HomeMy WebLinkAbout014-1061-80-100 (2)
WWI
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARINGS
July 27, 1989
Meeting called to order by chairman Meinke at 9:00 A.M., County
Board Room, Courthouse, Hudson. Present were Supervisors Meinke,
Swenby, Menter, Kinney and Bradley.
Motion by Menter, second by Swenby to adopt amended agenda.
Motion carried. Next meeting date set for August 24, 9:00,
Courthouse.
Motion by Bradley, second by Menter to approve the April 27
minutes. Motion carried. •
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
PATRICK BUHL
Quintin Weinzerl, St. Joseph Town Chairman, was sworn in.
Weinzerl stated that the township has approved the minor
subdivision, and the variance on both the existing garage and the
proposed garage.
Pat Buhl was sworn in, stating that the same proposal has been
pending for the last three months. Buhl hopes the committee will
make a decision today on the setback variance.
KRAEMERS GRAVEL PIT:
Zoning administrator, informed committee that conditions of the
permit granted to Kraemers have not been met as follows: 1) Bond
has not been posted, 2) Well has not been brought up to
standards. Nelson referred to Section 17.70 (7)(d)(1) of the
ordinance which states that the Board of Adjustment can re-review
the appeal.
Ralph Brown told the committee that the well has been raised 3
feet, and an approved seal has been put on. He explained that
the delay was due to difficulty in getting the seal. Brown
stated that Kraemer's had changed bonding companies, however bond
wll be in the Zoning Office by Monday morning. Kraemers will be
in this fall for completion of Phase I of Reclamation. Tom
Nelson mentioned paving of the road (to the scale). Brown said
that had not been done yet, but it will be. Swenby voiced his
disappointment with Kraemer's, and Bradley questioned whether
Kraemer's are in fact "a good neighbor".
US WEST, NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC:
Stephen T'Kach, County Communications Director was sworn in
addressing co-location and co-sharing of tower by U.S. West.
T'Kach stated that he neither agrees or disagrees with the
1
y
proposed location, that the committee will need to make that
decision. T'Kach then called for a moratorium on towers within
the County until a comprehensive plan (for towers) is in place.
Dave Guillen, US West was sworn in. When questioned by
committee as to whether tower would cover all of St. Croix
County, Guillen stated that the majority would receive coverage.
T'Kach asked whether future towers are anticipated in the county.
Guillen said not in the next three years. Entered as Exhibit 1
was a memo to Dave Guillen and Tim Malloy from Tim Wong, US West
Designing Engineer.
Discussion on feasibility of County use of tower. Guillen
stated that if county use did not interfere with the use of US
West, they had no objection.
Steve Terrhar, US West, explained capabilities of tower for
shared use. Discussion of other possible sites. Questions by
committee on height of tower, lighting, and acreage required.
Guillen said the proposed tower is 499 feet, will probably be
lit all the the way down, and is located on 21 acres. Supervisor
Kinney requested that US West meet with Communications Director
to draw up agreement for use.
KENT AND KATHLEEN DRINKWINE:
Zoning administrator told committee that last month a decision
was postponed in order to receive recommendation from the
township. Correspondence of July 11, 1989 from Mary Fern, Warren
Town Clerk, was read into the record. The letter stated that the
township recommended denial of the two family use, and out of
courtesy to the renters, would give 90 days for the Drinkwines to
discontinue use.
Kent and Kathleen Drinkwine explained that they had contacted the
Township, the County, and the Town Planning Commissiion. Town
Planning would have allowed them 1 year, Mrs. Drinkwine stated,
however was overruled by Town Board Chairman, Ken Herink, who's
position was to give 90 days to discontinue use. Mrs. Drinkwine
charged that the Town Chairman has rented his house, as well as
others in the township, with no consequence, and feels they
(Drinkwines) are being singled out. Mrs. Drinkwine read
letter/petition from surrounding land owners in favor of use, as
well as letter from Harold and Barbara Bend in support of the two
family dwelling. She also addressed her husband's medical
problems, reading a letter from a medical specialist regarding
percentage of Kens's disability from an accident. Mrs. Drinkwine
stated that she doesn't even see the need for their appeal, and
questioned committee members on whether she should provide a list
of everyone in the township who is renting out their property.
She stated that foster care is allowed, to which Tom Nelson
replied that foster care did not constitute a duplex by
ordinance. Committee members questioned size of septic system.
Nelson stated that the system is adequately sized, however, there
is a need to look at the local impact from the use.
