HomeMy WebLinkAbout032-2083-80-000(3)
CROIX CO
UN'
,&A A
PLANNING & ZONING
yr` November 3, 2005 File Ref: 05SE0029
John & Cathy Gunther
»<<x<< 1488 Twin Springs Road
Houlton WI 54082
X Re: St. Croix County Variance Requests, Parcel 14.30.20.830B, Town of Somerset
ti>Y
Code Adnunistran Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gunther:
715-386-4680
The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment (Board) has considered your request to reconsider its
Land Information &,F September 22, 2005 decision on the variance for your proposed gazebo to encroach within the OHWM
Planning
715-386-4674and bluffline setbacks and exceed the height requirements for accessory structures in the Lower St.
Croix Riverway District. At the hearing on October 27, 2005, the Board voted to deny your request.
Real Prarry The September 22, 2005 decision still stands.
71549-4677
Any person aggrieved by the September decision may file an appeal in St. Croix County circuit court
R cling within 30 days after the filing date shown below, pursuant to Sec. 59.694(10), Wisconsin Statutes and
386-4675 as outlined in the decision letter to you dated October 4, 2005.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact me or Jennifer Emmerich.
Sincerely,
Jenny Shillcox
Zoning Specialist
cc: Jeri Koester, Clerk, Town of Somerset
Eunice Post, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Brian Adams, National Park Service
Date Filed: November 3, 2005
ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
1 10 1 CARMICHAEL ROAD, HUDSON, W1 54016 715386-4686 FAx
POFCO._SAINT-CROIXMUS VA&W.: 0.SAINT ROIX.Wi.LiS
Board of Adjustments - Octob27, 2005 Page 1 of 5
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
i
OCTOBER 27, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Julie Speer at 8:3o a.m. A roll call was made. Julie
Speer, Art Jensen, Sue Nelson, Buck Malick and Linda Luckey were present. Staff included: Bob
Bezek, Code Administrator, David Fodroczi, Planning and Zoning Director, Jenny Shillcox, Zoning
Specialist, Jenn Emmerich, Zoning Specialist, Steve Olson, Land and Water Conservation
Department and Debbie Murphy, recorder.
The meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order. Chairperson Speer believes this to be a
properly noticed meeting, and the agenda was adopted.
The next meeting for the Board will be December 1, 2005. The meeting will be held in the County
Board Room at the Government Center. The starting time will be 8:3o a.m.
MINUTES
Motion by Malick, seconded by Nelson to adopt the minutes from the September 27, 2005 hearing.
Motion carried.
The hearing was opened and testimony taken and recorded by a court reporter.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Speer welcomed everyone in attendance and gave a brief overview of how the Board o
Adjustment meeting is conducted.
Request for. reconsideration._of John and Cathy _Gunther decision of Sevtember 22,
2005..:
John and Cathy Gunther approached the Board and asked them to reconsider their decision of
September 22nd to deny the request to build a gazebo on top of an existing deck. The gazebo would
allow them to make use of their deck, as their land is swampy and there are so many mosquitoes that
it makes it almost impossible to use their deck. They have small grandchildren, and would like to
protect them from the mosquitoes when they are outside. There was a gazebo on the existing deck,
but a storm destroyed it, and they are asking to place a new gazebo on the deck. The deck is not
visible from the St. Croix River.
The Board will view the site later in the day, and them make a decision.
Request for reconsideration of David._and_Lynn Robson. -decision of_September22,
2005:
David and Lynn Robson approached the Board and asked them to reconsider Condition #3 of their
decision dated 10/04/05 which states "The proposed garage addition shall not have any windows on
the side facing the adjoining property to the north." The Robsons' would like to address this issue
with the Board, as they were not able to respond to the neighbor's letter labeled as Exhibit 14 at the
September 22nd hearing. The neighbor that wrote the letter (Exh. 14) had stated to the Robsons that
she had no objection to the request, but then later stated that she did. There is a row of pine trees
between the two properties, and you cannot even see the adjoining property owner's home, as it is
5o-feet behind the Robsons' home.
http://www.co.saint-croix.wi.us/Committee/Minutes/2005/BOA/boal02705.htm 12/21/2005
1
October 11, 2005
Robert Bezek FP E IV ED
Code Administrator
St. Croix County Planning and Zoning
St. Croix County Government Center i ukoiX COUNTY
1101 Carmichael Road ZONING OFFICE
Hudson,WI. 54016
From: John and Cathy Gunther
Subject: Reconsideration Hearing Request
Status of Water Run-off and Vegetation Management Plan (see page #3)
Re: St. Croix County Variance Request, Parcel # 14.30.20.830B, Town of Somerset File
Reference #05SE0029.
