they are in compliance with codes and therefore should be granted the variance. Malick questioned the slope of the roof and whether or not the water runoff would interfere with the slope preservation. Boyd stated because of the gutters and the gutter system the energy of the water would be stopped, therefore would not cause erosion. McMillan added that the visibility from the river will not change. Because of the new plans, the home will be brought into code. McMillan answered questions regarding the gutter system and explained to the Board that part of the gutter system drains into a water garden and does not interfere with slope preservation land. The other part of the gutter system has three downspouts that drain right into a pipe that brings the water right down the hill. Malick questioned why the McMillans had not lifted the roof before, since the they have been in the house for 21 years. McMillan answered that this area was mainly used for the children and there wasn't a need for the roof to be lifted. They would now like it lifted so they can use this space as a spare bedroom. Malick described the site visits stating that they are not recorded, and because of this they usually do not make too many comments. Upon return from site visits, decisions are made. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Request for reconsideration for Derivative Developments special exception request denied on June 23, 2011: Staff presented the application and staff report. Staff stated the stormwater plan was just received the prior evening so it had not yet been reviewed by the St Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department (LWCD). LWCD staff was not present at the meeting to respond. Motion by McAllister, 2nd by Nelson to grant reconsideration and to place on next month's agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson Excavating non - metallic mining renewal tabled on May 26, 2011: Staff presented the application and staff report. The Town of Rush River approved the application with the condition that the applicant maintains the 100 foot buffer, and this buffer area is to be sloped to prevent erosion. Blackburn had a recommendation to get bids, but since the Andersons would be doing all the work themselves they felt that no bid is necessary. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is still undecided on where the driveway should intersect Highway 63, and the applicant doesn't anticipate being notified until May 31, 2011. Andersons are requesting another exception for this matter. Robin Anderson wanted it noted that right now the access is through an easement, and there have been no complaints from neighbors and no accidents. No motion was made. NEW BUSINESS Rehearing on Waldroff Appeal of Highway Commissioner Revocation of Driveway Permits: The Waldroff information had not been included in the packets sent to the Board Waldroff signed an oath and addressed the Board saying he needs these driveways to farm this land. The driveways have been inspected and are found to be good and sound. He feels he has been in a legal battle for four and a half years and wants this settled. Motion by McAllister, 2nd by Nelson to reconsider next month. Motion carried unanimously. Grabau stated he has talked to Corporation Counsel, Greg Timmerman, to get his interpretation of this. After the Court had reviewed all testimony and evidence, the decision was made that the Board of Adjustment does have the authority to review the Highway Commissioner's decision in regard to the driveways. Malick agreed that this should be deferred until next month as suggested. He believes this won't need a public hearing and that `reconsideration' is the right language, under the rules, just to place on the agenda, but suggested that Grabau question Timmerman if this needs to be a public hearing or if it can be placed on the agenda as a reconsideration. Grabau shared information received from Timmerman. At the Circuit Court hearing the Court took in all evidence from the Highway Department's side and the Waldroff 's side. Through the Court, Waldroff did not challenge the fact that they could have one driveway on each side of County A. PUBLIC HEARING Application #1 - Mathys Construction Special Exception Permit Renewal: Staff presented the application and staff report. The Town of Springfield provided no written comments, however, staff talked with the Town Chairman, Bill Reusch, on July 20, 2011, and Mr. Reusch stated that some of the Town Supervisors will be present at the public hearing. The St Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed this application and concerns have been addressed. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources had no comments, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation had no 2 comments. Anthony Tomashek and Candy Anderson signed an oath and spoke in favor, stating that this application is the same as the Downing mine, but looking at gravel mining only. Mathy Construction is requesting only to deal with the renewal so they can keep their permit. They have agreed to do ground water testing within 1.5 miles. They also agreed to keep mining 5 feet above the ground water line. Bill Reusch, Town of Springfield Chairman, signed an oath and spoke in opposition. The Town has been getting a lot of complaints from the residents in the Town and surrounding areas. They were not told about mining Frac sand to the tune of 100 loads a day. Reusch is concerned about how many loads will be moved daily, the weight of trucks etc. He would like a better handle on accident reports that come out of the Downing mine, but since this is not a Frac sand application today, there are a couple of months before that will need to be looked at, and this will give us time to see what happens in Downing.. Motion by McAllister, 2nd by Peterson, to approve as recommended by staff, based on the following findings of facts and conclusions of law, with an amendment that if Mathy Construction obtains a contract for Frac sand they will need to return to amend their permit. 1. The applicants are Mathy Construction Company, the property owner; and Milestone Materials, the operator. 2. The site is located on US Highway 12 in Section 36, T29N, R15W, Town of Springfield, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. 3. The applicants 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. This renewal originally included a request to mine into the groundwater; however the applicants did not provide the required baseline groundwater testing. Due to these facts this renewal will be for mining the limestone and sandstone while maintaining a five foot buffer between the quarry floor and groundwater. 4. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the special exception permit approved on July 28, 2006 and there are no violations on record with the County. 