Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 09-27-1990BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARINGS Sept. 27, 1990 ' This meeting was recorded by a court reporter The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kinney at 8:00 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 Tom Nelson and Corporation Councel Greg Timmerman. Motion by Stephens to adopt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. Motion by Bradley to adopt the minutes as mailed. Seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Jeff Murray was not in attendance to present his appeal. MURRAY KNECHT Murray stated that since the last meeting, Dan Koich from the DNR now supports the proposed project. Therefore he is requesting that the BOA reconsider their decision. After general discussion on how the widening of the path would accommodate the area, Stephens made a motion to rescind his original motion and recommend the project to be approved. Menter seconded the motion. Motion carried. JOSEPH & BETTIE LOMBARDO Joe presented a new plan showing an amendment that would provide parking and access to the garage from the south side. The septic system would be replaced and well brought back into service. Tom Dorsey neighbor to the applicant, stated that he supports the proposal. Menter made a motion to approve the site with conditions (see decisions). Motion seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. TOM SODEBERG Nelson stated that a recent review of the boundaries of the Riverway clearly shows the land outside of the Riverway District. Because this property is over thirty five (35) acres they can exceed the animal units per acre. Chuck Harris, attorney for Sodeberg, agreed with this decision. KEN HERINK Nelson explained that the Zoning Committee had referred this appeal for a variance on cul-de-sac length and turning radius of 1 less than 2001 back to the BOA. The Zoning Committee does feel a good plan is needed in developing this property but feels it, can be done. Motion by Stephens to approve variances. Seconded by Sinclear. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Hearing was called to order at 9:30 A.M. Nelson read the notice of the hearings. an onsite 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: 226(89) Non Metallic Mining APPELLANT: Ed Kraemer & Sons, Inc. LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 6, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy and the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 32, T29N-R19W, Town of Hudson 2. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(c)1 Setback from high water APPELLANT: St. Croix valley Rowing LOCATION: Lots 2, 3, & 4 of Sec. 27, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph 3. ARTICLE: 17.70(3)(c)3 Temporary occupancy APPELLANT: David & Brenda Waldo LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 14,,T30N-R16W, Town of Emerald 4. ARTICLE: 17.70 (3)(c)3 Temporary occupancy APPELLANT: Charles Smith LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 22, T28N-R17W, Town of Rush River 5. ARTICLE: 17.29(2) Filling & Grading, Shoreland APPELLANT: Northern States Power LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 22, T31N-R19W, Town of Somerset 6. ARTICLE: 17.70(3)(c)3 Temporary occupancy APPELLANT: Delmar & Jean Ziebart LOCATION: N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 & the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N-R16W, Town of Eau Galle 7. ARTICLE: APPELLANT: LOCATION: 17.70(3)(c)3 Temporary occupancy James Moser SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 35, T29N-R15W, Town of Cady 8. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)A Duplex APPELLANT: Edward Bohl 2 LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 12, T31N-R18W, Town of Star Prairie , 9. ARTICLE: 17.15(1)(c) No. of animals per acre APPELLANT: Dale & Diane Magnusson LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 4, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy 10. ARTICLE: 17.18(1)(r) Wood & cabinet making shop APPELLANT: -Andrew Rudesill LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 35, T28N-17W, Town of Rush River 11. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)L Telo-Cable APPELLANT: Houlton Telo-Cable LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 6, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph 12. ARTICLE: 15.04(3)(a) 3 Holding tank, New construction APPELLANT: Bye, Krueger & Goff, Profit Sharing Trust LOCATION: W'1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 34, T29N-R19W, Town of Hudson 13. ARTICLE: 17.39(2)(6) Filling & Grading 17.31(2) Setback from water 17.64 Setback from town road APPELLANT: William Harwell LOCATION: SW 1/4"of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 14, T30N-R19W, Town of Somerset 14. ARTICLE: 15.04(3)(a)3 Holding tank, new construction APPELLANT: Ray Johnson--Ray's Superstop LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 6, T28N-R16W, Town of Eau Galle 15. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(c)2 Setback, class C Rd. APPELLANT: Cylon Ramblers 4-H Club LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 3, R31N-R16W, Town of Cylon 16. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback, Class D Rd. APPELLANT: David Crosby LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 13, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond ED KRAEMER & SONS Ken Eisenberger presented the facility plan and reclamation plan for a gravel pit expansion stating he had met the zoning requirements of the Townships of Hudson and Troy as well as the extra territorial of Hudson. Nelson stated that Bob Heise from the County Land Conservation office and himself had reviewed the property and had a number of concerns. After presenting these concerns to Eisenberger, he addressed them to the satisfaction of Nelson. 3 Laurie Morris, attorney for Kraemer stated that this would not be an expansion of usage but rather a dimensional expansion. ST. CROIX VALLEY ROWING Thomas Palmer and Susan Hipp presented a request to build a structure to house rowing skulls on land located in St. Jospeh Township owned by the city of Stillwater. They have entered into a lease agreement with the city of Stillwater and also have the support of the Township. This building would provide them with the necessary storage to make rowing on the St. Croix more accessible. Dan Koich, DNR, stated that he could not support the proposal because this would be considered a marina. This was the interpretation of the Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission joint committee. The only way this could be changed would be for an administrative rule change of 227 of the Wisconsin Statutes. DAVID & BRENDA WALDO Brenda Waldo presented a request to retain a trailer home on their property as a temporary residence while they construct a new home. The township supports their proposal. CHARLES SMITH Eugene Nelson, Town of Rush River Supervisor, stated that the Smiths were requesting a temporary use permit of their trailer while they build a new home. The township supports this proposal. NORTHERN STATES POWER Nelson stated that this was an after the fact permit for filling and grading within three hundred (300) feet of a navigable body of water. It was first brought to his attention after having received correspondence from the DNR. Mark Fort, representing NSP, expressed his concerns as to why a permit was required at the county level. He already had to get a federal permit and a state permit. Fort stated that they were rip rapping the shores of their hydrogenerator facility in Somerset Township on the Apple River. This is being done to eliminate erosion at high water flows. Sinclear stated the township had no problem with the proposal. DEL ZIEBART Del and Joan Ziebart requested a temporary use permit to be able to live in a camper while they rebuild their home. Their house recently was destroyed by fire and they want to remain on the property while they rebuild. Nelson expressed his concerns for the proper sanitary permits. 