After the hearing on August 25, 2005, the Board requested additional information and
detailed plans on how we were going to address the erosion and runoff problems
identified on our property for the September 22, 2005 meeting. No mention was made
for additional information being needed to demonstrate that not having a Gazebo would
create a hardship.
Since we stated the JUSTIFICATION FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR A
GAZEBO in our initial application dated June 29, 2005, we did not cover this again at the
September 22, 2005 hearing. See attachment # 1.
In addition I want to emphasis the following points:
1. Although we are about 60 feet above the backwaters of the St. Croix River, we live in
a valley with about 500 feet of swampy land across the road. Because of our location
it is not very windy compared to adjacent higher elevations. Because of the swampy
conditions and lack of wind, mosquitoes are very bad. As one of the neighbors on the
top of the hill stated, " we do not have a bug problem with mosquitoes but we always
have a nice breeze."
2. When we purchased our land in 1965, the current zoning laws were not in effect and
we could have constructed a Gazebo. Currently there is NO place on our property to
put a Gazebo. Currently we have two decks that are about 750 sq. ft. which basically
are not used very much because of mosquitoes and other bugs.
3. It should be noted that we had a screen porch on the deck that was destroyed by high
winds on July 28, 2003, or by an "Act of God". The proposed Gazebo would be
smaller, more robust, and aesthetically appealing.
4. When our children were little we had a fenced in front yard. That is now down. We
now use our decks as a place to be outside with our seven grandchildren ages 8, 7, 6,
4.5, 3, 2.5, and 0.5 years old. This is not always possible because of mosquitoes,
bees, and wasps. See attachment #2 from our daughter, Julia Siwicki dated October
10, 2005.
5. Most mosquito repellents contain "Deet". " This chemical may harm children experts
say. Insect repellent linked to adverse reactions, and death even in low doses (10%)
may be unsafe". See attachment #3. Since West Nile virus has been detected in
Wisconsin precautions should be taken to avoid mosquito bites. (from attachment #3).
6. Although rare, a recent case of laCrosse Encephalitis was detected in Polk County.
See attachment #4 from the New Richmond News dated October 6, 2005.
7. Another hardship for not having a Gazebo is our enjoyment of our property to its
fullest is not possible. After about 4 P.M. we cannot be outside, even on our deck as
the mosquitoes, bugs, bees' etc. are so bad. The only time we can eat out on our deck
is the early spring or in the summer until 34 p. in. If we had a gazebo we could eat
inside the Gazebo and enjoy the beautiful River. Instead we have to go in the house
to eat and not enjoy the outdoors. Since we are now senior citizens are lives are
quieter. It would be nice to have our friends over for an evening for dinner and
maybe some cards or just visiting while enjoying the St. Croix. We cannot do this
because of the number of mosquitoes and bugs. If we had a Gazebo this would be
possible. The winters in Wisconsin become very long. We need to be inside then.
Our summers seem so short and it is important to use them to the fullest. A gazebo
would help us to do this.
8. The National Park Service, Somerset Township, Wisconsin D.N.R. and neighbors do
not oppose the Gazebo. No one ever objected to our screen porch.
CONCLUSION;
We feel the written justification (attachment) which was submitted on June 29,2005
stated the hardship. The hardship to us is due to physical limitations of our property
rather than circumstances we created. In addition, the current ordinance denies us a
reasonable use of our property. In this case a Gazebo.
It is our opinion establishing a hardship has been clearly demonstrated. A hardship is
defined as something that causes or entails suffering or privation with privation defined
as an act or instance of depriving. In this case depriving us of a Gazebo. In the case of
younger children the hardship is great and the use of Deet type insect repellent may not
be safe. Therefore, we consider this not only a hardship issue but a safety issue as well.
