Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 07-26-1990BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING July 26, 1990 This meeting was recorded by AND HEARINGS a court reporter The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kinney at 9:00 A.M. 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. Supervisors Bradley, Stephens, Menter, Sinclear and Kinney were all in attendance. Staff included Zoning Administrator Nelson and Corp. Counsel Greg Timmerman. Stephens made a motion to approve the agenda. Bradley seconded the motion. Motion carried. Motion by Bradley and seconded by Stephens to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD Supervisor Menter requested to abstain due to a local conflict. Russ Thorson presented Springfields request for a holding tank for the proposed property in Springfield Township for a new Township Hall. The question arose as to whether another site in the township was suitable. It was agreed it might be. NEW BUSINESS Hearing was called to order at 9:30 A.M. Nelson 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 reconvene into open session for the purpose of voting on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(b)2 Set back from road APPELLANT: Joseph & Bettie Lombardo LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 33, T31N-R16W, Town of Cylon 2. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(n) Hot mix plant APPELLANT: Mathy Construction LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 19, T28N-R16W, Town of Eau Galle 3. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(m) Special Exception APPELLANT: Larry Johnson LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 32, T30N-R16W, Town of Emerald 4. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, Town road APPELLANT: Dean Eggen, Dean Eggen Homes LOCATION: W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 4, T29N-R19W, Town of St. Joseph 5. ARTICLE: 17.31(2) Setback from high water mark APPELLANT: Brett Knops LOCATION: Gov't Lot 4, Sec. 261 T30N-R19W, Town of St. Joseph 6. ARTICLE: 17.31(2) Setback from high water mark APPELLANT: Mark & Rita Montbriand LOCATION: Gov't Lot 1, Sec. 23, T30N-R19W, Town of St. Joseph 7. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, Town road APPELLANT: Lowell Samuel LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 33, T30N-R19W, Town of Somerset 8. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(n) Hot mix plant APPELLANT: Mathy Construction LOCATION: W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 36, T29N-R15W, Town of Springfield 9. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, Town road APPELLANT: Chris Bethke LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of sec. 25, T31N-R17W, Town of Stanton 10. ARTICLE: 17.31(2) Setback from high water mark APPELLANT: Donald & Alice Michels LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 31, T31N-R17W, Town of Stanton 11. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, Town road APPELLANT: Dale Swenson LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 21, T31N-R17W, Town of Stanton 12. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, class D road APPELLANT: Dean Hanson, Dean Hanson Homes LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 4, T28N-R18W, Town of Troy 13. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(f) Dog Kennel APPELLANT: Phillip Ogburn, DVM LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 19, T29N-R18W, Town of Warren JOSEPH & BETTIE LOMBARDO E Joseph & Bettie Lombardo presented their request o build a 3 car garage 35' from the center line of CTH "O". The structure would be no closer than the existing house, however, parking would be in the road right-of-way. Members of the BOA expressed concern over the parking as well as an existing well that is in this area. MATHY CONSTRUCTION --EAU GALLE Sam McVicer presented a request for a temporary hot mix plant located in Eau Galle Township along STH 1163". They should be in operation the end of September. This pit will be reclaimed as shown by a reclamation plan. MATHY CONSTRUCTION--SPRINGFIELD Sam McVicer presented a similar request for a hot mix plant to be located in the Township of Springfield in an existing pit. This project is to be used for local highway projects. The project will be reclaimed upon completion. LARRY JOHNSON Nelson explained that the Paintball operation was in violation of the ordinance and that the applicant was here for a special exception use --commercial recreational permit. Larry Johnson stated that he had thought he had contacted the necessary personnel when he requested the use from DNR. DNR, according to Johnson, had no problems with the operation. The proposed use is strictly a recreational sport where teams are established and a form of tag is played using guns that shoot paintballs. DEAN EGGEN Dean Eggen stated that he needed a variance of the 200 ft. driveway separation on the parcel in question because of difficult topography. He is requesting the driveway to be 75' for safety reasons. The Township of St. Joseph supports the request. BRETT KNOPS Bret Knops is requesting that the existing seasonal structure be removed and a new year round residence be constructed. This new structure would be 17 ft. from the easement line, therefore, he needs a variance of 33 ft. The Township of St. Joseph supports the proposal. MARK & RITA MONTBRIAND Mark requested an addition to be added to his existing cabin. This addition, even though it would be closer than 75 ft. from 3 the high water mark, will be added onto the portion of the building away from the lake. The Township supports the request. LOWELL SAMUEL Lowell Samuel requested a variance for a garage to be built closer than 100 ft. from the right-of-way line of the Township road. Due to the difficult topography of the land, this is the only location that would be suitable. Nelson stated that the existing driveway that accesses on to CTH "E" should be eliminated since a new drive will access on to the town road. Eliminating this access will provide safer entrance via the town road. The Township supports this request. CHRIS BETHKE Chris stated that his residence had burned down and he is requesting a variance to build on the same site which is less than 100 ft. from the right-of-way of the township road. This is the only reasonable location that would still provide access to all the farm buildings. The Township supports the request. DONALD & ALICE MICHELS Alice presented a request to build a 3 season porch onto her existing residence, closer than 75 ft. from the high water mark of the Willow River. This addition would be closer than the existing residence. Nelson stated that no hardship existed and the variance should not be granted. Since it would encroach closer than the existing