Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030-2068-60-000 (2) i I are"riperlparrr'and"slope towards the river" as that phrase is used in the St. Croix County Ordinance and NR 118. Since DNR does not have a map or photos or surveys regarding the slopes at issue here, I cannot opine whether the slope(s)at issue"slope towards the river"but can explain how DNR interprets this phrase and how and why,,ve reached our interpretation. Leval Analysis Under accepted legal maxims, if a statute is unambiguous on its face we interpret it by its plain language. Only if a statute is ambiguous do we consult other sources to interpret its meaning. There would be no ambiguity had the rule read "slope fully (or directly) facing towards the river" or "slope fully facing, or partially facing and draining,towards the river"or"slope fully or partially facing towards, or not facing but draining towards, the river." But the phrase"slopes towards the river"does not clarify whether it means the angled land surface of 12%or more must itself directly parallel the river,or just have some area that slightly faces towards the river,or need not face the river at all so long as the angled land surface acts as a surface to conduct runoff water towards the river,or face the river. So we must look to other sources to try to discern intent. To interpret a term first we look to see if the term or phrase is defined in the statute or administrative rule in which it is found. Neither"riverward" nor"slopes towards the river" is defined in the state St. Croix River authorizing statute(s. 30.27, Stats.), the state rule promulgated by authority of that statute(ch.NR 118, Wis. Admin. Code), or the St. Croix County ordinance. Second, we search to see if the term is defined in nearby statutes or rules that serve similar aims; these terms are not so defined. Third, we look to see if there is a "state of art"or technical or scientific meaning of a term. I have located no such meanings for these terms. Fourth, %ve look to the legal dictionary meaning of the term, but Black's Law Dictionary does not define "riverward." Fifth,we look for a plain dictionary meaning;Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines"riverward" as"toward a river"(httn://%v ivw.inerrinni-Webster.com/dictiong irivenvard)— i.e., the same way the definition we are parsing defines the term,except that ch.NR 118 and the county ordinance set minimum degrees of slope and minimum and maximum distances over which those angles of slope may be measured. If these investigations yield no results, we review the history of the statute or rule to see if we can discern meaning and intent. The term"slope toward the river"is in the administrative ride(ch,NR 118),so we look to the history of that rule to discern intent or meaning. Hisloryof ch.NR 118, Wis.Admin. Code Effective July 1, 1980,ch.NR 118 was repealed and recreated to read: N'R 118.03 Definitions.... (3)"Bluff face"means that area rivenvard from the blurlline where slope toward floe river equals 12%or more with the horizontal intenret of measurement not exceeding 50 feet. (4)"Blutlliue"means a line along the top of a slope,connecting the points at which the slope,proceeding aam frour rite river or adjoining watershed channel which is not rlsaal(r hiromWieaorrs becomes less Aran 12%.... (14)"Net project area"means lands intended for building development within identified project boundaries lying within the lower St.Croix river district less: (a)Land slopes in excess of i2%toxardme river. (b)Area of stream floodways. (c)Area of road righiof-way. (d)Major rlrahrage wars (20)"Slope"means all lands between the ordinay highwater mark and the blunline. (26)"Visually inconspicuous"means difficult to see or not readily noticeable in summer months as viewed from die river. Effective March 1, 1984,ch.NR 118 was revised to read: NR 118.03 Definitions.... (3)"Bluff face"means that area riverward from the blunline where the slope rowan/the river equals 12%or more with the horizontal interval of measurement not exceeding 50 feet. t State of Wisconsin 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S.Webster St. Scott Walker,Governor Box 7921 Cathy Stepp,Secretary Madison,Wisconsin 53707-7921 WISCONSIN Telephone 608-266-2621 i DEPT.OF NATURAL RESOURCES FAX 7-3579 TTY Access via relay-711 January 29,2014 Ellen Denzer Director,St. Croix County Community Development Government Center 1101 Cannichael Road EXHIBIT Hudson, W15016 Dear Ms. Denzer: You asked us to explain how the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") interprets the term "slope towards the river" in the definition of"slope preservation zone"at s.NR 1 18.03(41),Wis.Adman.Code: CH.M2 118 STANDARDS FOR THE LOWER ST.CROiX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY... S.NR 118.03 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter.... (6) "Bluflline"means