Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2013 Board of Adjustment Minutes MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 26, 2013 8:30 AM County Board Room - Government Center 1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, Wisconsin CALL TO ORDER Chair Malick called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived David Peterson Supervisor Present Buck Malick Supervisor Present Edward Sontag Present Jerry McAllister Present James Nelson Present OTHERS PRESENT: Community Development Director Ellen Denzer, Land Use Administrator Kevin Grabau, Land Use and Conservation Specialist Pam Quinn, Land Use and Conservation Specialist Alex Blackburn, Land Use and Conservation Specialist Steve Olson, and Recording Secretary Monica Lucht. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 22, 2013 8:30 AM Motion by Sontag, 2nd by McAllister approving the minutes of August 22, 2013. Motion carried. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Edward Sontag SECONDER: Jerry McAllister AYES: David Peterson, Buck Malick, Edward Sontag, Jerry McAllister, James Nelson PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Olson Variance COMMENTS - Current Meeting: Quinn presented the application and staff report. The applicant is the owner of a legal nonconforming principal structure situated on a riparian lot in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District in the Town of St. Joseph. The house and a majority of the deck were originally constructed within the 40-foot bluffline setback prior to adoption of the county Riverway ordinance. On May 26, 1987 previous owner Brian Sigstad received Board approval for an addition on the house that included an extension of the deck, all of which was parallel to the bluffline. The applicant purchased the property in 2012, found that the entire deck is in need of more than ordinary maintenance, and repair to meet current Uniform Dwelling Code structural requirements for safe use as ingress/egress into the house. The variance request is to allow reconstruction of a deck attached to a legal nonconforming principal structure that does not meet the 40’ setback from the bluffline. The proposed deck reconstruction will not increase the existing footprint nor encroach further into the bluffline setback. The St. Joseph Town Board recommended approval of the request. Steve Olson reviewed the submittal and does not have any comments. The Wisconsin DNR is recommending denial unless the Board finds a variance reason to approve. Quinn asked the Board if they had any questions. Chair Malick asked if the applicant would like to be heard. Daryl Olson, the applicant, spoke in favor and gave background information on the purchase of the property. He contacted Quinn early, before even closing on the property, to discuss the deck and seek Board approval, so the process is no surprise to him. His desire is to simply reconstruct the deck to meet building codes, and is happy to answer any questions. Chair Malick asked about the proposed mitigation if water would be caught in a catch basin, which would direct water to a drywell or french drain instead of the bluffline. The applicant showed the proposed sketch drawing of the drain. Chair Malick asked Steve Olson if it could be a requirement to have him give advice on designing the drain and pipe sizing to catch 80% of the rain events to stop erosion. Steve Olson agreed. Sontag questioned if the deck failed due to poor building design, or just rotting due to age. The applicant answered that it was age, and now needs to be rebuilt from scratch to meet building codes. RESULT: CLOSED 2. Rivard and The Kraemer Company Reconsideration of Special Exception COMMENTS - Current Meeting: Blackburn presented the Special Exception reconsideration and staff report. The request is to reconsider conditions #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the July 25, 2013 reconsideration decision of the October 26, 2012 permit renewal for a nonmetallic mining operation in the Town of Somerset. Chair Malick explained that the Board voted to reconsider the whole matter. The mine is situated on two parcels totaling 80 acres and also on a separate 6.6 acre parcel to the southeast. All three parcels are owned by Roderick Rivard et al and zoned Ag-Residential The Wisconsin DNR monitors and enforces surface water under the Wisconsin Administrative Code NR216 Stormwater Discharge. Steve Olson has reviewed this request and recommends the applicants do not exceed the 32 acres of unreclaimed acreage unless additional financial guarantees are submitted to and held by the County. Chair Malick questioned if the 2007 permit conditions are still in affect with regard to the haul routes. Blackburn confirmed that they are and added that the permit was renewed in 2012, and renewed permits always refer to previous permit conditions. Chair Malick stated that the trucks should continue to always drive forward, and would like a continued requirement that new haul routes give no reason to have to backup and use beepers. Nelson questioned what the groundwater concerns were back in 2002. The Board recessed at 9:05 a.m., while Blackburn retrieved the original file to answer Nelson's question. The Board reconvened at 9:20 a.m. Blackburn answered Nelson by stating that David Sander, who previously