HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1166-20-000
ST CRO ix COUNr
PLANNING & ZONING
May 2, 2011 File Ref: SE87180
Keith & Jennifer Willard
486 Mt. Curve Blvd.
ST. Paul, MN 55116
Re: St. Croix County Variance Requests
Parcel #040-1166-20-000 & 040-1166-30-000, Town of Troy
Code Administration
715-386-4680 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Willard:
Land Informarion & The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment (Board) has reviewed your requests for the following items:
Planning
715-386-4674 Item #1: Variance for expansion of a legal nonconforming principal structure (roof) in the
Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.36 I.2.e.1)i)i. of the St.
Real Property Croix County Zoning Ordinances
715-386-1677
Reci-.ling Item #2: Addendum to variance for expansion of a legal nonconforming principal structure
715-386-4675 (roof) in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.36.I.2.e.1)j)
of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinances.
Item #3: Addendum to variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure
(deck) in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.36.1.3.b of
the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinances.
After the hearing on April 28, 2011 the Board voted to approve the variance requests with conditions.
The enclosed document is.the formal decision regarding your application.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Pamela Quinn
Zoning Specialist/ Zoning Administrator
{ Enclosure: Formal Decision
cc: Clerk, Town of Troy
Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department
Mike Wenholz, WI Dept. of Natural Resources
ST. CRO/X COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
110 1 CARMICHAEL ROAD, HUDSON. W1 54016 7153864686 Fax
PZC>CO. SA/NTCRO/X. W1. US W W W.CO.SAI NT-CROIX. W I. US
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN
File Number: SE87180
Applicants: Keith & Jennifer Willard, property owners
Parcel Numbers: 26.28.20.638G & 26.28.20.639F
Complete Application Received: February 4, 2011
Hearing Notice Publication: Weeks of March 7 and 14, 2011
Hearing Dates: March 24 (tabled) and April 28, 2011
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having heard all the testimony, considered the entire record herein, and visited the site, the Board of Adjustment makes
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pertinent to the applicant's special exception and variance
requests (Items #1 and #2):
1. The applicants are Keith and Jennifer Willard, property owners.
2. The site is located at 171 Glenmont Road in Part of Gov't Lots 2 & 3, Section 26, T28N, R20W, Town of
Troy, St. Croix County, WI.
3. The Town of Troy Plan Commission reviewed the concept Riverway permit application for reconstruction or
expansion in a nonconforming area at their March 3, 2011 meeting. The Plan Commission agreed that the
applicant could move forward with a Riverway Application. The applicant was told that the following items
would need to be submitted in the application for a Riverway Permit and variance:
• A scale drawing showing the OHWM and 200 foot setback, the square footage of the existing house, deck
and the square footage of what is proposed,
• Photos of the existing vegetation and topography and a statement that it will not be disturbed,
• An erosion control plan or a statement that no earth will be disturbed, the location of any silt fencing,
• A schedule of any reseeding if necessary,
• Verification that the existing wastewater treatment system meets Department of Commerce Chapter 83
specifications.
4. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the original special exception
application and does not object to the replacement of the roof. If additional impervious coverage is being
proposed to the site with the enclosure of a portion of the deck, then the department recommends a
stormwater management plan for the additional impervious coverage is provided consistent with § 17.36 11.7.
5. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources staff reviewed the variance application and commented that
there is a clear approach available in the St. Croix County zoning ordinance to allow for the replacement of
the roof. Section 1.2.d. of Subchapter IILV Section 17.36 allows for the reconstruction of the nonconforming
structure as a special exception. This allows the reconstruction of the same style of roof - no greater pitch
than the 3:12 that currently exists. The proposed greater pitch and cupola do not meet the requirements of this
section. Neither does the enclosing of the deck. The roof on this structure is certainly not "flat". While there
are no specific definitions listed, sec. Comm 21.27(1)(b) implies that 3:12 is sloped, and thus not flat. Note
that according to the ordinance additional requirements must be met, including submittal of a mitigation plan
(it does not make exceptions for different types of projects) (Section 1.2.d. f)), and provide assurance the
private on-site wastewater treatment system is in compliance with the St. Croix County Sanitary Ordinance
(Section I.2.d. g)).
6. When determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists, the Board of Adjustment must identify unique
physical characteristics of the property that would otherwise prohibit the applicant from using the property for
a permitted purpose, and then weigh the burden placed on the applicant in meeting the requirements of the
Ordinance against the public interests being protected. The house is a legal nonconforming principle structure
constructed within the bluffline and town road setbacks prior to the adoption of the County Riverway
ordinance and after receiving variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. Literal enforcement of the
• •
provisions of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to the unique physical characteristics
of the property. The buildable portion of this parcel is small and the entire house is within the 40 foot
bluffline setback, therefore an expansion parallel to the river would still be within 40 feet of the bluffline.
