HomeMy WebLinkAbout018-1064-10-000 (2) I
0. c c $
d
yen c 'I o I
c
� � I
N
H �vU I
° >'N o
C)
o c
m.2 v
o m
a
o m�a
Z rn 2.2
c n'v
LL O N C
3 Q 3
a
02 o'
Q m mt
M
I. z E
°
co N ! a m
N
I
O z c
N O
m a)
" �
y
•� N � N
a
0
Q z° m z
N
y v C o
y `o y m a� ~
m ooa o>
`� c333 a �
0
•N � ' E
00 a I
CL
' ° N '., 0 0 N
(n J U!, O cn
O O 0 N
+� O N
U = a E
Co m H d �--
i
°
�i ~ y C
lV O C
O N c V a 0 0 0
L v C N C f0 N N tp W
42 co
O W ! y a .0.�
E Z v LO
(x, j n v (D o c_ a�
` + ~ O Cp N 7 pOj �vnj O y M O t6 U
Q O N Z 2 S F- 2L (n
w
rw E L C W
r A c°) a � l0 (1) u
Rod Eslinger
From: Greg Timmerman
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:35 AM
To: Rod Eslinger
Subject: RE: Variances- Re-establishing setbacks
Rod,
I don't recall a conversation along those lines. I don't think I would have had such an opinion. Here's why.
A variance is granted for a specific request. A person requests a variance to build an addition, a garage, an
accessory building. The variance is only good for a particular request. It does not authorize any other future
projects. The approval of a setback variance to put an addition on a house does not authorize another addition
to be put on the house at the same setback. A new variance would be required for an additional addition. (That
was supposed to be clever.) It may be easy to get the next variance because one has already been granted but,
nonetheless,the next variance would require separate approval.
A grant of a variance has to be based on a finding of unnecessary hardship. Right now the proper definition of
unnecessary hardship is in dispute. Some, including the DNR, believe unnecessary hardship is based on the no
reasonable use standard. Others, including me,believe it is based on weighing the intent of the regulation
against the harm caused to the regulation by granting the variance. Irregardless of how the definition dispute
plays out, unnecessary hardship is the standard upon which a request for a variance is evaluated and each project
must be reviewed using that standard and justified on its own individual set of facts. Hence, a variance cannot
give authorization for future projects.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Eslinger
Sent: Tuesday,November 18,2003 1:36 PM
To: Greg Timmerman
Subject: Variances-Re-establishing setbacks
Greg,
You and I had a conversation earlier this year regarding whether or not a variance that had been previously granted by the
Board of Adjustment allowed additions to a structure without further variances. You had indicated once a variance is
granted for a structure(addition)to remain or to encroach into the setback, it becomes the new setback for the structure
(varying from the actual setback standards). The remaining property still would be subject to the current setback
standards for any other building project not associated with the variance. I'm actually writing this email to re-affirm with my
understanding of variances and their effect after the board grants them. It is safe to allow an addition on to a home that
was previously granted a variance provided that the addition goes no closer than what the original variance allowed (this
assume all other zoning regulations are met). Is this correct?
We talked about a couple of terms as they relate to nonconforming structures. One is legal nonconforming and I couldn't
remember the other that relates to variance cases. Please point me in the right legal direction.
Thanks for you time in advance
Rod
Rod Eslinger
Zoning Specialist
1
M
November 140', 2003
Mr. Rod Eslinger, Zoning Specialist
St. Croix County Zoning Office
1101 Carmichael Road
Hudson, WI 54016
Dear Mr. Eslinger:
Re: phone call a week ago asking about variance procedure for projecting our kitchen at
the front of our home in Hammond Township 6' closer to County Highway J.
Enclosed is a photo copy of the variance we received in 1979. Also is a site plan for the
proposed 6 foot addition to our kitchen. The distance from the center of County Road J
to the front or south edge of our current home measured at 108 feet.
Please let us know if the current variance of 103 feet is valid. Would you allow us to go
an additional foot to make it an even 6 feet?
Sincerely,
Mrs. Gene E. (Audrey) Aune
1708 County Highway J
Hammond, W1 54015
715-796-2376
gendrey @centurytel.net
{
S
cn (A >�
11
W
�ls7niC oe --t�ee)m C Et-j7e ' B F 0-ou417+r/J ,l y T
-to wm 'o o ou.s� Ord V-� ervty rev)
0
�� rn
-o rz) n
rn
�► w tai � � ��
� c
INC, m
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
Request of GENE AUNE for a )
variance to Article 8 . 4 B ) A-26-79
of the ST. CRO1X COUNTY ZONING) July 12 , 1979
ORDINANCE . Locat i_on : SW 4 of )
the SW4 of Section 28 , T29N- j
R17W, Hammond Township .
