Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 12-20-1990"A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING AND HEARINGS Dec. 20, 1990 This meeting was recorded by a court reporter This 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 Tom Nelson, Corporation Counsel Greg Timmerman and Assistant Zoning Administrator Mary Jenkins. Stephens made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Bradley. Motion carried. Bradley made a motion to approve the minutes as mailed. Seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS JOHN BETTENDORF Nelson explained the previous months hearing explaining that the Board of Adjustment had postponed a decision so that a certified survey map could be drawn describing the 600' x 350' area that had been rezoned to commercial in 1985. This certified survey map would then be used to make the exact determination of the commercial zone. Supervisor Bradley made a motion to deny the description of this certified survey map. The south boundary of the commercial land should be south of the most southerly driveway. Motion seconded by Kinney. Vote to approve said motion: Bradley, yes; Stephens, no; Menter, no; Sinclear, no; Kinney, no. Motion denied. Stephens made a motion to accept the certified survey map as presented. Motion seconded by Menter. Vote to approve said motion: Bradley, no; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion carried. Nelson stated that the Board of Adjustment now had to decide on the request for the truck repair shop and transfer point as had been presented. Ed Vlack, attorney representing Kinnickinnic Township requested that if the Board of Adjustment were to approve this application that the level of activity be defined. Discussion. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Sinclear to approve this application for a truck repair shop and transfer point without conditions. Vote to approve said motion: Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Bradley, no; Kinney, no. Motion carried. ST. CROIX VALLEY ROWING CLUB 1 Nelson stated that this application was being represented at the request of DNR so as to reconsider the original decision. The original decision was to grant the storage building for rowing skulls. Dan Koich, Wisconsin DNR and Dan McGuiness, MnWi Boundary Area Commission explained their concerns of the original decision. The concerns included that the Board of Adjustment without authority granted the decision per 17.36(4) and (5) of the ordinance and is in direct violation of Sec. 17.36(5)(c)2 of the ordinance. In addition, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance over the Departments objection. Nelson stated that legal action had been filed by Maryann Sumi of the Attorney Generals Office against the Board of Adjustment. Motion by Sinclear to reverse the original decision of 10/22/90 recognizing the concerns as had been presented. This reversed decision would in effect deny the requested variance for a boat storage building of the St. Croix River. Motion seconded by Bradley. Vote to approve said motion: Sinclear, yes; Bradley, yes; Stephens, no; Menter, no; Kinney, yes. Motion carried. THOMAS OCKLEY Nelson explained the reason Ockley was being brought back for consideration. The 8-23-90 decision had recognized the original structure as a nonconforming use since the remodeling to be done was less than 50 percent of the assessed value it was permitted by special exception. The project was "red tagged" on 11-28-90 because the structure had been totally raised and construction started over violating the original decision,of 8-23-90. Ockley was requesting consideration of allowing the structure to be rebuilt on this site. Nelsons position is that now that it has exceeded 50 percent of the assessed value, and that there are other buildable sites meeting the ordinance requirements, the structure should be relocated to a conforming location since no hardship exists. Koich, DNR, and McGuiness MnWi BAC both supported this position. Attorney Bob Mudge, representing ockley explained that there had been building difficulties with the original structure necessitating reconstruction of the structure. Because of this he was asking the Board of Adjustment to consider and approve this request. Dan Froiland, contractor, agreed with this position and request. Discussion. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Sinclear to deny the request since the reconstruction would exceed 50 percent of the assessed value and other locations existed on the property meeting the setback requirements and no hardship existed. Vote to approve said motion: Bradley, yes; Sinclear, yes; Stephens, no; Menter, no; Kinney, yes. Motion carried. 2 NEW BUSINESS Hearing was called to order at 10.30 A.M. Nelson read the notice as published. The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, Dec. 20, 1990 at 9:30 A.M. in the County Board room of the St. Croix County Courthouse, Hudson, Wisconsin to consider the following appeals to the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. An on site investigation will be made 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: 17.18(r) Storage building APPELLANT: Robert Cook LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, T31N-R18W, Town of Star Prairie 2. ARTICLE: 17.18(r) Auto body repair shop APPELLANT: Kenneth Olson LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, T31N-R18W, Town of Star Prairie 3. ARTICLE: 226(89) APPELLANT: Arthur Overgaard LOCATION: S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 19, T28N-R16W, Town of Eau Galle 4. ARTICLE: 226(89) APPELLANT: Arthur Overgaard LOCATION: 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. 5. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(c)1 Bluffline setback 16.36(5)(1) Filling and grading APPELLANT: Mark Mitchel, The Earth Partnership, Inc. LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NW 21/4 of Sec. 24, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy NEW BUSINESS ARTHUR OVERGAARD, Eau Galle Township Dick Erickson, representing Arthur Overgaard, presented their request for a nonmetallic mining application. Recognizing that all pre-existing pits and quarries will have to comply with the nonmetallic mining ordinance by July of 1991, they are now presenting their facility and reclamation plan for consideration. ARTHUR OVERGAARD, Springfield Township Dick Erickson, representing Arthur Overgaard, presented their 3 request for a nonmetallic mining application. Recognizing that all pre-existing pit and quarries will have to comply with the nonmetallic mining ordinance by July of 1991, they are now presenting their facility and reclamation plan for consideration. ROBERT