HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1155-10-000
C®
PLACING ZONING
June 24, 2011 File Ref: SE87201
Robert and Maggie Allison
277 Cove Rd.
r Hudson, WI 54016
Re: St. Croix County Variance Requests
Parcel #040-1155-10-000, Town of Troy
Code Administration
715-386-4680 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Allison:
Land Information & 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 in the Lower
St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.36.I.2.e.1)i)i of the St. Croix
Real Pro , ' County Zoning Ordinances
715-386,= 677
ReoXJ-
ltfchng Item #2: Addendum for an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming
5-386-4675 accessory structure (deck) in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to
Section 17.3611b of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinances.
After the hearing on June 23, 2011 the Board voted to accept the withdrawal of the variance request
Item #I and approved the addendum after-the-fact variance in Item #2. The enclosed document is the
formal decision regarding your application.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Pamela Quinn
Zoning Specialist/ Zoning Administrator
Enclosure: Formal Decision
i
cc: Clerk, Town of Troy
Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department
Mike Wenholz, WI Dept. of Natural Resources
I
ST. CRO/X COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
1 101 CARM/CHAEL ROAD, HUDSON, W/ 54016 71x386-4686 FAX
FZPCO.SA/NTCROIX.W1. WWW.CO.SAINTCROIX.WI.US
N %
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN
File Number: SE87201
Applicants: Robert & Maggie Allison, property owners
Parcel Numbers: 24.28.20.610 & 13/24.28.20.700
Complete Application Received: April 4, 2011
Hearing Notice Publication: Weeks of May 9 and 16, 2011
Hearing Dates: May 26 (tabled) and June 23, 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 Robert & Maggie Allison, property owners.
2. The site is located at Part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 24, T28N, R20W, including lot 43 of St. Croix Cove SLIM.
#3, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, WI.
3. The Town of Troy Town Board has been sent a copy of the application on April 6, 2011 and a copy of the
staff report on May 20, 2011, but has not yet submitted recommendations regarding these requests for the
Board of Adjustment's consideration.
4. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department reviewed the application and the LWCD
does not object to the request since the proposed expansion will not create any additional impervious
coverage to the site. In addition, the site appears to be very stable and well screened from the river.
5. Mike Wenholz, Regional Shoreland Specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reviewed
the application and provided comments in a letter dated May 24, 2011. The letter was added as "Exhibit 9"
during the May 26, 2011 public hearing. In paragraph two, Mr. Wenholz commented that "While the
proposed expansion may be under the existing roof, it remains an expansion of the livable area of a
nonconforming principal structure" that appears would increase the footprint area to greater than 2000 square
feet, which is not allowed. Paragraph three of the letter includes a statement that the deck is a nonconforming
accessory structure that can be maintained and repaired, but not reconstructed. Mr. Wenholz went on to say
"It is true that ingress and egress is required for existing entrances to the principal structure. This does not
necessitate allowing the full deck to be reconstructed. Ingress and egress can very adequately and safely be
accomplished with a reasonable landing and stairs." Mr. Wenholz was unable to perform a site inspection for
this application prior to submitting comments.
6. Neighboring property owners, Greg and Sheila Paul, submitted a letter of support on May 25, 2011 that was
added as "Exhibit 10" during the May 26, 2011 public hearing. The Pauls have no objection to the variance
request and stated that they have not been negatively impacted by work done on the Allison property.
Item #1 (variance for expansion of a nonconforming principal structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway
District
Staff offers the following general findings of fact and conclusions of law pertinent to Item #I for the Board's
consideration:
7. The applicants submitted an application to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment for expansion of a legal
nonconforming principal structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section
17.36.1.2 of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
8. Based upon testimony during the public hearing and subsequent deliberations by the Board, it was determined
that the proposed enclosure of an existing storage area is not an expansion of the principal structure. The
storage area lies within the foundation footprint as defined in Section 17.0 78) of the county ordinance. The
addition of a wall, but no insulation, and door that allows access from inside and outside the house will be a
structural alteration, which is allowed with a land use permit per Section 17.36.I.2.c.
9. The proposed wall and door enclosure will meet the following requirements listed in Section 17.36.I.2.d.1):
(a) The lot has an area of at least 7,000 square feet.
(b) The altered or reconstructed structure will be visually inconspicuous or will be rendered so
through mitigation per § 17.3615.
(c) The structure is altered or reconstructed in the same footprint as the pre-existing structure.
(d) The reconstructed structure may not be any taller than the pre-existing nonconforming structure,
except that a flat roof may be replaced with a pitched roof, and may not be taller than allowed per
§ 17.36.G.4.
(e) The color of the structure complies with § 17.36.H.I I.
(f) The property owner submits a mitigation plan per § 17.36.1.5.
i. If a permit is issued for the reconstruction, the mitigation plan shall be approved, or
modified and approved, by the Zoning Administrator.
ii. The mitigation plan shall be incorporated into the permit and the property owner
shall be required to implement the mitigation plan as a permit condition.
(g) Private on-site wastewater treatment systems are brought into compliance with the requirements
of the St. Croix County Sanitary Ordinance.