a line along the top of the slope presenation zone,... (41) "Slopepresenwdon tone"means the area drerntard from the bluffline where the slope lowardr the rhwr is 12%or more,as measured horizontally for a distance of not more than 50 feet or less than 25 feet. Brief Answer In our opinion,a slope preservation zone is not required to have a riverward slope relatively parallel with the ordinary high water mark. The federal Comprehensive Management Plan and both Wisconsin and Minnesota rules all clearly contemplate some slope preservation zones will not directly face or directly drain to the river. In our opinion we must interpret the state rule language in a manner consistent with the CMP as DNR reported to the legislature that we intended to do so. That means"riverward"and"slope towards the river" must include any area between the OHWM and bluffline of the St.Croix or its backwaters,adjoining watershed channels,or drainage ways if the area slopes 12%or greater anywhere along its length and faces even marginally or obliquely towards the river or its backwaters,adjoining watershed channels,or drainage ways. Background The St.Croix County Code of Ordinances defines"slope preservation zone"identically to s.NR 118.03(41): S"r.CROIX COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES....LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT.... CHAPTER 17 ZONING SUBCHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS....17.09 DEFINITIONS.... 212.Slope Preserradon Zaire:The area riverward from the blieJJtine where the slope towards the river is 12%or more,as measured horizontally for a distance of not more than 50 feet or less than 25 feet. In connection with a County Ordinance citation, you informed St. Croix County Corporation Counsel that both St.Croix County Zoning Department and DNR interpret the phrase"slope towards the riper"to include not only areas riverward of a bluffline where slopes directly face the river, but areas rivenvard of a bluffline where slopes do not directly face the river but drain to it. Our understanding is the slope(s) in the citation at issue do not directly face the St.Croix River,but drain into its backwaters that flow to the main channel. Your Corporation Counsel (letter attached to this email) opined that the area at issue is not a "slope preservation zone" slope(s) because he states the slope(s)do not "slope towards the river" as that phrase is used in NR 118 and the St. Croix County Ordinance. He opined that only slopes that directly face the river dnr.wi.gov Quality Natural Resources Management wisconsin.gov Through Excellent Customer Service PrinlM nn Recyctoa Paper and a thorough consideration of public input.This plan emphasizes maintaining and enhancing the Riverway's diverse character►chile allowing limited,planned development. hup:t/docs.legis.,Lvi,,&onsin.gov/code/chr/relatc4k2-003/`cr 03 054/cr 03 054 agency report to legislature part 2 ndf l The language above indicates DNR intended NR t 18 to incorporate, be consistent with,and further develop concepts in the federal master plan("CMP"). The federal Cooperative Management Plan Appendix says: Bluttliue is the top of a slope preservation zone. Slope preservation zone means Ares with slopes greater than I2°/a with the horizontal interval of measurement not exceeding 50 feet. (emphasis added) in sIQM,nreservation zones there will be no structures and no grading or filling and vegetation management will follow standards described elsewhere.Structures will be set back at least 40 feet from all blufllines. Bluflline setback:on blu0lines visible from the river(without vegetation),structums will meet the following setback requirements: 40 feet in river town,small tmvn-historic,and small town districts;100 feet in the rural residential district;200 feet in the conservation district. I (http:i/nles dnr state nisi.ushvaterc/wsrivemtiips/appendir.pdo. So the federal definition of"slope preservation zone" does not restrict a slope preservation zone to an area"riverward from the bluffline where the scone towards the river is 12%or snore[NR 118 definition]"Under the federal definition no structure,grading,or filling is allowed in a area within the riverway boundary with a slope of 12%or greater over a 50 foot maximum interval—whether it faces the river or not,which would include 12%or greater slopes on adjoining watershed channels so long as the sloped area is within the riverway boundary. In regulating its St.Croix River area,Minnesota promulgated definitions similar to those in the federal CMP: 6105.0354 DEFINITIONS. Subp.S.Blutlline."