In some literature mosquitoes are sometimes referred to be a nuisance. If one looks up
the meaning of nuisance it states "harm, injury, one that is annoying, unpleasant." We
maintain that mosquitoes meet all of these terms and thus create a hardship.
In addition, we believe if the variance for a Gazebo is granted the spirit of the Ordinance
would be served and substantial justice done by allowing us to have a low impact,
permitted use of our property while maintaining the scenic beauty of the St. Croix River.
As some of the board may know, several governmental bodies have granted variances for
Gazebo's and screen porches. Reasons used were the threat of the West Nile Virus and
the hardship created by mosquitoes.
In addition, looking back it would probably have been better if there was only one
hearing. This in our opinion would have provided better continuity and emphasis on
hardship.
Thank you for considering our request for reconsideration.
October 11, 2005
To: Zoning Board of Adjustment
Robert Bezek
From John and Cathy Gunther
Subject: Status of Water Run-off and Vegetation Management Plan
1. Installation of Gutters
Discussed situation with Barry Peterson Construction with emphasis on erosion and
run-off. A bid was obtained with installation scheduled for late October 2005. No
piping of rainwater down the bluff.
Installation discussed with Steve Olson. The plan was also discussed with Eunice
Post on her visit on October 8, 2005. Emphasis was directing the water on the back
of the garage to the front of the house.
2. Erosion and Storm Run-Off
In Eunice Post's comments for the Sept.22, 2005 meeting, which I received October
4, 2005, she makes reference to retaining walls. She states that the N.P.S. should be
contacted to learn if these walls fall in the scope of the easement. Brian Adams stated
they were permissible.
NOTE: We do not plan on using any walls.
During Eunice's visit the plan from bake Kountry Inc. was reviewed in detail. She
made some good suggestions and will supply information on other ground cover and
shrubs.
3. Discharge of Spring Water Over Bluff
We had a sample of our drinking water and a sample being discharged from the pipe.
I stated that the two water samples appeared identical and the water quality was
basically identical to the spring water running under the road and down to the river.
Eunice agreed that using a camouflaged 3" pipe down to the river for the spring water
was acceptable. We will insure that there is not erosion created at the exit end and the
exit is above the high water mark. Steve Olson was also contacted and agrees with
this approach.
JUSTIFICATION FOR. GRANTING TIDE VARIANCE FOR. A GAZEBO
The plot plan for the Twin Springs Addition to the Township of Somerset
was approved in 1941. The lots on both sides of the road are_ not deep y
enough to meet the current set back requirements without a variance.
All of the riverside lots would not be buildable because of the bluff line and
roadside set backs along with the 200' high water mark set back.
In 1965 our home was designed to fit our lot which varies from 115%127
deep to the bluff line. It was also laid out to rninhi ze tree cutting. The
house is 80' long and 22' wide at the garage end and 26'wide at the bedroom
end.
In our opinion, an unnecessary hardship would exist if we: were not allowed
to put a gazebo on our deck. There is no other spot on our property that
would allow for a gazebo without a variance. The terms of the ordinance
would deny us all reasonable use of the property. Specifically, use of the
decks would be limited because of mosquitoes and other. insects. There are
many swampy areas around our home (across,the road) and being hear the
backwaters of the river. The hardship to us is due to physical limitations of
our property rather than circumstances we created.
The hardship i s not based upon any financial gain or loss but to ensure we
can use our property in a complete enjoyably" way.
The variance would not be contrary to the pules interest as defined by the
objectives of the ordinance--since we have n6 close neighbors and the
gazebo would not be visible from the river.
We have lived here nearly 40 years and have always tried to follow all of the
rules, regulations and ordinances. It is in the spirit of this ordinance that we
are asking for a variance. If the variance is not.graanted we will not be able
to utilize our property to its fullest.
We live in a beautiful area. We have no intentions of changing any of the
topography. We only want to put a gazebo on an existing deck so we may
enjoy all of this beauty.