The following were marked for the record:
Exhibit 1: Letter from township
Exhibit 2: Petition
Exhibit 3: Minutes of June 12, 1989 Town Meeting
Jeff Redman, 110th Street, Roberts, Wisconsin was sworn in.
Redman stated that he serves as Chairman of the Town of Warren
Planning and Zoning Board, and is also a neighbor of the
Drinkwines. Mr. Redman said that the Planning and Zoning Board
is advisory, and makes no decisions.' He refuted Drinkwines
statement about Herink, saying that "no positions" were changed;
policy taken was recommendation by Planning and Zoning Bbard to
recommend time of one year (to Town Board), however that was
overrulled by the Town Board and as an accommodation to the
renters, the Drinkwines were given three months to discontinue
two -family use. As a resident, Redman feels rules must be
followed, just because someone else is doing it doesn't make the
Drinkwines use okay. He said there is strong opposition from the
neighbors. Redman referred to the initial request for the duplex
use, saying he doesn't believe the use was ever approved by the
Board of Adjustment. He also feels that financial needs should
not be the basis for enforcement of zoning regulations.
Supervisor Kinney asked Redman about other residents having
duplex use in the township. Redman replied that the lack in
numbers of town and county staff prevents going "door to door" to
establish this, however feels officials have a duty to follow up
on any complaints. Kinney asked Redman why the opposition to the
duplex exists. Redman stated that it affects the school system,
causes heavier road useage, and that the area is zoned as a
single family dwelling area. Zoning Administrator asked how
residence is assesed. Kathleen Drinkwine said it is assesed as
a duplex. Supervisor Swenby, referencing the petition from
neighbors supporting the use, asked where the opposition is
coming from. Jeff Redman answered the question stating that the
Town Planning and Zoning and the Town Board were opposed. He
further stated that all Town Board members had voted to deny, the
use.
James Winzer, member of the Warren Town Board, told the committee
this was "a real tough" decision to make. He said that he didn't
know much about the situation until the Drinkwines came to the
town meeting. He feels what is best for the township determined
his decision on the use. He said the decision was unanimous by
the board to deny request and grant 90 days to discontinue duplex
use. He stated that he will vote against allowing any duplexs in
the township until a plan is in place. He told committee mambers
that the township is considering a comprehensive plan for multi-
family dwellings as the need is present. Supervisor Swenby asked
Winzer if he was aware of other duplexes in the Township. Winzer
said he believes there is one, howevwer feels the county is the
3
enforcing agency. Swenby suggested Winzer report the name to the
Zoning Administrator immediately. Swenby questioned whether the
complaint was personal, or "carryng out the laws." Winzer
replied that he has heard the complaint was personal, however in
making the decision the Town Board set aside personal differences
and financial hardships.
Kathlelen Drinkwine asked for a clarification on definition of
multi-family and duplex. Zoning Administrator explained that
single family is one entity, duplex is two, and multi-family is
more than two. Kent Drinkwine stated that they are willing to
take in foster children, will rent to senior citizens, will do
anything as they have to have the money.
Tim Roodell, 110th Street, Roberts, Wisconsin was sworn in.
Roodell said that he filed the complaint against the appellant.
He further stated that at one time his brother-in-law paid him
$15.00 per month to stay at his home, sleeping.on the couch (did
not have private bedroom). The brother-in-law lived in Menomonie
and., was attending school in Minneapolis. Roodell cited
increased traffic as a result of duplex use. He said the
Drinkwines had, at one time, asked that Kents parents be allowed
to live with them temporarily; Roodell had no problem with that.
Roodell said he is the next door neighbor of the drinkwines,
however, has never seen the peptition by surrounding owners in
support of use.
Karen " Gardner, neighbor of the Drinkwines told committee the
Drinkwines know what they did is wrong, but that the use is the
result of an accident, and insist that the county assist them in
working out the problem.
Gene Ruetz, resident of the Town of Warren, told committee
members that he has no personal interest in this, but has worked
in developing zoning laws in the past, and at this point feels
enforcement should not be based on emotions; if this is the
criteria, it has to be used at all times. He further feels that
granting request would open the door to more duplexes and multi-
family units. Ruetz is opposed to the duplex use.
WILLIAMS PIPELINE
Attorney Sam Cari was sworn in, stating that it is his
understanding that the hearing is closed except for submittal of
plan, therefore objects to any further testimony. Supervisors
Bradley and Kinney asked Cari if plan has been completed and
submitted. Cari said he has been unable to have contact with the
Swanson's, however, has talked with Reinharts, and Landscape
Architect has put plan together for Reinharts property.