©iti line"means a line along the top of a slope connecting the points at which the slope,proceeding away from the river or adjoining watershed channel,becomes less Ulan 12 percent;except that bluff line does not include the tops oi'slopes not visible from the river assuming no vegetation cover or the tops of slopes associated with minor undulations or roadside ditches,provided that the construction said presence of any proposed structure near the tops of such slopes will not cause erosion and that die structure will not be visible from the river.The location of the bluff line for any particular property shall be certified by a registered land surveyor or die local authority.More than one bluff line may be encountered proceeding away from the river or adjoining watershed channel.All setbacks required herein shall be applicable to each bluff line. Subp.27.Slope."Slope"means all lands between the ordinary high-water mark and the riverway boundary having an angle of accent or descent of more than 12percent from the horizontal.(emphasis added) (htII2:1/%%r%%,%v.dnr.gt,-ite.nin.us/%vatt.W%v.itcmigint section/wild scenic/w•sriverc/stcroix lower ndes.html) Both the federal CMP and Minnesota rules include in "slope" or "slope preservation zone" all land area between the 011WM and riverway boundary where land slopes at an angle of 12 per cent or greater. Neither requites that the slope be "towards the river"or that the slope preservation zone only extend landward as far as the bluffline. Both include all areas between the OHWM and rivenvay boundary that slope more than 12%or greater in a ))direction. In contrast, though the reports to the legislature in the 2004 NR 118 rule revision express intent to be consistent with the federal CMP, the Wisconsin rule in ch. NR 118 limits "slope preservation zone" to "the area riversvard from the bluffline where the slope towards the river is 12%or snore." The public comments and DNR responses in the file(WT-28-03) for the 2004 NR 118 revision do not clarify what DNR intended by the language changes. The only response that at first appeared possibly relevant was a public comment on s. NR 118.03 definitions that said: "add a definition for non-riverward such as away from the neatest riverbank. We note that vertical expansions are allowed with limits." DNR responded: "The term non- river%yard should be self-explanatory, we will clarify this where appropriate to state this means landward or parallel to the river." However, the term"non-riverward"was used only in an early draft of(lie 2004 rule to allow limited expansion of nonconforming structures so long as(along with other restrictions)"the expansion is non-riverward." That provision later deleted the term"non-riverward" [it appears nowhere in NR 118]and now reads as s.NR I i 8.08(2)(b)10.: "Expansion is on the side of the structure farthest from the river or, if landward expansion is not possible, the expansion is parallel to the ordinary high water mark or bluffline." p i So the comments were irrele vant to the Issue at hand. The only comments regarding n g slop e reservation i i f (4)"Bluflline"means aline along the top of a slope,connecting the points at which theslope,proceeding rntitrjrorn site river or adjohdng watershed eharurel orrd which is not visually Grcnnsplcuous,becomes less than 12°/0.... (15)"Net project area"means lands intended for building development within identified project boundaries lying within the Irnver St. Croix river district less: (a)Land slopes in excess of 12%toward the river. 1 (b)Area of stream 0oodaays. (c)Area of road right-of-way. (d)Major drohrage% s. (22)"Slope"means all lands between the ordinary highw•ater mark and the bluff line. III ... (29)"Visually inconspicuous"means difficult to see or not readily noticeable in summer months as viewed from the river. Note:All distances unless otherwise specified shalt be measured horizontally. in 1996 the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) began revising its 1976 federal master plan for the river (Cooperative Management Plan or CMP). The NPS completed its CMP revisions in 2002, and Wisconsin and Minnesota(who have jurisdiction over the St.Croix River areas within their respective state boundaries) began revising their state rules to be consistent with the federal CMP. After extensive consultation and input from the public, the National Park Service, and the State of Minnesota, a substantially revised ch. NR 118 took effect November 1,2004. The new NR 118 revised the definitions of"bluffline,""net project area,"and "visually inconspicuous"and deleted the definitions of"slope" and "bluff face" by combining their concepts into the new term "slope preservation zone." DNR deleted the phrase"adjoining watershed cilanner' fiom the"bluffline"definition without including it in the newly created"slope preservation zone"definition(almost identical to the deleted "bluff face"definition): NR 118.03 Definitions.For the purpose of this chapter:... (6) "Bluflline"means a line along dm top of the slope preservation zone. (27) "Net project area"means developable