COOK Bob Cook presented a site and facility plan requesting a Flea Market Consignment auction and storage building for property that was recently rezoned to commercial. Stephens expressed a concern for exclusive car auctions. Discussion. Nelson stated that he had verified the septic system which had been a topic of concern by the Zoning Committee. KENNETH OLSON Olson presented a facility and site plan requesting a repair/body shop on property recently rezoned to commercial. Kinney expressed concern for any hazardous materials stored on the property and proper EPA licensing. Discussion. MARK MITCHEL, EARTH PARTNERSHIP, representing Kit Aaroms Mark presented a request to replace an existing deck with one that was enlarged laterally but not more cocspicuous. In addition, a rock wall was going to be replaced with rip rap. Koich, DNR stated he fully supported the request being presented. Respectfully submitted: Robert Stephen ,' secr�ry TCN:cj Decisions attached 4 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 118-90 Filing Date: 11-21-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Dec. 11 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: Dec. 20, 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: Arthur Overgaard P.O. Box 128 Elroy, WI 53929 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Town of Eau Galle, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Non metallic mining. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To continue operations as a non metallic facility with proper reclamation. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception permit 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: This would be the continued use of the facility with developed plans for reclamation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: 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 regulates non metallic mining operations, a proper facility plan has been submitted and this plan meets the objectives of 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 granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Operation will proceed as proposed by the plan. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Bradley. 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 � % r, dIt'-fi- Chairpers n Date• /`- /7 ! I Filed:_1-17-91 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 119-90 Filing Date: 11-21-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Dec. 11 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: Dec. 20, 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: Arthur Overgaard P.O. Box 128 Elroy, WI 53929 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 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: Non metallic mining. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To continue operations as a non metallic facility with proper reclamation. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception permit 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: This would be the continued use of the facility with developed plans for reclamation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: 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 regulates non metallic mining operations, a proper facility plan has been submitted and this 1 plan meets 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: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The requested special exception is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Operation will proceed as proposed by the plan. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Renter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to by Sinclear, seconded by Menter. 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 Chairperso Date: f I Filed: 1-17-91 cc: Town Clerk and file 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 116-90 Filing Date: 11-16-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Dec. 11 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: Dec. 20, 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: Robert J. Cook Rt.2, Box 230 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 NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, Town of Star Prairie, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Contractor storage building. 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To use the building and property for storage and auction sales of drygoods, tools and toys. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception permit under section 17.18(r) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Property is been commercially rezoned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17:18(r) of the ordinance because a special exception permit can be granted after a proper facility plan has been submitted. E 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. No exclusive car sales auctions to be held. 2. All DILHR approvals be on file. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to by Stephens, seconded by Bradley. 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 n Signed Chairperso�'v 4 /} Date: —� Filed:_1-17-91 cc: Town Clerk and file DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 117-90 Filing Date: 11-16-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Dec. 11 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: Dec. 20, 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: Kenneth Olson 2054 Co. Rd. C Somerset, WI 54025 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 21, Town of Star Prairie, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Residential 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: Develop an autobody repair shop. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception permit under section 17.18(r) 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: Property is commercially zoned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.18(r) of the ordinance because a special exception permit can be granted after a proper facility plan has been submitted. 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. DILHR & DNR permits to be obtained for the possession of any hazardous materials. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to by Stephens, 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 ,---'1 ' ,c Chairperson OcF' Date: cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_1-17-91 K DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 49-90 Filing Date: 7-30-90 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: yTho & Lynda Ockuly Mis 'ssippi Blvd. Paul MN 55105 2. The applicant or appellant is t ow-er of the following described property which is trhe subjecttK6f the application or appeal: Gov't Lot 1, Sec. 22, T3 -R20W, Town f St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently for: 4. The applicant or appell nt pro oses: To reconstruct the residence as originally op a ac ording to the Board of Adjustment 49-90 remodeling. This wo d exceed 50 percent of the assessed value. 