The St . Croix County Board of Adjustment conducted a public
hearing on July 12 , 1979 , to consider the houses that would enot Aconform
hea g resent
to construct an addition onto his p
to the 133 foot setback from the centerline of the road as required in
Article 8. 4 B.
f Adjustment conducted an on-site
The St . Croix County Board o
inspection of the site in question. Board of
After the on-site insPecSessionhtosdiscussx the urequest . Upon
Adjustment entered an Execute
returning to open session, the following decision was rendered.
DECISION RENDERED:
Motion by Supervisor Af dahl to grant the request of Mr. Gene Aune to
build an addition on the east side of his ofouse that SeoundedobyeSupea-
closer than 103 feet from the centerline
visor Pierson, motion carried.
Vote to approve Motion:
Afdahl yes
Pierson yes
George _ absent
SS ER N , airman
St. Croix County Board of Adjustment
RP :HCB�
ene une
Hammond Town Clerk
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING--July
12, 1979
Chairman Pierson at 10 :00 a.m. on July 12 ,
fdahl.
Meeting called to order by Absent: Supv• George.
1979 . Present were : Supvs . Pierson and A
Minutes of the June meeting accepted as read.
irman Pierson. Supv• George
Hearing called
to order at 10 : 15 a.m. by Cha
absent . published in the County
zoning onin Administrator read Notice of Hearing as
newspaper.
Chairman Pierson informed those present of the rules for the Board o
Adjustment . T29N-R17W, Town of Hammond
Mr. Gene Aune , SW4 of SW4 of Section 28
1. t an addition to his home thi, m air dision0onfeet
1 the county
requested to construe The addition would not 1 P
the centerline of CTR J.
road.
Questions by Board members .
informed Mr . Aune that the Zoning Administrator would
Chairman Pierson in property .
inform him of their decision after inspection of the P 8N-R18W Town of
2 . Mr. James Lubich, NW,.
Of SW of Section 19 , T2
nested to construct a cattle shed thatbhelc et
cou�ld
Kinnickinnic, req Mr . Lubich
from the cente lback because of°the steep slope.
not get f
Questions by the members of the Board. of
WT the SW4
NEB of N of Section 8 and SE4
3 . Mr . Jackie Anacker , requested to construct a house that
of Section 5 , T28N-R19W, Town of Troy , Red Brick Road) .a town
would
be 73 to 83 feet from the centerline ousef would erindaClower area and
By setting the house backai33ercolation tests .
may have to need addition P
members .me . �
Questions by properties in question.
Hearings recessed in order to inspect the on his request that was denied in
Mr. David Black talked to the Board
June . Cha
irtnan Pierson informed Mr. Black that he could re-apP1Y ' The
After field inspections , the Board entered an Executive Session
Board returned to open session for decisions • rant the request of Mr .
Motion by Supv. Afdahl to g
1 Mr, Gene Aune, Seconded by Supv. Pierson.
addition on the east side of his horse that would not extend
Anne to build an Pierson--yeS . George- absent.
closer than 103 feefrom athe center ahl of ,
Motion carried. Vote v. request of Mr.1 e than Su Pierson to grant the
2. James Lubich. Motion by P
Lubich to build
a cattle shed that would be noVotesto approve :motion carried.
centerline of the tewnabsent
Pierson—yes , Georg ,/Seconded by Supv• Afdahl.
the request to
Su v. Afdahl to deny There is
3, Jackie Anacker. Motion by Sup v.
closer to the road could
construct a house 73 to 83 feet fcenterline of a town road .carried.
Vote to
ample area to build meeting al setbacks .Su v• Pierson , motion
cause a traffic hazard. Seconded
George--absent.
deny : Afdahl--yes ,
Next meeting is scheduled for August 289 1979 , at 10 :00 a.m.
Further business before the Board, a motion by Supv. Afdahl
Being no f
t J
o adjourn, motion carried.
HAROLD C . BARBER
Acting Secretary
Board Members
ro . Ad. n-Ffice
b.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
ST. CROIX C4U1TY BOARD OF ADJUS:i2;_dT
APPEAL 90.
OF
herebv anneal to the Board of Adjustment r
from the decisior. of the
7,oninE A ministrator. ? iereby the loninc, Adainistrator did:
1. deny all application to :
`
- y
rect c°"' �on " for use as family residen.� strue or�bu l din
- a ui din`
add to business
occupy industry
or
2• incorrectly interpret the (Ordinance)/(i"1ap) !'lumber
B. LOCATIOIT: Section T 1
—1,R
Lot 7r subdivision ;Tame
City Village Township
C. A variance of section U 3 b
rcquested because: County Zoning Ordinance is
(Un :ue iar s 1p, unique situation, etc. . . )
a n �� •�r�s 7�i n�_..____
o
D. List all adjoining . landowners names and addresses :
Date. Filed
x ants or A;;erit