residence. DALE SWENSON Dale Swenson presented a request to build a replacement residence closer to the Town road than the 100 ft. setback from the right- of-way required by ordinance. His residence burned down and moving it back the proper distance would encroach the structure on the navigable pond. Nelson stated the existing location does meet the setback of 75' from the high water mark. Dean presented a request to build a new house less than 100 ft. from the right-of-way line of a Cul-De-Sac. The topography is very rough and makes this the only possible 4 location on the whole lot. PHILLIP OGBURN Phil presented a request to constrict a kennel less than 700 ft. from a residential lot line. He would construct the kennels so that barriers would buffer noise from barking dogs. This kennel operation is for hunting dogs and personal trail dogs. He would maintain between 18 and 20 dogs at a time. Sandy Albright, an adjoining neighbor stated that she was opposed to the operation because of the noise of the barking dogs. Respectfully submitted, &LI - Robert Stephens ry secre TC:cj Decisions attached 5 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-38 Filing Date: 6-27-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 'n Date: 7-26-90 (C(OF )y Hearing FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Mark & Rita Montbriand 2310 Burke Ave. No. St. Paul, MN 55109 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: Gov't Lot 1 of Sec. 23, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for a season cabin. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Add a 38' x28' addition to the structure. Even though the addition is less than 75' from the ordinary high water mark, it is on the side away from the water. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.31(2) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proposed construction well not increase the impact on the shore'of Bass Lake. Construction will be away from rather than equal or closer to. 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 property because: A structure for habitation exists. 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The structure is no higher than the existing structure. 2. The surface grades are equal to the current grades. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Sinclear. Motion carried. 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 Chairpers Date: / Filed:_8-14-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-41 Filing Date: 6-29-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 8-23-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Dean Hanson 311 Galahad Rd. N Hudson, WI 54016 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 NE 1/4 of Sec. 4, Town of Troy, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for residential lot. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To construct a residence less than 100 ft. from the right-of-way line. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under Section 17.64(1)(d)2. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The topography of the property is very difficult making the placement of a structure and its access very difficult. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following 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: It has 1 not been demonstrated there is no other location for a residence on the property. The presentation showed only economic hardships. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because: There is a possibility of building lower on the property. C. The variance will be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because: There is another site on the property. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is denied. Motion to approve by Bradley, seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. 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 . Date: -2_.1 - 9IC Filed:_8-31-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 COPY DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 45-90 Filing Date: 7-03-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Joseph & Bettie Lombardo Rt.l New Richmond, WI 54017 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 SW 1/4 of Sec. 33, Cylon Township, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Residential 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Proposes to erect a garage that will be thirty (30) feet from the centerline of CTH "O". This structure will be 241x48' and attached to a 251x42' residence. The property boundaries are 100'x931. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.64(1)(b)2 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The existing residence is currently setback 30' from the centerline of CTH "O". As proposed, parked vehicles when not in the garage would be in the right-of-way. There is an existing well that is not in use in the area of the proposed garage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny 1 the applicant all reasonable use of the property because the existing residence currently has a 1717"x2019" garage, B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because very limited lot. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because safety is an issue with cars parked in the right-of-way of CTH "O". ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions. 1. Septic system be replaced with a code complying system. 2. Well be properly abandoned or brought back into service. 3. No parking be allowed in the road right-of-way. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stepthens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; and Kinney, yes. Motion to approve by Menter, seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. 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 ll—gr�"J a,�zL ?-Lx4mu Signed Chairperson Date: �,�� ?6 Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-37 Filing Date: 6-27-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 C(op FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Mathy Construction 915 Commercial Ct., Box 189 Onalaska, WI 54654 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 SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 19, Town of Eau Galle, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for a barrow pit. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To erect a temporary hot mix plant for STH 63 road project. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.15(6)(n) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: ordinance allows a hot mix plant by special exception for public projects in the Ag.-Residential district. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: This application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.15(6)n of the ordinance because: Hot mix plants are allowed as special exception by the ordinance. 