HomeMy WebLinkAbout020-1046-20-000 uC)4
e LO
LO m
o-°
D
y 7 N
6 p C
Z N
C m
>
LL c p m
a p N m
Q ca rn
m o
I
I
Z E
� v �
0
z
rn H a m
I'
I
o Z a c
a�i Z
d1 H r c N
E
cy
a �
�1/ N
N
I N �
N
•
Q zpzz
I
0
.0 .. d
d —
Q 06 a
w d
aNi D a` m o
E � �
�i U) O O O a
•� ;� � aaa
a
3 O fn p
O O
7 �
, = a
> O O
7 a
m c a'
an d Q Z in m
C� r H y
O O M H C
+' O O a a E
Q
� O O
U �+ N n N c p p p
0 N E E m N
CI..I -7 7 O
C� rn �°, j '>
L
o 2 Z O z N Z Z M. U)
O
a
CL
t� y E o
t A vat 0 (n
Parcel #: 020-1046-20-000 07/15/2009 08:27 AM
PAGE 1 OF 1
Alt. Parcel#: 19.29.19.177V 020-TOWN OF HUDSON
Current X ST. CROIX COUNTY,WISCONSIN
Creation Date Historical Date Map# Sales Area Application# Permit# Permit Type #of Units
00 0
Tax Address: Owner(s): O=Current Owner, C=Current Co-Owner
MARK P&VICKIE L WOODWICK O-WOODWICK, MARK P&VICKIE L
324 BAER DR
HUDSON WI 54016
Districts: SC =School SP=Special Property Address(es): '=Primary
Type Dist# Description 324 BAER DR
SC 2611 HUDSON
SP 1700 WITC
Legal Description: Acres: 0.510 Plat: N/A-NOT AVAILABLE
SEC 19 T29N R19W PT SE NW COM NW COR SE Block/Condo Bldg:
NW TH S 933.4'TO NLY R/W HWY"A" ELY 4'
TO POB ELY 157' N176'W149'TO W LN Tract(s): (Sec-Twn-Rng 40 1/4 160 1/4)
S222'TO POB 521/452&557/119 AND THE 19-29N-19W
33'AQUIRED DIRECTLY W OF PROPERTY DESC
IN 624/111
Notes: Parcel History:
Date Doc# Vol/Page Type
07/21/2005 801037 2848/325 WD
08/01/2001 652670 1691/398 WD
03/16/1998 575157 1306/124 WD
07/23/1997 557/119
more...
2009 SUMMARY Bill#: Fair Market Value: Assessed with:
0
Valuations: Last Changed: 10/25/2005
Description Class Acres Land Improve Total State Reason
RESIDENTIAL G1 0.510 27,000 152,600 179,600 NO
Totals for 2009:
General Property 0.510 27,000 152,600 179,600
Woodland 0.000 0 0
Totals for 2008:
General Property 0.510 27,000 152,600 179,600
Woodland 0.000 0 0
Lottery Credit: Claim Count: 1 Certification Date: Batch#: 136
Specials:
User Special Code Category Amount
Special Assessments Special Charges Delinquent Charges
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Request of Robert & Mary Nasvik for )
a variance to the setback requirements )
of Chapter 8. 4. 2 , St. Croix County ) A-17-75
Zoning Ordinance. Location: SW4 of )
NW4 of Section 19 , Hudson, T29N-R19W. )
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PERMIT AND ORDER
The St. Croix County Zoning Administrator did deny an application
of Robert and Mary Nasvik to erect an accessory building in the Town
i
of Hudson, St. Croix County, Wisconsin, without the authority of a
variance as authorized in Section 9. 6, St. Croix County Zoning
Ordinance.
On October 6, 1975, Robert Nasvik completed filing an application for
a variance to Chapter 8. 4.2, St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance, with the
Zoning Administrator on behalf of the Board of Adjustments . The request
of the variance was a setback of 85 feet from the centerline of the road.