Mark Swanson told committee that his attorney has been out of
town, however, he feels there are flaws in the Williams plan. He
also said he had not been contacted by Williams attorney.
4
Attorney Sam Cari renewed his objection to further testimony.
Chairman Meinke asked Cari if he had contacted the township.
Cari said he had, and had also requested that Greg Timmerman or
Tom Nelson represent the county, which neither did.
Bernie McGaver, DNR, questioned why DNR was not involved. Motion
by Kinney, Second by Bradley to postpone decision until such time
as meeting of all concerned parties takes place. Meeting to be
held within five (5) days and to include Swanson, Reinharts, DNR,
MNWI BAC, Town and County. Motion carried. Zoning
Administrator to work out date for meeting.
Hearings called to order by Chairman Meinke at 9:30 A.M. -'Zoning
Administrator read the notice of the hearing as published in the
local newspapers. Chairman Meinke explained the procedures of
the hearing.
An on site investigation will be made of each site in question,
after which the board comtemplates adjournment into closed
session for the purpose of deliberating on the appeals, and will
readjourn into open session for the purpose of voting on 'the
appeals- ~r y f
17.36 (5)(1) Bluffline Setback, Riverway '
1. ARTICLE:
District
APPELLANT: Mr. & Mrs. Frank R. LaPlant
LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the NW.1/4 of Section 24,
T28N-R20W, Town of Troy.. Lot 25,,•r St.
Croix Cove , r
2. ARTICLE : 17.36 (5) (1) Private Lift
APPELLANT: Samuel and Teresa Cari
LOCATION: Part of Gov't Lot 1-2, Section 1,' T28N-
R20W, Town of St. Joseph
3. ARTICLE: 17.36 (5)(g) Lot line Setback, Riverway
District
APPELLANT: Steve and Monica Weekes '
LOCATION: Govtt Lot 3, Section 13, T28N-R20W,'Town
of Troy ; , ~ni .i ►
4. ARTICLE: 17.36 (5)(h) Dock,"Riverway-Districtl
APPELLANT: Thomas Foster`
LOCATION: Part of'Gov't'Lot 5, -Section 27',IcT30N-
R20W,. Town of St.. Joseph
jt i
5. ARTICLE: 17.64 (5)(2) Driveway separation
APPELLANT: Roger and Marilyn Benson
LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4', Section 29,'T31N-
R15W, Town of Forest
5
6. ARTICLE: 17.36 (5)(1) Bluffline Setback
APPELLANT: Barian Parnell
LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 29,
T31N-R19W, Town of Somerset
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and be
heard. Additional information may be obtained from the office of
the St. Croix Zoning Administrator, Hudson, Wisconsin at 386-
4680.
Milton Meinke, Chairman
St. Croix County Board of Adjustment
FRANK LAPLANT
Mr. LaPLant was sworn in, explaining that the existing deck is
deteriorated, and that they wish to place a Three Season Room on
same foundation.
The plot plan was introduced as Exhibit 5, and photographs of the
property as Exhibit 6. Mr. LaPlante stated that the basic size
will not be altered. Zoning Administrator clarified need for
LaPlante's to appear before Board of Adjustment.
Dan Koich, DNR, requested to reserve comments until after on site
inspection. Tom Nelson asked Mr. LaPLante for cost figures.
LaPlante said the cost would be approximately $12,000.00. Zoning
Administrator requested that Mr. LaPlante supply cost of existing
structure and addition.
SAMUEL AND TERESA CARI APPEAL
Sam Cari appeared as agent for the property owners identified in
Exhibit 7. He stated that lift permit, if granted, should be
issued in the name of John or Carol Landry as it will be on
property they presently own. The deed is not completed, however,
property will be owned by landowner's association. 21 acres,
under convenants, is designated as common area. Mr. Cari told
committee that Carolyn Johnson will be on property when they do
on site inspection. Supervisor Bradley asked who the designated
officers by the association is, and Cari replied that it is Carol
Landry. Cari showed two photos of area where lift will be taken
in April, from the river. He presented lift specifications as
exhibit 9, and stated that certification from engineer is on file
at the Zoning Office. Quentin Weinzierl, St. Joseph Town
Chairman, stated that the Tot-in has taken no action on this
appeal. Dan Koich, speaking for the DNR, said that DNR has no
objections.