worked in the Land and Water Conservation Department, had concerns of the impact to groundwater. The response to his concern was that fuel tanks have a secondary containment. With regard to the impact of sediments and organic matter; the mining operators would control through best management practices. The applicant also had a WI DNR discharge permit. Chair Malick wondered if the high capacity well was in place at that time. Blackburn read the remaining notes from 2002 to the Board. Steve Olson stated that he has the October 2002 report, and Steve Martell was in charge of abandoning another well on the property. Nelson questioned why staff is deleting condition #4, regarding groundwater, in the staff report. Blackburn answered it is the applicants requesting to have condition #4 deleted. The concern for groundwater, not surface water is coming from the citizens. Blackburn stated that the NR216 discharge permit issued by the Wisconsin DNR, says that if the applicants can make a pit self- contained with no runoff, it would be encouraged. There is no water runoff on the site, and there is a 140-foot separation to the groundwater. Denzer instructed Blackburn to illustrate the 140- foot separation. Nelson recalls the citizen issues were primarily with the groundwater. Peterson remembers the concerns, not so much with groundwater and seepage, but with blasting, the effect on wells, and nitrates seeping in through fractures. Blackburn agreed those were some concerns, which should be discussed with the applicants. Chair Malick asked if the applicants would like to speak. Mitchell Olson, Attorney and partner to Attorney Sweeney, and representing the applicants, spoke in favor. He agrees with the staff report and hopes the Board will accept it. He wants to clear up the issues that have to do with the hours on Friday limitation. This is not new quarry; it has been in existence for many years and subject to a number of permit reviews. The 2012 review had issues regarding quantity, and now processing is being limited, which is the greatest concern. Conditions #2, 3 and 4 are fine, but as to condition #5, it seems random words got inserted and the Board needs to address them. It was also a surprise to his clients that condition #1 was included, and has a substantial effect, possibly causing a loss of up to 25% of their business. Attorney Olson’s review of the records in 2002, 2007 and 2012, show that Monday through Friday hours were always approved. It is critical to the Kraemer Company operations to process on Fridays. The Kraemer Company has been a good neighbor; has always cooperated with neighbors in the past and will address any reasonable concerns. Chair Malick discussed the increase in tonnage to be mined and asked if that would mean working more intensely, or working months that were previously dormant. Attorney Olson explained that it is a matter of quantity of rock; if demand is low, they will blast less often, and if in order needs to be competed, that requires more to produce; they will do what’s necessary to access more rock. Richard Marino, from the Kraemer Company, confirmed that as well. Marino explained that the Stillwater Bridge is on everyone’s mind, and the Kraemer Company looks at it from the standpoint of not just one job, but overall. The largest cost is mobilization, and if losing 20% of their time in an area, the equipment is moved to often and is costly. Marino reiterated that all they are asking for is a normal work week, Monday through Friday, and they will work with the Board to satisfy the other conditions. Chair Malick questioned if the applicants had an idea of how much material is available in the mine, in terms of tonnage, until it’s exhausted. Marino estimated millions of tons, but most likely less than 10 million. McAllister felt the Board should limit the 2012 permitted increases to what the contract requires for the bridge, and then require the applicant to come back if they need to exceed the limits. Marino thought since the requirement is to come back before the Board every five years that would be a good time to review quantities again. Attorney Olson wanted to follow-up on one comment regarding the haul routes stating that his clients do have routes established and in place, and would show documentation to staff, as well as get signs put up. Chair Malick wanted to clarify that even as haul routes are adjusted, as the depth of the mine increases, that the routes would still be kept to one-way. Attorney Olson confirmed that his clients would adjust to follow that protocol. Chair Malick asked several questions regarding testing the wells of neighbors, to which Attorney Olson assured the permit condition, would be honored. Chair Malick also asked questions regarding opening the quarry during winter, running double work shifts, and if obtaining the Stillwater Bridge project, if that would intensify blasting. Blackburn handed out exhibits #8 and #9 from neighboring residents all in favor of the operation. Attorney Olson stated that Sam Dole, President of Dole Explosives, was present to answer any blasting questions. Attorney Olson handed out the Draft Blasting Plan as exhibit #10 and asked Dole to introduce himself. Dole gave background information on his experience with Dole Explosives and his history since 2002 working at the