5. The applicant has complied with annual reporting requirements and has paid annual nonmetallic mining reclamation fees through 2011. 6. 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. 3 7. With conditions on limiting hours of operation, implementing dust control measures, maintaining the berms and vegetative screening, this request will not constitute a nuisance by reason of noise or dust. There will be no smoke or odors from this operation. 8. With conditions to follow the storm water and pollution prevention plan and having spill kits in the vehicles that are on site, this request will not be detrimental to public health. 9. With conditions to maintain the 125 foot buffers, berms and vegetation this request will not have a negative affect on property values. 10. With conditions to follow reclamation plans, this request will not have a negative impact on property values. 11. The Town of Springfield has not submitted any comments in writing; however some of the Town Supervisors will be present at the public hearing. 12. Steve Olson from the Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed this application and his concerns have been addressed. 13. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has not submitted a recommendation on this request. 14. A reclamation bond for $105,547 is on file, with conditions to increase this amount to $159,520, this request will not have a negative impact on property values. With the following conditions: 1. This special exception permit allows nonmetallic mining to proceed as long as a five foot buffer is maintained between the quarry floor and the ground water. 2. Applicants shall establish baseline data on the groundwater and then submit this and all other required information along with an application to amend this special exception permit before any mining commences into the groundwater. 3. Hours of operation shall not extend beyond 6 AM — 10 PM Monday through Friday. The mine operator may submit a written request for occasional /limited extended hours to the Zoning Administrator for prior review and approval. 4. Dust control measures shall be implemented. 5. The berms, 125 foot buffers and vegetative screening shall be maintained. 4 6. The storm water and pollution prevention plan shall be followed. 7. Spill kits shall be carried in the vehicles that are onsite. 8. Reclamation plans shall be followed. 9. The financial assurance shall be increased to $159,520. 10. The applicants must amend this permit if they acquire any contracts for Frac sand. This amendment application must include the number of truck loads per day that are hauled out of this mine. 11. Upon any change in ownership or operation of the mine, the applicants shall submit to the Zoning Administrator the name and contact information of the owner and primary mine operator. 12. 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 shall require the special exception approval process, as stated in the Ordinance. 13. 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. 14. Accepting this decision means that the applicants and all property owners have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of this decision. Motion carried unanimously. Application #2 - Chris and Sheila Rohl — Rohl Limestone, Inc. Special Exception Permit Renewal: Staff presented the application and staff report. The Town of Troy was sent the application for review and comment, but the Town Board has not submitted a written recommendation. The St. Croix County Highway Department requested that the applicants pave from the entrance gate to the scale house and pave the radii where the trucks turn onto County Highway U. This has not been completed.. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the reclamation and operation plan and stated that the proposed stormwater pond expansion should address the stormwater issues to the west side of County Highway U. The reclaimed areas are well established and the proposed cost of reclamation looks adequate. Based on the above, they have no objection to the renewal of the special exception permit. The Wisconsin 5 Department of Natural Resources did not submit any comments. Malick stated that since there are no changes to the Rohl request, that this request gets placed on next months agenda to assure that two requirements are met. The first, that a fuel tank will be removed, and the second is a request from the Highway Department. To date, neither has been met. Blackburn talked with Town of Troy and they had no concerns. Fodroczi would like written comments from the Town in the staff report. The recommendation is to defer for one month to assure that requirements have been completed, and to give the Town of Troy another month to respond. Motion by Hurtgen 2nd by Nelson to table until the August meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Malick requested that the record show there is nobody here for comment. UNFINISHED BUSINESS continued Anderson Excavating non - metallic mining renewal tabled on May 26, 2011: Staff reviewed the recommendation with the board. The Town of Rush River, Town Chairman, Don Schumacher, approved this application with the following conditions: 1. The applicants maintain the 100 foot buffer. 2. This buffer area is to be sloped to prevent erosion. St Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the DNR approved stormwater and pollution prevention plan and has no concerns at this time. They recommend that the applicants are in compliance with this plan by October 31, 2011. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has approved the stormwater and pollution prevention plan. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation finds the current access and any future access proposals will need prior approval by the DOT. We heard from the Andersons who don't like the idea of moving the driveway. Motion by Peterson, 2nd by McAllister for approval based on staff recommendations, to include a bond of $10,000, or letter of credit to be submitted by August 31, 2011, with completion of the driveway by May of 2012. Motion carried unanimously. Malick suggested the Board view the McMillan site. The hearing was left open. The Board recessed at 11:00 a.m. The Board reconvened at .m. 12:35 DECISIONS After reviewing the material in the record, the Board rendered the following decisions: Douglas and Ann McMillan Variance Reconsideration: Motion by Hurtgen, 2nd by Peterson to table until next months meeting. The Board suggested to staff to give the DNR a deadline to respond, or comment no later than 5:00p.m., on Tuesday, August 9, 2011. Attorney Boyd will then have until the close of business on August 16, 2011 to respond so that staff can include the response in the packet for the August meeting. This 6 hearing is to remain open. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Malick adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Nelson, Secretary Bonita Clum, Recording Secretary July 28, 2011 7