STEVE AND MONICA WEEKES APPEAL
Monica Weekes told committee that she and her husband wish to put
in a tennis court and cannot meet the 25' lot line setback. If
6
r
they are lot from the lot line, there well be no need to cut
trees. Zoning Administrator read definition of structure from
NR118. Dan Koich, DNR, stated that the county ordinance may be
more restrictive than NR118. Koich will reserve comments until
viewing site. Mrs. Weekes said property is staked. Plot plan
was presented as exhibit 10.
THOMAS FOSTER APPEAL
Mr. Foster was sworn in and stated that he would like to place a
floating dock on land rented from Ellen McClelland. Mr. Foster
owns a liquor store in Houlton. Dan Koich stated that under
Wisconsin law only a land owner may build a dock (State
Statues). Koich further stated that he has received a phone call
regarding delivery of liquor sales to the river. He feels this
issue should be addressed. Mr. Foster told committee that in
checking he has found liquor delivery is legal, however, has
decided against doing so due to liability factor. Koich asked Mr.
Foster the demensions of the dock. Foster said it is 301 wide.
Further discussion.
ROGER AND MARILYN BENSON APPEAL
Marilyn Benson was sworn in and explained to committee the need
(safety factor) to put driveway 425' from an existing field
driveway. They cannot meet the required separation of 500' on a
state highway. The state referred Bensons to County Zoning for a
permit. The state has given a permit for a driveway 500' from
existing driveway.
The following were entered: Plot plan Exhibit 11
State permit - Exhibit 12
Mrs. Benson explained details of the plot plan. Zoning
Administrator said he as spoken with the Department of
Transportation, who feels the proposed location is the safest
location for driveway.
BRIAN PARNELL APPEAL
Brian Parnell, applying for a bluffline setback, stated that the
Zoning Administrator had red tagged his structure, sent him a
notice of violation, and requested that he appear before Board of
Adjustments. Parnell wishes to add a garage to his residence.
Zoning Administrator said that on investigating a complaint, he
found construction being done without a sanitary permit.
Chairman Meinke said this was approved several years ago. however
Tom Nelson stated that building plans have changed, and that
Board of Adjustment approvals are only effective for one year.
Nelson marked a copy of the 115, dated April, 1988 as exhibit 13,
copy of the house plans as exhibit 14, and copy of site plan as
exhibit 15. Zoning Administrator told committee that procedure
must be followed and Board of Adjustment approval is needed.
James Meyer, Somerset, next door neighbor, spoke in favor of
I
r
granting the variance.
Mike Sager, who owns land adjoining the Parnell property,
expressed concerns of proper setbacks being met. If proper
setbacks ar met, Mr. and Mrs. Sager do not object.
Ton Nelson told committee that Parnell has been informed of the
need for a survey (plot plan), done by a Surveyor, certifying the
bluffline. Parnell stated that he has contacted a Surveyor,
however the map has not been completed. Nelson said he has
received complaints that the original building is illegal. The
original Board of Adjustment request was for a setback from the
town road.
Agreement signed by US West (Dave Guillen) and Communications
Director Steven T'Kach regarding tower use read by Zoning
Administrator. Question by Supervisor Swenby of compensation.
Tom Nelson will get opinion of Greg Timmerman on agreement.
Committee recessed at noon to view properties. Upon reconvening
rendered:
the following decisions were
sr
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NUMBER 35"
A. INE'--~~106ker anA -J.. z - o f ':1Q- k ~bk Co 'one Ca ~ a W S Vo / a-
hereby appeal to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment from the
decision of the Zoning Administrator. Whereby the Zoning Administrator
did:
1. Deny an application to:
Use _ - for use as family residence
y___ only___ accessory building.
erect structure or building business
alter other industry
add to other rtvevJa~~
occupy
or:
2. Incorrectly interpret the (Ordinance) (Map) number
B. LOCATION `W 14, Section OL'l , T 3l N, R f~ W.
Subdivision Name Lot #
City Village Township ~Olres-~
C. o (5~6) 1r, U e LJ 4 S an-a,Wn
A variance of section', of St. Croix County Zoning
Ordinance is requested because: (Undue hardship, unique situtation,
etc.)
l c )c~ ~c~ Ise m )ue. e Y: `1S ee ckr Geer 4 o -Yc
laes~ -Vo i na ke, T c- Sine r AY-1 ~ e - ck- ( s o a
e r 1 v woe 6) -44, P d r', KW Ceti C-OM'r rle4 L,-42 0,40 I~G ~r J a r Le- wczT s_ -~o he t o ~~~e c( G- h / E' G'Jo ~
`~cm o
~i rf Z (.~Yrl~ / 6117 er So Ca is
S~°!Y1 i I ra GIGS 17Cl u Mare- SA 4zLPQ L6011-1
D. List all adjoining landowners names and addresses:
Kale- Address Town State Zip
fy'v-~JeY- a1(0 a fGl\ Sxc' ~ &Y~Ery Wr S~DoJ
Y
Date Filed (0 /Y9 u
Signed Appellant(s) or Agent
FEE OF $150 REQUIRED AT TIME APPEAL IS FILED.
