Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 05-24-1990BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING AND HEARING May 24, 1990 (This meeting was recorded by a court reporter) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kinney at 9:00 A.M. in the County Board Room, Courthouse, Hudson. Chairman Kinney explained the procedures of the hearing, requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their names and addresses on the sheet in the front of the room. OLD BUSINESS DONALD MICHAELSON Don explained that Trollhagan has made application to the state. The state has verbally stated they had no problem with the application. The total size of the sign will be 81x24' totaling 192 sq. ft. The height will be 35' above the average grade. The area will be graded so as to elevate the grade of the area since it sits low. ROBERT DOBERSTEIN Bob Doberstein presented a letter to the BOA which listed several items of concern that he had. He is concerned that the township is trying to stop his driveway application since the neighbor to the east just received a driveway permit. Greg Timmerman explained that the decision made several months earlier was a conceptual approval, approving the location of the access as well as the design of road. Supervisor Bradley stated that the decision was made in good faith and there was an understanding when the decision was made. Mr. Landry has not applied for the driveway permit. The Township has set the condition that the land owner must apply for the permit. After additional discussion Supervisor Sthephens stated that the Township needs to be further involved. Supervisor Kinney stated that the interpretation of all trucks involved with the project should be limited to strictly those trucks hauling the excavated product from the quarry. NEW BUSINESS Hearing called to order at 9:30 A.M. The Zoning Administrator read the notice of the hearings: An on site investigation will be made of each site in question, after which the board contemplates adjournment into closed session for the purpose of deliberating on the appeals, pursuant to Sec. 19.85(1)(a), Wisconsin Statutes, and will reconvien into 1 open session for the purpose of voting on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(C)2 Setback, Town Road APPELLANT: Dennis & Gerilyn Larson LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T29N- R16W, Town of Baldwin 2. ARTICLE: 15.04(3)(a)3 Holding Tank, New Const. APPELLANT: Shawna Callahan LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 10, T28N- R15W, Town of Cady 3. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(c)1 Bluffline setback APPELLANT: Gordon & Coleen Conard LOCATION: Lot 5 , Gov't Lot, sec. 35, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph 4. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(A) Two family dwelling APPELLANT: Libby Decheine LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 11, T31N- R18W, Town of Somerset 5. ARTICLE: 17.29(2)(a) Filling on lake bed APPELLANT: Walter J. Laumeyer LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 14, T30N- R19W, Town of Somerset 6. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(h) Temporary Hot Mix Plant APPELLANT: Monarch Paving LOCATION: E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 1, T29N- T15W, Town of Springfield 7. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(c)2 Setback, Town road APPELLANT: Leon Orr LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 11, T31N- R18W, Town of Star Prairie DENNIS & GERILYN LARSON Gerilyn explained their need for a setback variance off of a town road. They would like to build a new house and reconstruct it in the same area as the old house. The Zoning Administrator advised that if the house could meet the setbacks there was no hardship. Variance can only be obtained if a hardship exists. SHAWNA ACALLAHAN Shawna requested a holding tank on new construction for Vanishing Kingdom, a proposed environmental learning center. The township chairman has signed the tank agreement. The soils on the property are not conducive to any other type of system. GORDON & COLEEN CONARD The Zoning Administrator explained that Mr. Conard had requested his application be postponed. 2 LIBBY DECHINE Libby explained that she is requesting a duplex so that her daughter could purchase the property, convert it to a duplex, to help pay for the mortgage payment. This will also help her to more readily finance the house. There are no objections from the neighbors. WALTER LAUMEYER Walter requested that the sand which had been filled in the basement several years earlier when the lake levels were high on Bass Lake, now be removed and placed on the shore as a sandblanket. The Zoning Administrator explained that it was also very important to get the DNR'S approval. MONARCH PAVING Sam VcVicker explained that they wanted a temporary hotmix plant for the rock quarry in the township of Springfield, Sec. 1. This plant would be used for municipal projects and is essential for highway projects. LEON ORR The Zoning Administrator explained that Leon Orr had requested his application not to be acted upon since he could meet the setbacks from the town road and no hardship existed. The committee recessed to view the sites in question and reconvened to render the enclosed decisions. Respectfully submitted, Robert Stephens, secretary TC:cj 3 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-24 Filing Date: 5-02-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of May 7 and 14, 1990 Hearing Date: 5-24-90 (C(Dpy FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Libby A. Decheine 709 68th St. Somerset, WI 54025 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Sec. 11, Town of Somerset, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for single family residence and has been used continuously since construction. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Construct the basement into a second living unit. Duplex. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a conditional use permit under Section 17.15(6)(a) of the ordinance. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The single family residence which has a finished basement could easily be converted into a duplex. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONDITIONAL USE The application for a conditional use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.15(6)(a) of the ordinance: Duplex's are special exception uses in the Ag. Residential 1 district providing there is no objection and building and sanitary codes can be met. The basis of the above finding of face, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE - The requested conditional use is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A second entrance is provided. 2. Smoke alarms with the capabilities of the other apartment be altered in case of fire. 3. Second unit be a 1 bedroom apartment with legal size windows installed. 4. Septic system be verified by a certified soil tester with bore hole in the area of the septic, 3 ft. blow. 5. Upon completion the zoning Administrator is to be contacted for a compliance inspection. The zoning administrator is directed to issue a zoning permit incorporating these conditions. Any privilege granted by this decision must be exercised within 12 months of the date of this decision by obtaining the necessary building, zoning and other permits for the proposed construction. This period will be extended if this decision is stayed by the order of any court or operation of law. This order may be revoked by the Board after notice and opportunity to be heard for violation of any of the conditions imposed. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision. The municipality assumes no liability for and make no warranty as to the reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. Signed OK-1 Date: �.- L_�`"Q Filed: cc: Town Clerk and file E DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-14 Filing Date: 3-28-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of April 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 5-24-90 FINDINGS OF FACT C0PVW1;:;;0 Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: I. The applicant or appellant is: Donald Michaelson Box 365 Somerset, WI 54025 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Sec. 18, Town of Somerset, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Agricultural on Commercial property 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Commercial sign. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a conditional use permit under Section 17.65(3) of the ordinance. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: An 8' by 24' sign totaling 192 square ft.. 200 sq. ft. maximum allowed by ordinance. Height will be 551 to the top of sign. All state permits are to be obtained and on file with the application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONDITIONAL USE The application for a conditional use permit does not qualify under the criteria of Section 17.65(3) of the ordinance because: Appellant does not have state approved 1 permit. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of face, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE - The requested conditional use is denied because: 1. Proper documentation from the was not provided as requested. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision. The municipality assumes no liability for and make no warranty as to the reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i Signed Chairpersbfi :� Date: '-tF 1-36 —1?6 Filed: cc: Town Clerk and file K DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-23 Filing Date: 4-26-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of May 7 and 14, 1990(C(Dpy Hearing Date: 5-24-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Dennis & Gerilyn Larson 706 270th St. Woodville, WI 54028 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Sec. 25, Town of Baldwin, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Ag-Residential and has been so used continuously since Ordinance adoption. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests a variance closer to town road, 96' to centerline. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under Section 17.64(1)(c)2 of the ordinance. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The applicant is requesting construction on the same location of existing house. However, a new house can be built meeting the setback requirements. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE - The variance must meet all three of the following tests: 1 A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because the new construction could meet the setback requirements. Convenience is not a hardship. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of face, conclusions of ,law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE - The requested variance is denied because no hardship exists. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision. The municipality assumes no liability for and make no warranty as to the reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed ' Chairperson 44 Date: ZU- Filed: cc: Town Clerk and file E DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-19 Filing Date: 4-29-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of May 7 and 14, 1990 (COP Hearing Date: 5-24-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Shawna Callahan Rt.1, Box 232 Wilson, WI 54027 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 10, Town of Cady, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Agricultural. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests a holding tank for Vanishing Kingdom, an environmental awareness camp for children. Holding tanks are prohibited on new construction. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under Section 15.04(3)(a)3 of the ordinance. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The request a for holding tank on new construction is being requested because the use is for environmental awareness activities. Holding tanks which are thought to be abusive to the environment would be properly maintained because of the nature of the application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE - The variance must meet all three of the following 1 tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because the property can be used for Agricultural activities with a single family residence. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because the present use allows reasonable use of the property. ORDER OF DETERMINATION ' The basis of the above finding of face, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE - The requested variance is denied because no hardship exists, there is a reasonable use of the property. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision. The municipality assumes no liability for and make no warranty as to the reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed A/V- L:�t-:402:dd Chairperson Date:_ —�Z- 2z) cc: Town Clerk and file Filed: E DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-18 Filing Date: 4-09-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of May 7 and 14, 1990 COPI)y Hearing Date: 5-24-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Walter J Laumeyer 3324 E. 75th Court Invergrove Hgts., MN 55076 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Sec. 14, Town of Somerset, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Seasonal Cabin and has been used continuously ordinance adoption. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Remove sand fill from basement, spread on rock riprap and bed of lake creating sandblanket. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a conditional use permit under Section 17.29(2)(a) of the ordinance. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Filling and grading on the bed of the lake. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONDITIONAL USE The application for a conditional use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.29(3)(a) of the ordinance: 1 ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of face, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE - The requested conditional use is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Not to exceed 3 feet beyond the riprap. 2. Stabilize by seeding and mulching 3. Inspected by Zoning Administrator when completed. The zoning administrator is directed to issue a zoning permit incorporating these conditions. Any privilege granted by this decision must be exercised within 12 months of the date of this decision by obtaining the necessary building, zoning and other permits for the proposed construction. This period will be extended if this decision is stayed by the order of any court or operation of law. This order may be revoked by the Board after notice and opportunity to be heard for violation of any of the conditions imposed. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of the decision. The municipality assumes no liability for and make no warranty as to the reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed i + Chairperso Date: Filed: cc: Town Clerk and file E