4 These need to be obtained before a building permit can be obtained. EDWARD BOHL Ed Bohl presented a request to convert a building once used for a vet clinic into a duplex. They have moved their practice into New Richmond and would like to utilize the 2100 square foot building as a rental unit. The Township of Star Prairie supports the proposal. DALE & DIANE MAGNUSSON Dale Magnusson presented a request to increase the number of animal units on property he is currently using as a vet clinic in Troy Township. His large animal practice requires that he maintains animals on the property while providing care. In addition he would like to do some large animal boarding so as to provide financial support for the practice. He has entered into agreements with a local farm to spread the animal waste. The Township of Troy supports the proposal providing they do not exceed fifteen (15) animal units. ,. ANDREW RUDESILL Andy Rudesill presented a request to construct and operate a wood working cabinet shop on property recently rezoned to commercial. Nelson explained that this is a special exception in the commercial district. The Township of Rush River supports this proposal. HOULTON TELO- CABLE Dan Wolf presented a request for a sixty (60) foot tower to be placed on property owned by Quentin Weinzierl in St. Joseph Township. The tower will provide cable TV capabilities in the Houlton area. The Township of St. Joseph supports the proposal. BYE, KRUEGER & GOFF Randy Cudd presented a request construction. This property has any other type of system. to use a holding tank on new no available site for a mound or Kinney expressed concern on the soil test report. The report does not provide deep enough profiles revealing restrictive soils. WILLIAN HARWELL Bill Gilbert, attorney representing Harwell, presented a plan that would place the proposed cabin on the lot line of the two lots Harwell owns. This would eliminate the possibilities of any further development of the second lot in the future. It still would not meet the setbacks from the waters edge or the town road 9 but would be less nonconforming than the original cabin. The Township of Somerset and the Bass Lake Rehab District support this plan. RAY JOHNSON - RAYS'S SUPERSTOP Ray presented a request for a holding tank on a new addition to his fast food operation. The majority of the septic system would be a mound system with a kitchen waste going into the holding tank. There isn't sufficient room fora large enough mound to accommodate the kitchen waste. The State supports this proposal as does the Township of Eau Galle. CYLON RAMBLERS 4-H CLUB John Schachtner presented a request to build a picnic shelter on Township of Cylon park land that would be one hundred five (105) feet from the center line of CTH "S" and a toilet building that would be eighty three )83) from the center line of CTH "O". The parcel is not large enough to accommodate the legal setbacks. DAVID CROSBY Dave presented a request to build an attached garage that would be one hundred sixteen (116) feet from the centerline of a town road. The current house is at 116' feet and the garage would be no closer than the existing structure. The Township of Richmond supports this proposal. Respectfully submitted: Robert Stephens, secretary Decisions attached TC:cj L ri DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF [APPEALS][ADJUSTMENT] St. Croix County Wisconsin Case No. 90-90 Filing Date: 8-20-90 Notice Dates: 9-10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 The applicant or appellant is: Delmar & Jean Ziebart 2121 Bryant Ave. S Minneapolis, MN 55405 The decision on your appeal was tables for a month until proper septic permit may be obtained. It will be discussed at the next regular meeting. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/ADJUSTMENT Signed �' _ n Filed: 10-24-90 Chairman C�. ,• Date cc:File Town Clerk 1 I ;a :f. Oct. 24, 1990 Tom Soderberg 422 Co. Rd. F Hudson, WI 54016 Dear Mr. Soderberg: At the September Riverway District your properties. ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ZONING OFFICE ST. CROIX COUNTY COURTHOUSE 911 FOURTH STREET • HUDSON, WI 54016 (715) 386-4680 Board of Adjustment meeting, the St. Croix Boundaries were clarified in relationship to Since your horse operation is' not within these boundaries as shown on the official Riverway map, but are described by the County Ordinance as being within this district, the Board of Adjustment recognized this discrepancy and supports the map. Therefore, you are not restricted to the number of animal units you are allowed since your total acreage is in excess of thirty five (35) acres. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Thomas C. Nelson Zoning Administrator cc: Chuck Harris, Attorney At Law Greg Timmerman, Corporation Councel DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 99-90 Filing Date: 9-4-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT 0 Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Ray Johnson I-94 & U.S. 63 Baldwin, WI 54002 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 of Sec. 6, Town of Eau Galle, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Fast food - Gas station 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To expand the fast food operation utilizing a holding tank for the kitchen waste. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 15.04(3)(a)3 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Holding tanks are not permitted on new construction. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is present in that literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because the use3 at a lesser limit already exists on the property. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because soils and 1 space do not allow for a mound system. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because the same use exists at a lesser limit. 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. System be used for kitchen waste only. 2. Holding tank waste be hauled by a licensed plumber to municiple treatment plant. 