Oct t14
F-~
00,
,G
t~
d O
0
~w i-ze~~ SGe ~r /
EM404 585 State Of Wkcgafln / Dop sat of T ' .
PERMIT FOR ACCESS DRIVEWAY , TO STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY r
DISTRIBUTION: (Sec. 86.07(2), Statutes, & Ch: HY-31, Wis Adm. Code) 4 4_,
sa .zzt ri~~ ~'.a3~+ +M . s .}rr~y
White Applicant I akk rti«~r eitir-
Pink Central Office
Blue -District Installation of Driveway by ❑ State ®:Apprl`Cda~,~,,y
Canary - County NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT HIGHWAY COUNTY
Roger A.,
Route 1, Benson64 STH 64. St. Grp ~
Emerald, WI 54012 TOWN --VILLAGE -CITY
Forest a ,psi+r~a
t hY f .t`
NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS TYPE OF DRIVEWAYS PROPOS D LAND USE COMPLETION DATA 3,j+
F.., „ Y tk ss a
NCR -9
Location of Driveways
1 approx. 2565 ft. west
N-rth side of the highway miles of
g. sx
Quadrant _1-W 3- of B,_ Section ~ Town ship North Rang'
- 34 l
REQUIRED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE IF N0 DRAINAGE' STRUCTURE STATE WHY-
gat. r ..fi=r+~ •t j~,!~+ ~:r
0
DESCRIPTION OF ROPO W, 711*
WORK (INCLUDE SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS; INTERSECTION CLEARANCES, OTHER DETkILSy AMR Rwlrzjt 4-
ENCE TO ANY SKETCHES WHICH MAY BE ATTACHED.)
At 'a distance of 15 feet from the a~
dge of pavement, the finished grade of the . d~.~rew>tiy~Za
shall be at least 6-inches below the existing edge of pavement
The fill slopes' will be a minimum of 4:1.
r~
4 r
* NOTE: Ve , bituminous, concrete, timber or other embankment retention s v '"o
or driveway marking treatments a,re'prohibited+ r 4 w•
If the driveway described above is not completed by the "Completion Date" SpeCi
permit is null and void and the driveway shall not be constructed unless authorized through-•_
a subsequent permit. tip" `3r
Any driveways shall be constructed in accordance with all requirements printed on the reverse side, and any, special y
conditions stated herein. The maintenance of the driveways shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
I ~ ins kilt.
Issuance of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of the applicant's obligation'to.comply with-any pwre~ A t^.
restrictive requirements imposed by local ordinances.:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT - DATE,-, (NOT REQUIRED IF INSTALLATION BY STATE) ,.c='o!• ! t4
~r
OVED DI N IGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Jry }
D CT IR TO DATE ERMIT NUMBER }
v
0o Gp II ~ I
4 0
N ~ I
~ I
0
a 'I I
N
O y
'r ~ > I
~ O
CL
m
LO
M
I
O
C I Q
3 I N m L I
N ~ ~ I
m 's
16
C Z -o % O
7 p
II! LL c
O m m
U
a) >
C O
Q C 'O
M
(D
z
uJ E
f4 = 00
z a m I II
N H cf)
C ~
O Z c
I
0 y
d Z ~ O c
^V N ~
ca I
7 C
•
N d N ~
Q z m z
o I
fV R
d) I m _ m c
CL o
00 M'caa
Q o ousv)m v
z > iv
t~ ~,'~333 a- co
I
3aaa
I
IL
m
0, 0
0 to ! `N 00 CO J U E rn rn 0
z
O M
1 (D O E N
0
O C)
= ca c d
w N w
r- v d Q in m
y U)
O Q y C
O
O' O M C C) N C G V O. O O
(D 3: 0 L 0 N t_Cd N m N N
v ~D LO ~ c ` N N c 7 co
-7 c
N C w 4) Z Z a+ 'D n
ty~~l /~1
4 M N
Lo E E ' a L
• ^01 O N LL CO O Z N I-F- g Lo
r~+
U a ~ ~ = € I
A
CL
~t a L: a
t~
t A t° )a2 'loa)ti