land area mime slope presermilon zones,floodplains,road rights-of-way and wetlands. (41) "Slope preservation zone"means the area dverward from the bluffline where the slope lowards the rimr is 12%or more,as measured horizontally for a distance of not more than 50 feet or less than 25 feet. (50) "Visually inconspicuous"means difficult to sec,or not readily noticeable,in summer months as viewed from at or near the mid-line of the Lourr St.Croix river. Perhaps St.Croix Corporation Counsel concluded a"slope preservation zone"only includes slopes directly facing the river because the new"slope preservation zone"definition retained the"slope towards the river" phrase from the deleted"bluff face"definition but did not include the earlier language about slopes on "adjoining watershed channels."But for the reasons Noted below,DNR does not agree the plain language or history of ch.NR 118 supports the conclusion that"slope preservation zones"only includes land areas directly sloping to the main channel of the St.Croix River. First,in the 2004 revision to ch.NR 118 the accompanying two"REPORT[S]TO LEGISLATURE"noted: NR 118 has been updated to incomorate the^oncepts of the federal master plan for the river,called the Cooperative Management Plan("CMP")which was completed in January 2002.The planning process for the CMP began in 1996 to update the prior master plan which had been completed in 1976.This planning process brought to light many issues that needed to be addressed through the CMP and through updated administrative rtes in Minnesota and't'isconsin. Completion of the CMP has spurred action to revise NR 118 to be consistent with Ore new plan and further develop concepts that were outlined in the plan. Language in the purpose statement will be restored to clearly indicate the importance of protection of the unique features of the Lower St.Croix Rivenvay and the impotance of protection of waler guality and habitat. http•/icioes leeis wisconsin gov/eodeJehr/related/2003/er 03 054/cr 03 054 agency report to legislature mart 1.tx1f The revisions are based on conma contained within the Cooperative Manatcemcnt Plan(CMP)for the Lower SL Croix Natifflal Scenic Rivennay,which was completed in January 2002 in a ioint effort with the National Park Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin.This plan was completed with extensive public involvement over a seven)•car period.The plan was adopted by the agencies after an analysis of the benefits,environmental impacts,and cost of alternative courses of action It i I a zone concern the distance over which slope should be measured,not the slope direction or what"towards the river" means in the definition of"slope preservation zone." Concededly the 1995 NR 118 language before DNR removed the phrase "adjoining watershed channel"from the definition of"bluffline" was explicitly more in line with the federal CMP and Minnesota rule. Perhaps DNR intended the final language defining "slope preservation zone" in ch. NR 118 to exclude any sloped areas where water or soil tumbling down a slope could in no way wind up in the river, or where structures placed within a sloping area could in no way impinge on the natural scenic beauty of the slope when viewed front the river. But s.NR I I8.07(5)(a)l of the 2004 NR 118 rule shows DNR did not intend the definition to restrict"slope preservation zones"only to areas directly facing or directly draining to the river: NR 118.07 Conditional use standards.The conditional uses and structures listed ins.NR 118.05(2)may be permitted if One requirements in s.NR 118.06 and the following standards arc met:... (5) Pilling and grading activities. (a) A conditional use permit may be issued for filling and grading activities in the following areas if the conditions in par.(b)are satisfied: 1.in slope presenallon zones that do not direc7h,face tie river and do not drain direcdp to lire river. The intent expressed in the report to the legislature and the bolded 2004 NR 118 rule language above shows DNR still understood some "slope preservation zones" would not directly face the river or drain directly to the river, which undermines an argument that a slope preservation zone must have a rivenvard slope relatively parallel with the ordinary high water mark. The report to the legislature makes it clear that DNR intends the revised NR 118 to protect not just the nattnal scenic beauty of the slopes as viewed from the river, but the water quality of the St. Croix as well, which would require regulating any slopes steep enough and situated in a manner that would allow runoff and eroded material to be carried directly or indirectly to the river in any significant volumes. Based on the above,we cannot agree that a slope preservation zone must have a rivetivard slope relatively parallel with the ordinary high water mark. The federal CMP,the