Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout002-1040-30-100 (3) i 0 Do Not Write In This Space! Zoning Department Use Only! File 9,6 Activity: Rezoning / *A / ecial Exception Proposed Zoning District: A2-01 AG-02 AR-03 RES-04 COM-05 IND-06 Current Zoning District: A2-01 AG-"-03 RES-04 COM-05 IND-06 Overlay District(s): None-01 Shoreland-02 /Wetland-03 Floodplain-04 Riverway-05 Variance/Special Exception Code(s): See Attached Lisp Ordinance Section #(s): Disposition: rued-01 Approved-02 / Withdrawn-03 / Postponed-04 Date: Supporting Evidence: YES NO Plot Map or Plan / "j~)T((Approval Ltr. /§SM / Photos / Maps / Soil Test Other: t .geLa Hardship: YES NO Linked to Rezoning: YES ; NO Conditions: YES N0 ,1 Objections: YES NO I I 2/96 SOCROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN 4 ZONING OFFICE 1 x r x x r x i rrrr` ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016-7710 (715) 386-4680 June 21, 1996 Roger & Cindy Frye 2127 County Road E Baldwin, WI 540027 RE: Board of Adjustment Decision File Ref: 30-96 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Frye: The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has reviewed your application for a setback variance to a county road and has denied your application. The enclosed document is the formal decision regarding your application. If you have any questions, please give our office a call. Sincerely, Thomas C. Nelson Zoning Administrator db Enc. cc: Kenneth Klanderman, Clerk Town of Baldwin 2309 County Road E Baldwin, WI 54002 (C(OF"Y' I I, i I i FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND ORDER OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Case: 30-96 Complete Application Received: 4/15/96 Hearing Date: 5/23/96 Dates of Publication: Weeks of 5/06/96 and 5/13/96 FINDINGS OF FACT Having heard all the testimony, considered the entire record herein, and conducted an on-site inspection, the Board finds the following facts: 1. The applicants are Roger & Cindy Frye, whose address is 2127 County Road E, Baldwin, Wisconsin 54002. 2. The applicants, on April 15, 1996, filed with the Zoning office an application for a variance request for a setback from a county road. I 3. Roger & Cindy Frye are the owners of the property which is the subject of this application which is located in the NV, of the NW, and the NW', of the NE; of Section 18, T29N, R16W, Town of Baldwin, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. I 4. The subject property is currently used for single family residences. 5. The Town of Baldwin supports this application. 6. Nelson stated this was a request for a variance from County Road E. Nelson introduced Exhibit #1, a site plan showing the existing house to be 5214" from the center of County Road E. Nelson stated the ordinance requires a structure to be 133' from the centerline of a road, he also noted the 12' wide addition to the home. Nelson then presented Exhibit #2, a building plan showing the kitchen in the upper right-hand corner of the page and the dining area below that has the area being added to the existing home totaling a 12' wide x 25' deep addition; Exhibit #3, a letter from the Town of Baldwin stating their support of this request. 7. Bradley stated this was a non-conforming structure and to add to it makes it more non-conforming. Nelson stated part of the problem of this request is the 50% value of structure rule. 8. Roger Frye, being duly sworn, stated he resides at 2127 County Road E, Baldwin, Wisconsin. He stated he purchased this property last July. Bradley asked Frye if he had known that the home was a non-conforming structure. Frye stated he discovered this when he went to the township to get a building permit. 9. Bradley asked Frye what the house was assessed at. Frye stated he did not know. Frye stated the house to be worth $45,000 which is an 820 sq. ft. one level home with a basement. 10. Bradley asked how far Frye was from the Kuselik property. Frye stated he is west of them and Diane Ashe owned the property and he owns 16.5 acres. 11. Bradley inquired on what made the structure non-conforming. Nelson stated it was too close to the road - less than 133' from the centerline. Frye stated the house was built in the 1950's either 155 or 156 and that they want to add on a 21' wide x 25' deep addition. 