Thank you.
ti. f ;
so"
October 7, 2005
My name is Julia Siwicki and I am John and Cathy Gunther's daughter.
I live in Hudson Wisconsin with my husband Richard. We have a 4 month old son and a
2.5 year old daughter.
We visit my parent's house often. There are many occasions that we would have loved
to have sat outside on the deck and enjoyed each other's company. But this is not
always possible.
Reasons Whv
My son or any young child cannot have any type of insecticides on their body. Their skin
is too sensitive. If bug spray is applied their is a great risk of them putting their hands in
their mouth, rubbing their eyes with their hands, sucking their arms, grabbing their legs
and then putting them in their mouth. Therefore, we cannot sit outside with the rest of
the family or friends without our children being eaten up by mosquitoes.
_Example of this:
Our daughter, Kayleen, who is 2.5 years old, was visiting the weekend of my mom's
birthday (Septl7th). The family was on the deck cooking out and in less than 5 minutes
Kayleen was attacked by mosquitoes. I had to go in with her immediately. She had a
least 20 bites on her body. The next day she was covered in hard red welts where she
was bitten. These red welts lasted 2.5 weeks and she still has a scab on her ankle
where there was a bitten. That was 3.5 weeks ago.
Mind you, this is only one occasion that I told you about.
Bees are also terrible. I am not sure if our children are allergic to bees. But we know
that my husband has an allergic reaction to bees. My husband was drinking a can of
soda and when he took a drink there was a bee in it. The bee ended up in his
mouth,stinging him a couple of times. His whole face instantly swelled. He could not
even open his eyes or talk right because of the swelling. It took almost 3 days for the
swelling to go down.
If this was my daughter (son) and she (he) was drinking some type of juice and got stung
I am not sure what would have happened. Since my husband had that severe of a
reaction I do not want to know what would happen to her (him) if she (he) were stung.
In conclusion, my parents have a total of seven grandchildren; four of them are under
four. For young children mosquitoes, bees and wasps create not only a hardship but in
addition there are safety concerns.
A gazebo on their existing deck would allow all of our family to be together outside and
they would not have to worry about the safety of my children.
Thank you,
Julia iwicki
The5tarUW520W Page 1 of 3
t {
May. 7,2003.11:53 AM
DEET may harm kids, experts say
Insect repellent linked to adverse reactions, death
Even low dose may be unsafe; concern over lack of studies
ROBIN HARVEY
FEATURE WRITER
The controversial insect repellent DEET has morphed into a "chemical crusader" in the public health
war against the-West Nile virus.
Prior to the arrival of the mosquito-borne illness, Health Canada did not recommend the repellent N,N-
diethyl-meta-toluamide A- a neurotoxin A- be used on children younger than 2 years old.
But now, after a Pest Management Regulatory Agency review, Health Canada says DEET is safe for
children as young as six months if insect-bome illness is a risk. It can be used just once a day, in
products with concentrations of 10 per cent or less.
Last month, Ontario Health Minister Tony Clement launched the first phase of a massive "Fight the
Bite" public battle plan against West Nile. Insect repellents play a major role.
"Prevention is the best way to battle West Nile virus. Everyone who is active and outside during the
summer, especially your children, should take precautions to avoid mosquito bites," Clement said.
But some medical experts question using the chemical. It has been linked to adverse reactions and even
death in children, toddlers and infants. "I am worried about the lack of studies surrounding chronic
low-dose exposure of DEET to infants and young children, as well as the exposure to the fetus and
infant through the pregnant mother and mother's breast milk," says Dr. Riina Bray, chair of the
Environmental Health Committee for the Ontario College of Family Physicians.
However, Dr. Gideon Koren, an expert in pediatric toxicology at the Hospital for Sick Children, says
DEET has been used for more than 50 years. He says of all insect repellents it has the most widely
researched track record. He says if it is applied rarely and sparingly to young children, it is not harmful.
DEET was patented by the U.S. Army in 1946 and made publicly available 10 years later. It has been
used by millions around the world since.
The reported adverse reactions among children range from large blisters to seizure to brain damage.