Minnesota rules,and the Wisconsin rules all clearly contemplate some slope preservation zones will not directly face or directly drain to the river. In my opinion we must interpret the state rule language in a manner consistent with the CMP as we reported to the legislature we intended to do so. Arguably,to be consistent with the CMP and our expressed intent to the legislature one could insist that a slope preservation zone trust mean any area between the OHWM and riveripatr houndarj,that slopes 12%or greater anywhere along its length and slopes even marginally or obliquely towards the river. However,the department considers"riverward"and "slope towards the river"to [Wean any area between the OH"and hluffline of the St.Croix or its backwaters,adjoining watershed channels,or drainage ways that slopes 12%or greater an}nvhere along its length and faces even marginally or obliquely towards the river or its backwaters,adjoining watershed channels,or drainage ways. I hope this analysis and explanation is help . lease contact Mike Wenholz or me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Edwina Kavanaugh Staff Attorney,Bureau of Legal Servi —LS/8 Department of Natural Resources P.O.Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921 Ph:608-264-8991 E-mail: Edwina.Kavanaugh @Wisconsin.gov Cc: Mike Wenholz,Wisconsin DNR Dan Baumann,Wisconsin DNR i I I ST. C 0=0UNTY Land Planning&Land Information Resource Management Ad Community Development Department November 22,2013 '��!`/ File Ref.#SE88071 Daniel Hegman 193 Riverview Acres Rd. Hudson,WI 54016 RE: Parcel#030-2068-60-000, Gov't Lot 4, Section 35,T30N,R20W,Town of St.Joseph Dear Mr.Hegman: The St.Croix County Board of Adjustment(Board)has reviewed your request for the following items: Variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure(deck)in the Lower St.Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Section 17.3613.b of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. I After the hearing on November 21,2013,the Board approved the variance request with conditions.The enclosed document is the formal decision regarding the application. You must obtain any other required local,state,and federal permits and approvals. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. S. ly, Pamela Quinn Land Use Specialist Enclosures: Formal Decision cc: Clerk,Town of St.Joseph Mike Wenholz,Wisconsin DNR Jim Barton,Barton Construction Services Phone 715.386.4680 Government Center,1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, Wi 54016 Fax 715.386.4686 www.sccwi.us/cdd www.facebook.com/`S--tcroixcountvw cdd @co.saint-croix.wi.us FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS,AND DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST.CROIX COUNTY,WISCONSIN File Number. %% Daniel SE88071 Applicant. ��, Daniel Hegman,property owner Parcel Number: �� 35.30.20.609U Complete Applicatieceived: October 7,2013 Hearing Notice Publication: Weeks of November 4 and 11,2013 Hearing Date: November 21,2013 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Having heard all the testimony and considered the entire record herein,the Board of Adjustment makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pertinent to the applicant's variance request: 1. The applicant is Daniel Hegman,property owner. 2. The site is located at 193 Riverview Acres Rd.in Gov't Lot 4, Section 35,T30N,R20W,Town of St.Joseph. 3. The applicant filed an 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 17.3 613.b.of the St.Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The deck is in need of more than ordinary maintenance and repair to meet current Uniform Dwelling Code requirements and will meet the intent of the ordinance in that • The reconstructed deck will be no larger than the existing one and will not exceed 500 sq.ft.; • No vegetation will be harmed during reconstruction; • The public interest would not be harmed by granting the variance; • The deck is and will continue to be inconspicuous from the river, • Property values will not be negatively affected. 4. The Town of St.Joseph Town clerk submitted the Town Board's recommendation of support for the variance on November 19,2013. 5. Mike Wenholz,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(DNR)Shoreland Specialist,submitted his comments on November 6,2013. The DNR recommends that this request be denied,however,if the Board approves the variance, the DNR recommends the following: • The reconstructed deck be in the same footprint as the existing deck. While that is the stated intention in the application,the diagram of the"New Deck Layout"is slightly different and slightly larger than the diagram of the"Existing Layout". Thus the proposal is an expansion. • The applicant assure the total area of the proposed reconstructed deck and any/all other nonconforming accessory structures within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark(OHWM),a slope preservation zone,or the bluffline setback is no larger than 500 square feet to comply with sec. 17.36 I.3.b.4 of the St.Croix County Lower St Croix Riverway Overlay District Ordinance. If the total area is greater than 500 square feet,the applicant should be required to remove structures and/or reduce the size of the deck until the 500 square foot total is met as a condition of the variance. • The applicant submit a mitigation plan that is approved by the county(according to sec. 17.36 I.3.b.6). 