Any construction on the landward side of the house would encroach within the town road setback, which
would also require variance approval. These site characteristics were not self-created by any actions of the
property owner.
7. The applicant is requesting minimal relief from the standards in the Ordinance. The existing structure and
proposed roof expansion meet the requirements in Section 17.36.1.2.e.1) with the exception of the 40-foot
bluffline setback and expansion landward or parallel to the bluffline. The proposed roof extension would
cover approximately half of an existing deck on the riverward side of the house and the screened enclosure
would allow use of the deck during inclement weather. The roof will not exceed the maximum height of 35
feet, will be earth-toned colors, will not change the existing combined house and deck footprint, and the
expansion will not exceed the 2000 square foot maximum footprint specified in 17.36.1.2.e. 1)i).
8. Substantial justice would be done by allowing the applicant to expand the roof on an existing legal,
nonconforming residence on the property, which is a permitted use in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District.
The proposed roof expansion would cover a screened enclosure on an existing deck and will be visually
inconspicuous, will comply with requirements for earth-tone building materials, and will not disturb existing
mature trees that screen the house from the river. Denying this variance would limit the applicant's ability to
maintain their property value as compared to other residences in the general vicinity (north and south) along
the Riverway.
Item #1 (variance for expansion of a nonconformine principal structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway
District
S ollow' nc uston
c
9. The applicants submitted an application to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment for expansion of a legal
nonconforming principal structure (roof) in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to
Section 17.36.1.2 of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
10. This request would not be contrary to the public interest, which is to prevent soil erosion, maintain property
values, and preserve and maintain the exceptional scenic, cultural, and natural characteristics of the water and
related land of the Lower St. Croix Riverway. With the conditions to direct roof gutter discharge into runoff
infiltration structures away from the riverward slopes and to protect existing trees along the bluffline to
maintain slope stability along the riverward side of the property, the exceptional scenic, cultural, and natural
characteristics of the Riverway would be preserved and maintained.
11. The roof will be visually inconspicuous, will not violate the spirit or general intent of the chapter, and will not
be contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare. This request will not be a nuisance by reason of noise,
dust, smoke or odor and may have a positive affect on property values in the neighborhood.
12. The hardship is that the roof leaks, is in need of replacement, and does not meet current Uniform Dwelling
Code (UDC). There is no hardship demonstrated for the construction plan that includes a cupola, but
skylights are acceptable.
Item #2 (Variance for riverward expansion of a nonconforming principal structure in the Lower St. Croix
Riverway District) Sftff ers t e following general findings o ie
13. The applicants filed an addendum application with the Board of Adjustment for a variance to expand the roof
and add a screened enclosure over the deck on the riverward side of a legal nonconforming principal structure
within the bluffline setback area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway district pursuant to Section
17.36.I.2.1).e.l)j of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
• •
Item #3 (variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure (deck) in the Lower St. Croix
Riverway District) S o aw
14. The applicants filed an addendum application with the Board of Adjustment for a variance to reconstruct a
nonconforming accessory structure (deck) within the bluffline setback area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway
district pursuant to Section 17.36.1.3.b of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The deck is attached to a
legal, nonconforming principle structure that was approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1974 and meets the
intent of the ordinance in that
• The reconstructed deck will be no larger than the original one, which is 450 square feet in area;
• No vegetation will be harmed during reconstruction;
• The public interest would not be harmed by granting the variance;
• The deck will be inconspicuous from the river;
• and property values will not be negatively affected
15. The house and deck are legal nonconforming structures that were constructed within the 40-foot bluffline
setback prior to adoption of the County Riverway ordinance and after receiving variance approval from the
Board of Adjustment. The deck's dimensional nonconformity is a hardship that was not self-created by the
property owners. The deck meets all the requirements listed in 17.36.1.3 b. l) - 7) that would allow a garage or
shed to be reconstructed. Literal enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting the reconstruction of a
nonconforming accessory structure (except garages or sheds) would limit the applicant's continued use of the
deck as a safe, structurally-sound platform for ingress and egress from existing doorways on the riverward
side of the house.
16. In Chapter NR 118.08(3) ordinary maintenance and repair of nonconforming accessory structures is allowed,
but "Nonconforming accessory structures may not be structurally altered, reconstructed or expanded".