(h) The foundation of the structure may not be replaced, improved or structurally altered, unless all
of the following standards are met:
i. It is being done in conjunction with the reconstruction of the structure;
ii. It is entirely located more than 50 feet from the OHWM, and
iii. It is not located in a slope preservation zone.
(i) No filling and grading activities are allowed during the alteration or reconstruction, except for the
minimum necessary to accomplish the alteration or reconstruction in compliance with other
provisions of this subchapter, and as needed to upgrade a private on-site wastewater treatment
system, to replace sewer or water laterals, or to install storm water or erosion control measures.
(j) If the structure is located in a slope preservation zone, it may be reconstructed on the existing
foundation only if WDNR storm water technical standards applicable to steeper sloped areas are
implemented to control erosion.
10. On May 10, 2010 the Private On-site Wastewater Treatment System (POWTS) was serviced by a licensed
septic pumper, inspected for its compliance with sanitary code, and was not found to be in need of repair or
replacement at this time. This satisfies item (g) in the list of requirements for Section 17.36.1.2.d. 1).
i
11. It appears that this request does not require a variance. The application for a variance may be withdrawn with
a condition that the proposed structural alteration may not commence until a land use permit has been issued
by the Zoning Administrator
Item #2 (variance for reconstruction of a nonconforminy, accessory structure (deck) in the Lower St. Croix
Riverway District) Staff offers the following general findings of fact and conclusions of law pertinent to Item #3 for the
Board's consideration:
12. The applicants filed an addendum application with the Board of Adjustment for an after-the-fact 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.I.3.b of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The deck
is attached to a legal, nonconforming principle structure that was constructed prior to adoption of a county
Riverway ordinance in 1976 and meets the intent of the ordinance in that:
• The reconstructed deck will be smaller in area than the original one
• The structure is not located in a slope preservation zone;
• 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;
• Property values will not be negatively affected.
N Oi
13. The house and attached deck are legal nonconforming structures that were originally constructed within the
40-foot bluffline setback prior to adoption of the County Riverway ordinance. 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 multiple existing sliding glass doorways on the main floor of the house above the walkout
elevation .
14. Based upon testimony during the May 26, 2011 public hearing and subsequent deliberations by the Board, it
was determined that the work previously done on the deck may qualify to be considered as necessary
maintenance and repair of an accessory structure, which is allowed per Section 17.36.I.3.a. In Chapter NR
118.08(3) ordinary maintenance and repair of nonconforming accessory structures is allowed. The existing
37-year old deck has been reduced in size/area compared to its original dimensions based upon evidence
submitted by the applicant. The applicant's work on the deck was halted in 2009, but more work is needed to
bring it into compliance with requirements in Comm 21.10 of Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce Chapter Comm
21 Construction Standards for safe handrails, footings, frost protection, decay prevention, and structural
support/attachment to the principal structure.
15. Bringing the deck into compliance with requirements in Comm 21.225 may result in a violation of
prohibitions contained in NR 118.08(3) and Section 17.36.I.3.b of the St. Croix County Riverway ordinance
regarding reconstruction of nonconforming accessory structures. With conditions for obtaining a building
permit and having the work inspected for compliance with current UDC deck construction requirements,
completion of the deck will meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance for being visually inconspicuous and
will not harm the public interest or neighboring properties.
16. The applicants are of the opinion that substantial justice would be done by allowing thern to complete repair
work on the deck so that it can be safely used as a nonconforming accessory structure, which is allowed in the
Lower St. Croix Riverway District. The deck is attached to the main floor elevation of the legal
nonconforming principal structure, which has multiple sliding glass doorways that open onto it for
ingress/egress from the house. The applicant would suffer a hardship since the deck in its current condition is
not safe for private or public use.
17. The applicants are requesting minimal relief from the standards in the Ordinance. Based on measurements and
photos submitted by the applicant's architect, the proposed deck dimensions will reduce the surface area as
compared to the original deck and move its edge further away from the bluffline. The deck will continue to
provide a stable, non-erosive surface for outdoor activities, which protects existing vegetation within the
bluffline setback and prevents potential erosion of soils in the slope preservation zone.
DECISION
On the basis of the above Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the record herein, the Board accepted the
withdrawal of the variance in Item #1 and approved the applicant's variance request in Item #2, with the following
conditions:
1. The variance request will allow the applicants to complete repairs of a nonconforming accessory structure
(deck) on the property in accordance with the plans submitted on April 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.
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 including, but not limited to, a land use permit for
construction of the storage area enclosure.
3. As indicated in the plans submitted by the applicant, the proposed projects will be visually inconspicuous..
will comply with requirements for earth-tone building materials, will not expand the existing footprint of the
original structure, and will not require removal of existing mature trees that currently screen the house from
•0
the river. The applicants shall provide documentation that the construction as been completed in compliance
with all applicable building codes.
4. Any minor change 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.
5. The applicant shall have one (1) year from the approval of the variance(s) to obtain the above permits and
local, state, or federal approvals for the project. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval within
the timeframes stipulated shall be grounds for revocation.
6. 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.
7. 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 the variance as amended: Chairman Malick, yes; Hurtgen, 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.
I fan 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. gacL /l
1
Date Filed: 06/24/11 Clarence W. Buck Malick, Chairperson