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 original house and its accessory structure(deck)were constructed less than 40 feet from the top of steep slopes prior to the adoption of the St Croix County Riverway Overlay District by a previous landowner and will be considered legal nonconforming structures for the purpose of this variance request. The request will not increase the nonconformity of these structures since the deck will remain the same distance from steep slopes. - 1 - 7. Literal enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting the reconstruction of a legal 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 house. 8. 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 deck structure will not be sufficient to prevent further deterioration or meet decay prevention requirements in Comm 2 1.10 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 applicant cannot comply with Comm 21.225 without reconstruction of the deck,which would be a violation of prohibitions contained in NR 118.08(3)and Section 17.3 613.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 applicant. 9. The applicant is requesting minimal relief from the standards in the Ordinance. The proposed reconstruction of the deck will slightly alter the existing nonconforming accessory structure's footprint to straighten an angle,but the overall size of the deck will not increase,will not exceed 500 sq.ft.,and will not change the distance from footings to steep slopes. 10. Substantial justice would be done by allowing continued use of a deck attached to the principal structure, which is allowed in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District,and which will be reconstructed within the footprint of the original deck. After obtaining a building permit from the Town of St. Joseph, the deck will be rebuilt to current Wisconsin construction standards. DECISION On the basis of the above Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and the record herein,the Board granted the applicant's variance request,with the following conditions: 1. The variance will allow the applicant to reconstruct a deck attached to the principal structure within the same footprint as the original deck in accordance with the plans submitted on August 13,2013 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 applicant shall secure all necessary permits and approvals from the Town of St.Joseph and obtain any other required local, state,or federal permits and approvals,including but not limited to a building permit. 3. In compliance with mitigation requirements in Sections 17.36.I.5.c.3)&4),the applicant will redirect stormwater runoff from the house gutters away from steep slopes and protect existing trees to maintain slope stability and visual screening of the house from the river. 4. As indicated in the plans submitted,the proposed project will be visually inconspicuous from the river,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. Within 30 days of completion of the deck reconstruction,the applicant shall provide certification that the deck was constructed according to the approved plans and in compliance with state UDC code. 5. Any minor change or addition to the project, including but not limited to design of the project, shall require review and approval by the Land Use 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. -2- 6. The applicant shall have one(1)year from the issuance of these approvals to commence reconstruction of the deck and two(2)years to complete the project. 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. 7. 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. 8. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read,understands, and agrees to all conditions of this decision and has no objections if county staff conducts unannounced onsite inspections to check for compliance with the conditions of this permit. The following vote was taken to approve the variance: Chairman Malick,yes;Peterson,yes; Sontag,yes;Nelson,yes; McAllister,absent. Motion carries. 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 Community Development 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. ZO G BOARD OF ADJU TMENT Signed: Clarence W. "Buck"Malick,Chairman Date Filed: November 22,2013 - 3-