Rivard Quarry. Dole went through the blasting plan with the Board explaining that the company abides by all state codes. Historically, blasting takes place approximately 10 to 14 times per year, however some years have no blasting. Dole Explosives blasts in about 40 different quarries and has no record of any damage to any residences surrounding those quarries. In his experience, no private wells have been damaged. Chair Malick asked if Dole would go through exhibit #5, Blasting Logs, prepared by the Kraemer Company. Dole explained the report. Chair Malick questioned Dole regarding tonnage blast, bore holes and how they are laid out and if certain times of the day are better or worse for blasting. Dole answered his questions. Attorney Olson remarked that Kraemer Company would be willing to keep blasting within the 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. timeframe. Dole continued with explaining exhibit #6, the Seismograph Report, and what it depicts. The report is generated on a machine that measures ground vibration, and shows measurements are under the state limits. Chair Malick questioned the calibration of the equipment and if pre-blasting notification surveys are sent out. Dole answered and Blackburn confirmed that included on the blast records are the distances to residences, and none are close enough to require pre-blast surveys. Nelson asked Dole a series of questions regarding his experience with the State code and if Dole has ever appeared before a Zoning Board like this. He also asked if any testing has been done to look for damage to wells. Dole commented that to his knowledge, no damage has been done. Marino also answered that the casing of the well may damage, but there hasn’t been any damage to the well at the quarry. The Board further discussed the Draft Blasting Plan with Dole in regards to air pressure control and measurements at certain frequency. Chair Malick asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor. Hearing none, he asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Glenn Stoddard, Attorney representing the nearby property owners, led the Board through a memo he had submitted. He believes that the Kraemer Company has misled the Board presenting that the expansion is necessary because the bridge contract, when instead they are looking for a big opening into the future that may have nothing to do with bridge. Attorney Stoddard addressed the noise nuisance affecting property values as well as the explosive material eventually affecting wells. He also feels that there’s been no plan put together projecting into the future and residents will bear the implications. He would like the Board to reconsider the entire application and deny the expansion. The Board and staff discussed the yards approved on the 2012 permit, which had changed quite a bit from the previous permit. The Board continued to question Stoddard regarding his information on property values as well his clients concerns that Rivard may go down into sandstone and mine for frac. The Board didn’t recall a frac sand discussion in 2012. Attorney Stoddard feels with an increase in blasting frequency, it’s much more of a nuisance and impacts the values. Attorney Olson confirmed there is no plan or interest to mine for frac, just not an issue. Chair Malick asked Attorney Olson about the blasting plan referring to phone and email addresses to be used for notification and if there is a limit to listing email addresses. Dole confirmed that calls and emails are still made. Attorney Stoddard confirmed that his clients would provide email addresses. The Board recessed at 11:15 a.m., and reconvened at 11:25 a.m. Sontag continued the discussion by asking Dole about the explosives and what is being used. Dole explained the process of an explosion and how the State code sets permit standards for blasting. Chair Malick, referring to Attorney Stoddard’s memo, asked Attorney Olson if the Kraemer Company could provide some way of notifying the County to show how much material is being produced. Attorney Olson thought that upon reaching a certain tonnage, it would be agreeable to provide reporting. Chair Malick asked if a production report could be provided upon reaching 52,000 tons. He also asked if a quarterly report on the frequency of blasts could be provided to the Board if the Kraemer Company would be willing. Marino agreed to provide the report to the department that would regulate it. Attorney Olson stated that the company would also provide the County with records confirming if any homes have been damaged. The Board continued the discussion on pre-blast surveys, noise restrictions and water quality testing. Dole explained how a pre-blast survey is conducted, and Marino agreed to work with staff on conducting a survey on the nearest property, but added that blasting frequency has been reduced over the years. Attorney Olson was agreeable to the Boards request for modifications of the blasting plan and will provide a list of products used. Marino also addressed water testing and asked if a baseline sample is done, then how often should the water be tested. Attorney Olson suggested that on the anniversary of the baseline test, water could be tested and results provided to County staff. The discussion turned towards the well location that would be best for testing