Ordinary maintenance and repair of the existing 30 year old accessory structure is no longer sufficient to
prevent deterioration or meet decay prevention requirements in Comm 21.10 of Wisconsin Dept. of
Commerce Chapter Comm 21 Construction Standards. The applicant's request would also bring the deck into
compliance with state specifications for safe handrails, footings, frost protection, and structural
support/attachment to the principal structure. However, the applicants cannot comply with Comm 21.225
without alteration or reconstruction of the deck, which would be a violation of prohibitions contained in NR
118.08(3) and Section 17.36.I.3.b of the St. Croix County Riverway ordinance. Conflicting statutory
requirements contained in separate state regulations is a hardship that was not self-created by the applicants.
17. Substantial justice would be done by allowing the applicants continued use of the nonconforming accessory
structure on the property, which is allowed in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District, and which will be
reconstructed within the footprint of the original deck. The reconstruction will not expand the existing
nonconforming accessory structure's foundation/footprint or increase its encroachment into the bluffline
setback. The stormwater management plan and runoff calculations for the roof expansion demonstrate that
the reconstructed accessory structure (deck) will comply with the requirements and standards in Section
17.36.H.7. With conditions for recording an affidavit that describes the approved stormwater management
plan and discloses its maintenance requirements pursuant to Section 17.36.H.7.g,1) & 2), the reconstructed
deck and screened enclosure will meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and comply with mitigation
requirements in Section 17.36.1.5.a., b., and c.3).
DECISION
On the basis of the above Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the record herein, the Board approved the
applicant's special exception and variance requests, with the following conditions:
1. The variance requests will allow the applicants to replace and expand the roof, with the exception of the
proposed cupola for which skylights may be substituted, and reconstruct a deck on the property in accordance
with the plans submitted on February 4, 2011, and as provided in the conditions below. This approval does
not include any additional structures, impervious coverage, filling and grading, or other activities.
0
2. The applicants shall secure all necessary permits and approvals from the Town of Troy and obtain any other
required local, state, or federal permits and approvals.
3. The applicants will direct all roof gutter discharge, including the expanded roof, away from the rivers\~ard
slopes into approved stormwater structures and protect existing trees along the bluffline to maintain slope
stability and visual screening.
4. As indicated in the plans submitted by the applicant, the proposed project will be visually inconspicuous, will
comply with requirements for earth-tone building materials, and will not require removal of existing mature
trees that screen the house from the river.
5. Within 30 days of the Board's decision, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan, which
h/3/ tl meets standards specified in Section 17.36 H.7.d. Upon approval by the County, the applicants shall record
an affidavit against the property referencing the decision and stormwater management plan, including a long-
1 term maintenance agreement for runoff infiltration structures. The applicants shall submit a recorded copy of
G{t the affidavit to the Zoning Administrator at this time. The intent is to make future owners aware of the
r limitations and responsibilities incurred as part of the Board of Adjustment's variance decision.
r;- L
6. Any minor chahi a or addition to the project, including but not limited to design of the project, shall require
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to making the change or addition. Any major change
or addition to the originally approved plan will have to go through the variance approval process.
7. The applicant shall have one (1) year from the issuance of these approvals to commence replacement of the
roof and two (2) years to complete it. Failure to do so may result in expiration or revocation of this decision.
after which time the applicant will be required to secure a new variance before starting or completing the
project.
8. These conditions may be amended or additional conditions may be added if unanticipated circumstances arise
that would affect the health and/or safety of citizens or degrade the natural resources of St. Croix County.
Conditions will not be amended or added without notice to the applicant and an opportunity for a hearing.
9. Accepting this decision means that the applicants and all property owners have read, understand, and agree to
all conditions of this decision.
The following vote was taken to approve all three variances as amended: Chairman Malick, yes; llurtgen, yes;
Nelson, yes; Peterson, yes; McAllister, yes. Motion carried.
APPEAL RIGHTS
Any person aggrieved by this decision may file an appeal in St. Croix County circuit court within 30 days after the filing
date shown below, pursuant to Sec. 59.694(10), Wisconsin Statutes. St. Croix County assumes no responsibility for
action taken in reliance on this decision prior to the expiration of the appeal period. St. Croix County does not certify that
the identity of all persons legally entitled to notice of the Board of Adjustment proceedings, which resulted in this
decision, was provided to the County.
If an appeal is taken of this decision, it is the responsibility of the appellant to submit at his/her expense a transcript of the
Board of Adjustment proceedings to the circuit court. The Planning and Zoning Department can be contacted for
information on how to obtain a transcript. It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to submit its record (file) of'
this matter to the circuit court.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Signed: fi~dzU1't-
Date Filed: 05/02/11 Clarence W. "Buck" Malick, ChairP erson