3. Quarterly pumping reports be submitted by the owner or pumper. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. 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 /' 1�-Skz'J�aU4 - Chairper o Date:/�-a=C�� Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 98-90 Filing Date: 10-16-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 py. FINDINGS OF FACT clo Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: William Harwell 589 Co. Rd. UU 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 SE 1/4 Sec. 14, Town of Somerset, St.Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Seasonal cabin. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Amend the previous action approving the filling and grading and reconstruction of cottage on two existing parcels at the north end of Bass Lake: 1.To fulfill the requests of the Somerset Town Board building the dwellings; and 2. To fulfill Bass Lakes Rehabilitation District request that fill not be placed beyond the existing rip rap line of the lots. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.39(2))6), 17.31(2), and 17.64 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which 1 relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: A structure had been on the property before. The applicant had been advised prior to purchasing, by DRR Staff that this could be done. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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 a structure had existed on this property and the applicant had been advised and supported to make application. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant. Fluctuating high water tables. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because a structure had previously existed. 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. Approving recommendations be received by the Bass Lake Rehabilitation District. 2.The structure be built on the lot line and setback from road and water as presented by exhibit #1, Oct. 27, 1990. Vote: Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Bradley, No; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. 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. 2 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 Chairperson Date: �Q�/� _.�U Filed:_10-16-90 cc: Town Clerk and file K DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 101-90 P3 Filing Date: 9-05-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 O Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: David Crosby 1568 140th St. 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: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Sec. 14, Town of Richmond, St.Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To add a garage and three season porch.that will be set back 116 feet from the center of the road, the same as the house. 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: This setback is the same as the house. 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 a residence exists on the property. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than - the circumstances of the appellant because they are requesting this to be even with the residence. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because it does not interfere with the surrounding activities. 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. Meets the setback of 116' as requested. Vote: Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Bradley, yes: Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. 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 �� .w „6 Chairperson Date: &) /CJ - �� Filed:_10-19-90 cc: Town Clerk and file E G DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 46-90 Filing Date: 7-19-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 C(OF)Y Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: St. Croix Valley Rowing 1217 Indian Trail Afton, MN 55001 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: Lots 2, 3, and 4, Sec. 24, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: City Park 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Construct a storage building closer than 200 ft. to the ordinary high water mark. This building will be used to house rowing shells and related equipment for the St. Croix Rowing Club. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.36(5)(c)l 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The property is question is City Park property. As per 17.36(4)(h) of the County ordinance, this use would have been permitted prior to Jan. 1, 1976. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VARIANCE: The variance must meet all three of the following tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal 1 enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because #open space uses would exist. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because The setbacks from the waters edge cannot be met because of the bluff face with slopes exceeding twelve (12) per cent. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because this park property was intended for recreational use. 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. Earthtone construction. Vote: Bradley, no; Stepthens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; and Kinney, yes. 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 Chairperson c � Date: �(� "'`.bG� Filed:_10-22-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF [APPEALS][ADJUSTMENT] St. Croix County, Wisconsin Case No. 88-90 Filing Date: 8-10-90 Notice Dates: 9-10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 The applicant or appellant is: Northern States Power Co. 100 N. Barstow St. Eau Claire, WI 54702 The decision on your appeal was tabled for a month because the site was not available for viewing. It will be discussed at the next regular meeting. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/ADJUSTMENT Signed Filed:_10-8-90 Chairman //'' Date: 16 - 2` �U cc:File Town Clerk DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 97-90 Filing Date: 9-04-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 (C(apy Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Bye, Krueger & Goff Profit Sharing Trust 710 N. Main River Falls, WI 54022 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: W 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Sec. 34, Town of Hudson, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Woodland. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Provide a holding tank to accommodate the waste disposal of a proposed residence. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 15.04(3)(a)3 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The soils on the site are unsuitable for any other system. 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 open 1 space uses exist. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant. Soils are not suitable for onsite waste disposal. C. The variance will be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because holding tanks are not an effective way to eliminate waste. 