1 ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is gramted subject to the following conditions: The barrow pit site be reclaimed by grading and seeding. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Sinclear. Motion carried. 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 -�A-Signed Chai/rpersoln Date: cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_8-16-90 F. DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-33 Filing Date: 6-18-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 C(op'y Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Larry Johnson 26636 Lake Ave. Zimmerman, MN 55398 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 of Sec. 32, Town of Emerald, St. Croix County. 3. The property is.presently in use for Agricultural - Woodland. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Special Exception paint ball commercial recreation. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under Section 17.1596)(m). 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proposed paintball games would be a compatible open space use on marginal land in a rural environment. 0 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION The application for a special exception does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.15(6)m of the ordinance because: Commercial recreational use. 1 ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Sanitary septic be updated to state codes. 2. Site be accessible at any time by the Zoning Administrator. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Menter. Motion carried. 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 Chairperso Date: , - J& Filed:_8-13-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-39 Filing Date: 6-28-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 COPY FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Dean Eggen Homes for Earl & Vickie Johnson 1015 Hwy. 35 Hudson, WI 54016 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 04, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. Lot 4 CSM William Feyereisen Subdivision 3. The property is presently vacant platted lot. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Driveway 75' from neighboring driveway. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.64(1)(d)2. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The topography of the above described property provides difficult access for a driveway located 2001 from the existing driveway on the adjoining property. The applicant requests a 75' set back at a point that would provide safer access. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests. A. Unnecessary hardship is present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because: Safety due to topography. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because: Topography. 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. 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 Chairperson Date: b�—f - �o Filed: 8-13-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-34 Filing Date: 6-27-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Bret A. Knops 905 W 7th St. St. Paul, MN 55102 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: Gov't Lot 4 of Sec. 26, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for residential. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.64(e)2 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Remove existing seasonal cabin and rebuild a 2 bedroom residence. Requests a 28' set back from R.O.W. line and,a 20' rear yard set back. The structure will be 75' from the ordinary high water mark. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests. A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny 1 the applicant all reasonable use of property because: A structure for habitation exists. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because: Limited lot size. 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: I. The septic be replaced with a code complying system. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. 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 chairpe son Date : / �1 6�Filed: 8-16-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-42 Filing Date: 6-29-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 O FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Lowell Samuel 509 Co. Rd. E Hudson, WI 54016 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 of Sec. 33, Town of Somerset, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Residential. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests set back variance of 85' from ROW line of class C road. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.6491)(de)2. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to .the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Topography of load is very difficult providing limited space for development. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests. A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny 1 the applicant all reasonable use of the property. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because: Topography very rough limiting construction areas. 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE: The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing driveway accessing onto CTH E be abandoned and new driveway access.onto class C road. Motion to approve by Sinclear, seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. 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 Chairperson c Date: cc: Town Clerk and file Filed•_8-13-90 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-37 Filing Date: 6-27-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 (C(apy FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Mathy Construction 915 Commercial Ct., Box 189 Onalaska, WI 54654 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 36, Town of Springfield, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for a gravel & rock quarry. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To erect a temporary hot mix plant 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.15(6)(n) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Ordinance allows a hot mix plant by special exception for public projects is a special exception. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: This application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.15(6)n of the ordinance because: Hot mix plants are allowed as special 1 exception by the ordinance. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is granted subject to the following conditions: None Motion to approve by Bradley, seconded by Menter. Motion carried. 