5. The applicant or appella t req sts a variance under section 17.36(5))c)1 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: This applicant had requested a similar reconstruction setback variance on 5-10-88 and was denied because there were several other locations on the one property that met the setback requirements. No hardship can be shown. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: VARIANCE The variance must meet all three of the following 1 tests: A. Unnecessary hardship is not present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because the.. property has a complying building site meeting the required setbacks. B. The hardship is not due to physical limitations of the property rather than the circumstances of the appellant because the property has a complying building site meeting the required setbacks. C. The variance will be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance because the structure is more visibly conspicuous at this location than it would be at the code complying sites. 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. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, no; Menter, no; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to 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 M Chairperso Date: cc: Town Clerk and file Filed:_12-28-90 2 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 41-90 �Pprov�-� Filing Date: 7-30-90. Notice Dates: Weeks of Aug. 6 & 13, 1990 Hearing Date: Aug. 23, 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: Thomas & Lynda Ockuly 220 Mississippi Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55105 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, Sec. 22, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Seasonal residence. 4. The applicant applied for a special exception permit to put an addition on the residence. The cost of the addition would not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the residence. 5. The Board of Adjustment granted that special exception permit. 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The applicant exceeded the 50% limit by commencing construction on the new residence. 7. Construction was ordered stopped by the County Zoning Administrator for violating the permit. The applicant requested another hearing before the Board of Adjustment to permit continuation of construction of the new residence. 8. The hearing was granted and was treated as a request for a variance to construct a residence closer than 100' from the 1 bluffline. 9. The applicant had made a similar request on 5/10/88, which was denied. 10. The setback requirements for construction of a residence can be met on the applicant's building site. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above findings of fact the Board concludes that: Variance The request does not meet the requirements for granting a variance for unnecessary hardship: A. The granting of a variance requires a finding that the applicant would suffer unnecessary hardship in the absence of the variance. B. Unnecessary hardship can be defined as a situation wherein the absence of a variance no feasible use can be made of the land. C. Unnecessary hardship relates to conditions unique to the parcel of land, not to the applicant's personal convenience, economic gain or loss, conditions personal to the applicant, or conditions not unique to a particular parcel of land. D. The granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the public interest as expressed in sec. 17.36 - Lower St. Croix Riverway district, St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance, because the residence would be more visibly conspicuous at the proposed construction site than it would be at a site on the parcel that complied with the ordinance. DECISION Based on the record in this matter, the above findings of fact, and conclusions of law the Board hereby denies the request for variance. Motion to deny made by Bradley, seconded by Sinclear. Vote: Stephens, no; Menter, no; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes; Bradley, yes. This decision may be appealed by filing an action in certioari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date Pq of filing of the decision. The county 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. Dated this day of �' ► 1991 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed G Chairperso Filed• �—/,-;[ -ell 0 cc: Town Clerk and file Robert Mudge 3 DECISION OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case No: 120-90 Filing Date: 11-21-90 Notice Dates: Weeks of Dec. 11 & 16, 1990 Hearing Date: Dec. 20, 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: The Earth Partnership Mark Mitchel for Kit Aaroms 230 W 61st St. Minneapolis, MN 55419 2. The applicant or appellant is the owner of the following described property which is the subject of the application or appeal: NE 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Town Troy, St. Croix County. 3. The property is presently used for: Residential 4. The applicant or appellant proposes: To enlarge and replace an existing deck that is less than 100' from the bluffline. Also request the replacement of a rock will with fieldstone rip rap. 5. The applicant or appellant requests a special exception permit under section 16.36(5)(1) Filling and grading and 17.36(5)(c)1 Bluffline setback 6. The features of the proposed construction and property which relate to the grant or denial of the application or appeal are: The deck enlargement will not encroach on the bluffline and will not be more visually conspicuous. The natural rip rap will provide stabilization of the banks. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above finding of fact the Board concludes that: 1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION: The application for a special exception use permit does qualify under the criteria of Section 17.36(5)(1) and 17.36(5)(c)1 the ordinance because the deck will not encroach upon the bluffline and will not be more visually conspicuous. The rip rap will stabilize the banks. 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. Written approval from the State DNR. Vote: Bradley, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Sinclear, yes; Kinney, yes. Motion to approve by Stephens, seconded by Kinney. 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: �- 5Z Filed:_1-22-91 cc: Town Clerk and file