because of the water flow direction in the County. Attorney Stoddard invited the Board to experience a blast in one of his clients’ home however; no blasts are scheduled for the near future. Chair Malick asked that staff be notified if the homeowner receives a notice. Chair Malick asked Marino if the reconsideration could be delayed one month to get answers to questions asked. Marino would rather have a decision made today. Answers to the noise level question will have to be addressed by an expert, but the remainder of the questions will be answered sooner. Chair Malick stated that the Board could impose a condition to determine noise limits and return with those findings the following month. Denzer reminded the Board that the public notice was specific to addressing the listed conditions only and nothing else. Changing the tonnage amount and addressing noise conditions should not be addressed. She asked Steve Olson to respond if he had any specific concerns on this site that the Board should be aware of. He has no concerns. Denzer asked if he could determine the source of contamination based on a baseline date. He answered that nitrates are hard to trace because 70% of the County wells already have nitrates; spilling of fuel would be easier to trace. RESULT: CLOSED SITE VISITS The Board recessed for site visits at 12:41 p.m. The Board reconvened at 2:15 p.m. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Daryl Olson, Special Exception Permit for Reconstruction of a Nonconforming Accessory Structure (Deck) in the Lower St Croix Riverway Overlay District. Motion by McAllister, 2nd by Peterson to approve based on 10 findings and 9 conditions (specifics on file in the Community Development Department). Motion carried. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jerry McAllister SECONDER: David Peterson, Supervisor AYES: David Peterson, Buck Malick, Edward Sontag, Jerry McAllister, James Nelson 2. Roderick Rivard, et al and The Kraemer Company, Reconsideration of Special Exception Permit Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the July 25, 2013 Decision. Motion by Sontag, 2nd by McAllister to approve based on 18 findings and 7 conditions (specifics on file in the Community Development Department). Motion carried. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Edward Sontag SECONDER: Jerry McAllister AYES: David Peterson, Buck Malick, Edward Sontag, Jerry McAllister, James Nelson 3. Update on Ordinance Amendments Denzer gave a brief overview of the public hearing that was held at the September 19, 2013 Community Development Committee meeting, which resulted in the committee forwarding the ordinance amendments on to County Board for action at the October 1, 2013 meeting. These amendments will affect the applications that come in front of the Board of Adjustment. Engesether gave the power-point presentation recapping when the first draft presentation of the Farmland Preservation Zoning amendments were presented to the committee back in July. In August, the committee was shown the second review, scheduling the public hearing for the September meeting. Staff has done several outreach efforts with the communities since January of this year. The website has also been continuously updated with information. Engesether addressed the key comprehensive plan policies that are the basis for these zoning amendments. The State of Wisconsin also provided the model ordinance with the rules and structures of specific uses that are permitted versus conditional. Seven of the ten newly defined terms come directly from the State statutes. Engesether summarized the new St. Croix County language including AG-1 district creation, purpose statement, and permitted uses. Engesether specifically mentioned the effective date language within the seasonal storage permitted use, would be removed. She continued summarizing Ag-1 Conditional Uses and the conditional use standards, as well as the new language for Ag-2 district creation, purpose statement and Conditional Uses with their corresponding standards. The Administration and Enforcement section explains the standards for how to rezone out of the amended Ag districts, which must be consistent with Town and County Comprehensive Plans. Additional amendments discussed included a proposed name change to Rural Residential for the current Ag-Res district. The proposed name change to Rural Residential is to reflect the increase in rural large-lot subdivisions with the Ag-Res zoned areas. A complete overhaul of the Ag- Residential/Rural Residential district will be made during the second comprehensive revision in 2015-2016. Engesether concluded the presentation by explaining the comprehensive revision and stating that the one-year countdown for implementation of the Ag-1 and Ag-2 districts will start at County Board adoption. October 2013 to September 2014 staff will meet and work with all Towns to opt in or out of new County Zoning and rework their Town zoning maps for County Board Adoption. By the end of September 2014, application for certification of all participating Town zoning maps are due. This will start the 90-day review process for DATCP certification. ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Monica Lucht DATE OF NEXT MEETING - OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M. IN HUDSON