12. Bradley asked Frye if he purchased the house without knowing about the non-conformity. Frye stated yes. 13. Nelson asked Frye if he had discussed the expansion of his home with the realtor. Frye stated no he did not. 14. Jensen asked Frye how big his family was. Frye stated he has an 18 year old step-son. 15. Bradley brought up the point of the 50% improvement cap and asked Frye how much he paid for the property. Frye stated he paid $80,000 and the residence needed a new sewer. He noted there were two other buildings on his 16 acres of land. 16. Bradley asked if the land was being farmed and how much of it was crop land. Frye stated Joe Kuselik farms the land and 12 acres of the land is crop. 17. Bradley inquired if the furnace was a hot air furnace. Kusilek stated yes it was and he wanted to install a more efficient one. 18. Bradley asked how close the addition would be to the road. The Board stated 5214" from the centerline. Nelson stated the issue of a hardship has not been addressed. Frye stated the 320 sq. ft. addition can go to the south, but he feels the value of the home is not the issue. 19. Bradley asked Nelson if he had discussed the 50% rule with Frye at the time of application. Nelson stated no he did not. Frye stated either way he builds the addition, he would need a variance. Frye stated he requested a higher bid from the contractor because he did not want to be short. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board Concludes that: 1. The Board of Adjustment has authority under Section 17.70 (5) (c) 3 to approve or deny an application for a variance. 2. Section 17.64 (1) (c) requires a setback from a Class C Highway to be 133' from the centerline of said highway. 3. A literal enforcement of the terms of the Zoning Code would not result in unnecessary hardhsip to the applicant because there are other alternatives and no hardship exists. 4. A variance would be contrary to the public interest and would not be in accord with the spirit of the Zoning Code because the purpose of the ordinance is to promote public safety, general welfare and convenience. 5. The variance is not requested due to limiting physical characteristics of the property because other alternatives exist no hardship could be proven. DECISION On the basis of the above Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and the record herein, the Board denies the applicant's request for a setback variance from a county road on the following vote: Chairman Bradley yes T. Filipiak yes A. Jensen yes C. Mehls yes Motion to deny variance request carried. APPEAL RIGHTS This decision may be appealed by any person aggrieved by filing an action in certiorari in the circuit court of this County within 30 days after the date of filing shown below. The County assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to the legality of any construction commenced prior to the expiration of this 30-day period or the identity of any person who may claim to be aggrieved by this decision. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT f1 Y Singed Chairperson Dated: 6/21/96 Filed: 6/21/96 Parcel 002-1040-30-100 08/12/2009 10:27 AM PAGE 1 OF 1 Alt. Parcel 18.29.16.2656 002 - TOWN OF BALDWIN Current X ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN Creation Date Historical Date Map # Sales Area Application # Permit # Permit Type # of Units 00 0 Tax Address: Owner(s): O = Current Owner, C = Current Co-Owner CINDY L FRYE O - FRYE, CINDY L 2127 CTY RD E BALDWIN WI 54002 Districts: SC = School SP = Special Property Address(es): Primary Type Dist # Description ` 2127 CTY RD E SC 0231 BALDWIN-WOODVILLE AREA SP 1700 WITC Legal Description: Acres: 16.614 Plat: N/A-NOT AVAILABLE SEC 18 T29N R16W PT NE NE & PT NW NE Block/Condo Bldg: BEING LOT 1 CSM 10/2943 16.614 ACRES Tract(s): (Sec-Twn-Rng 401/4 1601/4) 18-29N-16W Notes: Parcel History: Date Doc # Vol/Page Type 05/02/1996 543074 1175/568 QC 07/17/1995 531341 1130/587 WD 2009 SUMMARY Bill Fair Market Value: Assessed with: Use Value Assessment Valuations: Last Changed: 04/11/2008 Description Class Acres Land Improve Total State Reason RESIDENTIAL G1 2.000 25,100 134,100 159,200 NO AGRICULTURAL G4 14.614 3,400 0 3,400 NO Totals for 2009: General Property 16.614 28,500 134,100 162,600 Woodland 0.000 0 0 Totals for 2008: General Property 16.614 28,500 134,100 162,600 Woodland 0.000 0 0 Lottery Credit: Claim Count: 1 Certification Date: 04/17/2001 Batch 510 Specials: User Special Code Category Amount Special Assessments Special Charges Delinquent Charges Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 o I I', p ° o Q o ~ I a ,g o ~ 0 N M N x ti in - N N p CL Q C (0 C O > v U O O N O m O O 6 O G ~ 0 3LQ ~ C U "C3 -p C ~ N N E N W- Z ;j O O z l E o Z a m 04 o Z dt : 'v ~ ~ o N I v Vl f- c ~ N N a o ~ I U) Of _o 0 ~l _ o 1 a U W N o 2 Q Z o © Z H Z Z o N _ M C it "its N ~ N ~ IL _ N M O N O C) o a` -0 Oi CO X000 ~"a is c a a a N 3 O O 0) 0 C 0) 0) N J V w a~ } 0 O O 0 r Q U N N O O _U Lr) v w m d 0 CO ~O _ U O N N C 1y O N C C W I~ O O O O O C N a a 0 x 0 0 0 1 y M c 3 _ 0 0 V o~ coo E E N C ai 3 v H FL m r~ C~ :2 • o m N co o n E E U O m Q N O N=i fn v ~ E d +W O ` 0. 'ter 3 L • CL d U N a ~J E i C C w