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 because the site is not suitable for residential development. Motion 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 < J` Date: cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_10-08-g0 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 92-90 Filing Date: 8-30-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT r Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Edward Bohl Rt.3, Box 143 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: SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Sec. 12, Town of Star Prairie, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Vet Clinic 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Remodel structure so as to operate duplex. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.15(6)A 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The structure has stood vacant since the vet clinic has relocated. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does quality under the cirteria of Section 17.15(6)A of the ordinance because duplexes are permitted by special exception. 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. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Sinclear. 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 Chairpers6 Date: A')— P— /', Filed:_10-08-90 cc: Town Clerk and file r,� DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 93-90 Filing Date: 8-30-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 and 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 00� 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: Dale Magnuson 508 Valley View Dr. 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: NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Sec. 4, Town of Troy, St.Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Horse stable 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Board large animals in excess of the one animal per acre currently allowed by ordinance. The operation of his vet clinic periodically requires the boarding of more animals. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.15(1)(c) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The vet clinic requires additional boarding needs. 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 stable use currently exists. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because The vet clinic use requires additional boarding. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because Waste disposal has been addressed by hauling animal manure to local farms. Animals will be well taken care of by the veterinarians. 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. Fifteen (15) animal units be allowed. 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 Chairperson 7' Date: -,,� -1� ► Filed:_10-22-90 cc: Town Clerk and file E DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 100-90 Filing Date: 8-31-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Cylon Ramblers 4-H Club 2511 200th Ave. Deer Park, WI 54007 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 of Sec. 3, Cylon Township, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Park Land 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To construct a shelter that is 105' from the centerline of CTH "S" and a toilet building that is 83' from the centerline of CTH "O". 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.64(1)(c)2 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The ordinance requires a 100' setback from the centerline of class C roads. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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 not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because setbacks cannot be net. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property 1 rather than the circumstance: size is very restrictive. C. The variance will not be expressed by the objectives of use to serve the public. ORDER OF of the appellant because parcel contrary to the public interest as the ordinance because recreational 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. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stepthens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; and Kinney, yes. 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 L 7 Signed Chairpers n Date: IJ6 �a7U cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_10-23-90 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 45-90 Filing Date: 7-03-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Hearing Date: 7-26-90 July 9 and 16, 1990 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.1 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 1001x931. 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 17'7"x20'9" 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 L Signed 2LXai'U Chairperso l Date: �� ,,� %(} Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 0 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 90-90 Filing Date: 8-03-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Aug. 6 and 13, 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: Ken Herink 1057 110th St. Roberts, WI 54023 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. 17, Warren Township, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Agricultural 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Construct a Cul-De- Sac road exceeding the one thousand (1000) feet allowed by the ordinance and constuct a. curve in the road less than the two hundred (200) foot radius allowed. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 18.09(3)(a) and 18.09(3)(d) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The unique topography requires the road to be on a more restrictive curve. The proposed road will eventually provide access for though roads with adjoining property. 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 1 agricultural uses do not exist. B. The hardship is due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because of the unique topography. C. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because the proposal will accommodate a road that provides access to future developments. 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. Complete development plan be submitted for county plat review. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stepthens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; and Kinney, yes. 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 Chairperso Date:��f�-,-�3- 0() Filed•_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 58-90 Filing Date: 8-03-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT 0 Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: David & Brenda Waldo 1551 250th St. Emerald, WI 54012 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. 14, Town of Emerald, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Reside in a trailer home as a temporary use while building a new house. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.70(3)(c)3 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Special exception in an Ag.-Residential district for a limited period of time. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.70(3)(c)3 of the ordinance because temporary use would be removed after the residence is constructed.. ORDER OF DETERMINATION 1 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. Temporary use would be removed after the residence is constructed. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. 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 Chairperson Date: /Q 3-17"d Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file ✓. DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 87-90 Filing Date: 8-10-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS.OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Charles Smith 1837 18th Ave. Hammond, WI 54015 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 NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, Rush River Township, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To reside in trailer home as a temporary use while building a new home. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.70(3)(c)3 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Permitted as a special exception for a limited period of time for the construction of a permanent residence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.70(3)(c)3 of the ordinance because temporary use would be removed after the residence is completed. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and F_1 the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Permitted for a one year period after which the trailer must be removed from the property. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stepthens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; and Kinney, yes. 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 C� 7 Signed Chairperso' Date: — cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_10-23-90 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 89-90 Filing Date: 1989 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. 1 Plainview Rd. Plain, WI 53577-0220 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. 6, Town of Troy & the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 32, Town of Hudson, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Gravel pit/ agricultural 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Develop the property for the extraction of limestone products after which time when the materials are exhausted, the site will be reclaimed. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 226(89) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: With the proper facility plan and reclamation plan, limestone gravel pits are a special exception under the nonmetallic mining ordinance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 226(89) of the ordinance because this ordinance allows the use as a special exception. 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. Bond be paid subject to $1000.00 per acre. 2. Submitted plan be implemented as reviewed. 3. Agreement be received from the township of Troy regarding the lowering of Tower Rd. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. 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 , Chairper o Date: /6 -0 3- 26 Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file K DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 96-90 Filing Date: 8-30-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Houlton Telo-Cable Rt. 2, Box 193 Fountain City, WI 54629 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. 26, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Residential/Ag.-Residential 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Construct a. sixty (60) foot tower for a television cable network in the area. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.15(6)1 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The proposed 60' tower will blend into the surrounding area due the buildings and trees in the area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.18(1)(r) of the ordinance because this would be a special exception in the commercial district. ORDER OF DETERMINATION 1 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 Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to approve by Kinney, 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 Chairperson Date: ��'t�� �V Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 93-90 Filing Date: 8-30-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Sept. 10 & 17, 1990 Hearing Date: 9-27-90 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented, the Board find the following facts: 1. The applicant or appellant is: Andrew Rudesill Rt. 1, Pierce/St. Croix Rd. Baldwin, WI 54002 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 NE 1/4 of Sec. 35, Town of Rush River, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Agriculture 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To develop a woodworking cabinet shop. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a variance under section 17.18(1)(r) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Special exception in the commercial district. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.18(1)(r) of the ordinance because this would be a special exception in the commercial district. ORDER OF DETERMINATION The basis of the above finding of facts, conclusions of law and 1 the record in this matter of the board orders: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a code complying sanitary system. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to approve by Menter, 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 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 ) � Chairper on Date: ZLi-� 3-/'d Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file K 0 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 51-90 Filing Date: 7-31-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Aug. 6 & 13, 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: Murray Knecht Rt. 1, Box 92 Eleva, WI 54738 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 of Sec. 7, Troy Township, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Recreational 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Place fill on trail surface to effectively widen the current trail width. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception under section 17.36(5)(1) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The area being graded provides access to the waters edge. Filling and grading is permitted by special exception on slopes that are less than 12 %. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.36(5)(1) of the ordinance because filling and grading is permitted by special exception. ORDER OF DETERMINATION 1 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: 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 �' G Chairpers Date: ��� Filed:_10-23-90 cc: Town Clerk and file 6