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 _C-A, Chairpersa/, Date: — cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_8-16-90 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF COPY ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-35 Filing Date: 6-27-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Don & Alice Michels 1443 185th Ave. New Richmond, WI 54017 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 SE 1/4 of Sec. 31, Town of Stanton, St. Croix County. County. 3. The property is presently in use for Residential. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests to build a three season porch (121x141) and a deck 5' which would be closer than 75' from the high water mark. The existing house is 65' set back from the high water mark. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.31(2). 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proposed addition is currently 65' from the normal high water mark. As per 17.31(2), the required set back is 75' from the normal high water mark. The purpose of this set back requirement is to maintain a safe and healthful condition by preserving cover and natural beauty not allowing encroachment of structures. 17.26 (3)(a) 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCEThe variance must meet all of the following 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 existing residence provides reasonable use of family living on the property. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitation of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because: The additions requested provide convenience rather than hardship. C. The variance will be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because: It would expand and enlarge the nonconformity of the existing residence increasing it nonconformity not allowed by 17.70(4)(a)2 of the St. Croix Zoning Ordinance. This request would also be an encroachment on the normal high water mark not allowed by 17.31(2) of the ordinance. The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE The requested variance is denied for the following reasons: 1. No unnecessary hardship was found. 2. Reasonable use of the property exists with the existing residence and it would be contrary to public interest as defined in the purpose of the shoreland zoning ordinance. Motion to deny by Bradley, seconded by Kinney. Motion carried. 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 2 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 ChairpersoffOA r. cc: Town Clerk and file Dan Koich and Dan McGuiness Filed: t �- !6 3 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-44 Filing Date: 7-02-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 C(O[Ply Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Chris Bethke Rt.3, Box 260 1937 New Richmond, WI 54017 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 SW 1/4 of Sec. 25, Town of Stanton, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Ag.-Residential. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests to build a house on the site of. where the existing structure had been before. It burned down. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.61(1)(d)2. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proposed site is the only location that would not interfere with the farming traffic patterns due to the other ag buildings. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCEThe variance must meet all of the following tests: 1 A. Unnecessary hardship is present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the Zoning ordinance would deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property. B. The hardship is 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Sanitary and building permits be obtained. Motion to approve by Bradley, seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. 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 hairperson QP Date: -�24 Filed:_8-13-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-43 Filing Date: 7-03-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 C(OPYHearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Dale Swenson 1641 210th Ave. New Richmond, WI 54017 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, Town of Stanton, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently in use for Ag.-Residential. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Requests to rebuild house that burned down located less than 100 ft. from right-of- way line. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.61(1)(d)2. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proper set back distance of 100 ft. would place the structure into a wetland pond. • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCEThe variance must meet all of the following tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the Zoning ordinance would deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because: Location of the pond on the property. B. The hardship is 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 facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: VARIANCE The requested variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The structure be placed 75' from the high water mark. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Menter. Motion carried. 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 .g Signed hairperson Date: Ez ? _U cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_8-13-90 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF Fly ADJUSTMENT C;(a ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-40 Filing Date: 6-29-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of July 9 and 16, 1990 Hearing Date: 7-26-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Phillip Ogburn 6310 132nd St. N White Bear Lake, MN 55110 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. 19, Town of Warren, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for Agriculture. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To convert a portion of his 48' by 90' poleshed into an indoor -outdoor kennel. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.15(6)(f) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: A kennel is a special exception when less than 700' from a residential property line. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: This application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.1596)F of the ordinance because: This special exception as listed in the variance requires a special exception permit. However local objection has presented conflict. 1 ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is denied for the following reason: Less than 700' from an existing residence. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Sinclear. Motion carried. 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 -� Chairpers Date:-- ��--�(� Filed:_8-16-90 cc: Town Clerk and file OA