The Journal Of The American Mosquito Control Association reported in 1995 that, though generally
safe, DEET was associated with neurotoxicity in 14 individuals. Three were girls who later died. They
included: A 17-month-old girl who suffered brain irritation and died after frequent use of 20 per cent
DEET. A 6-year-old girl who experienced brain irritation and died after heavy use of 15 per cent
DEET. A 5-year-old girl who'had convulsions and died after heavy use of 10 per cent DEET. Ten
more cases of brain and central nervous system irritation, including convulsions and seizures, were
reported in children age 8 and younger.
Researchers at the pediatric intensive care unit at Aghia Sophia Children's Hospital in Athens reported
in 2000 about an 18-month-old boy who suffered seizures and respiratory distress after a low
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\-heStar070520034.htm 10110105
TheStar07052003 Page 2 of 3
concentration of DEET was applied to him. Unlike the mosquito journal report, they concluded using
DEET on children needed extreme caution.
Many adverse reactions occurred after a brief exposure to DEET, they reported. Seizures were a
prominent symptom and more frequent when DEET was applied to the skin, they found. In its review
last year, the national Pest Management Regulatory Control Agency found most reported adverse
effects occurred because too much DEET was used. But more recent studies on rats by a Duke
University Medical Center pharmacologist raised concerns among some doctors about use of low
concentrations of the product. Mohamed Abou-Donia's studies on rats treated with an average human
dose of DEET for two months showed they performed far worse than control rats on physical tasks
requiring muscle control, strength and co-ordination.
Abou-Dona says more studies must be conducted to determine the effects of DEET on children and
the elderly. "Never use insect repellents on infants," he cautions. "Be wary of using them on children
in general. "He also warns that DEET should not be combined with other medications or chemicals.
"Even so simple a drug as an antihistamine could interact with DEET to cause toxic side effects. "Dr.
David Rosen, a board member of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a
member of the Ontario College of Family Physicians Environmental Health Committee, says short-
term exposure to 10 per cent DEET is judged generally safe to children. But he says no one knows
what low-dose chronic exposure does to the brain. He says children absorb more chemicals than adults,
and their brains are more susceptible to toxins. They are also less able to eliminate toxins from their
systems.
Rosen's review of 364 abstracts of studies and reports on DEET and other mosquito controls found
none that dealt with long-term exposure in children.Ottawa's Dr. Libuse Gilka, of Physicians and
Scientists for a Healthy World, says she does not endorse the use of DEET on children under any
circumstances. She said the government should weigh the risk West Nile virus poses to children before
endorsing their exposure to DEFT.
The pest management agency says it did not specifically weigh the risk of using DEET on children
against the risk West Nile posed to them, agency spokesperson Chris Krepski said. "We do not do a
risk-benefit assessment.
"In fact, weighing the relative risks would be difficult, as there are no studies that rate the risk of DEFT
for children, according to both the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the pest
management agency. Health Canada endorsed the use of products with up to 10 per cent DEET on
infants and toddlers from 6 months to 2 years of age once a day, and up to three times a day in older
children up to age 12. That assessment was based on animal studies reviewed by pediatric experts,
Krepski said.
What is known about West Nile is that fewer than 1 in 100 people infected with the virus will develop
severe illness. Most have mild flu-like symptoms, and when they recover are assumed to gain
immunity. The main risk from West Nile is the risk of encephalitis, which can be deadly.
Out of every 10,000 that become seriously ill, figures show from three to 15 people may die. Most of
those deaths will occur among the elderly. Seven deaths in Ontario have so far been positively linked
to the West Nile virus. Five more deaths are under investigation. There have been 307 confirmed cases
of illness caused by the virus in Ontario. But there are no data publicly available on the number of
children affected.Doctors such as Rosen and Bray urge parents to consider using netting and garments
designed to keep children well protected from mosquitoes. DEET should be considered only as a last
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\-heStar070520034.htm 10110105
TheStar07052003 Page 3 of 3
I
resort and used infrequently, they say.Jean Waterman, the Toronto mother of a 6-month-old girl and a
5-year-old boy, says that despite the government assurances, she will not use DEET on her children. "I
prefer to have them cover up and keep them away from mosquitoes," she says. "I just don't trust it."
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\-heStar070520034.htm 10110105