Pursuant to due notice, a public hearing was held on November. 11, 1975,
in the matter under provisions of and in accordance with Section 9.7.4,
Ordinance, in the St. Croix Count Courthouse,
County Zoning Or Y
St. Croix Cou y g ,
Hudson, Wisconsin, to determine whether or not the variance should be
granted to the applicant under Section 9.5. 3, St. Croix County Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
j Mr. Robert Nasvik, Owner
F
IN OBJECTION:
Mr. John Eton, Adjoining landowner
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All of the procedural requirements of Section 9. 5. 2, St. Croix
County Zoning Ordinance, regarding notice of the hearing held herein have
been complied with.
2. At the hearing, a stipulation was entered into by and between the
Board of Adjustment and Robert Nasvik that an inspection of site would be
conducted. The inspection disclosed the following:
a. There are alternate locations on -the property meeting setback
requirements where a garage would be acceptable.
b the applicant is contrary to the public health of
;III b. The request y pp Y
St. Croix County.
'In "4_
_ F
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board of Adjustments has authority, based upon the foregoing
findings of fact, to issue a decision on the application for a variance
to Section 3. 4. 2 , St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
PERMIT AND ORDER
AND HEREBY DOES DISCLOSE the following decision: On a motion by
Supervisor Luckwaldt, Seconded by Supervisor Holmes and .unanimously
carried to deny this request for a variance to construct 85 feet
from the centerline of county trunk "A" .
Dated at Hudson, Wisconsin on November 14, 1975
ST. CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Herman Afd- ahl, Chairman
ti
6
Boli.R, c)F�;DjUS`r 1ENTS
The public hearing of the Board of Adjustments held on November 11 , 1975 ,
was called to order at 10 : 00 a.m. by also Afdahl. All members present.
Assistant District Attorney LundelLundell was a o present . The meeting, was con-
ducted in the conference room due to the large attenda,_i e.
Harold Barber, Zoning; Administrator, read the complete notice of
the public hearing as pub 4is bed.
The zoning administrator stated the request of David & Lucille Plank
for a variance to the setback requirements of Chapter .7+. St. Croix County
Zoning Ordinance. Location: Lot 20, Wk of NE4 of Section 7 , Hudson. Mrs.
Plank was in attendance accompanied by her lawyer, Bob Wall.
A violation notice was mailed to the Plank' s on October 14, 1975 , informing
them that they were in violation of the setback section of the St. Croix
County Zoning Ordinance. They had began construction
astructioad of a dwelling at a
distance of 89 feet from the center of
The Plank' s had then made rupctiontatnthe 89 the foot rsetback�ustment
for a variance to complete const
Attorney Wall presented the supporting evidence for the variance request.
He stated that on 10/3/75, the Plank s had obtained their building permit
from Richard Evjen, Bldg. Ins}}?� They then gave their permits to their
contractor, Mr. Cromby of Ridgewood Builders from Lake Elmo, MN. They had
assumed that he was aware of the requirements and would abide by them.
Attorney Wall then submitted for review a copy of the survey showing
the lot. The lot is bordered by two town roads. The road on the east side
ires
has an adequate setback road theuroad.
a variance o.f 11 feet or a setback of
At the time of construction, the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance was
in effect. It became void on October 22, 1975 , and was then adopted on
November 3, 1975. Howes�ra 100 footosetback from thegcenterline ofaitownin
effect requiring at lea
road.
Questions from Board members regarding the usuage of the town roads
bordering the lot in question. Attoa dyt e confirmed minimalnotherted-�,
that these roads are both dead ends
than by the immediate landowners.
Supervisor Holmes commented that it would be advisable for the landowner
not to assume that contractors were enforcing the ordinances in constructions.
The Zoning Administrator read an excerpt from ,Zoonin �L._aw and Practice
in Wisconsin: "'State Ex rel. Markdale Corp.
V Board of Appeals o ity or
w_ ee,-_Z7 Wis . 2d 154, 133 N.W2d 795 (1965) , states that the hardship
which justifies a board of appeals in granting a variance must be one which
claimed hardship arises
originates in the zoning ordinance, and when the
because of the applicant .himself, then the Board is without power to grant
a variance."
Attorney Wall repeated his statement that the violation was the fault
of responsibility of the homeowner as they had obtained the necessary permits
and had given them to the contractor.
Mr. Richard Evjen, Bldg Insp. explained his contact with the contractor.
The contractor had informed him that he had started work with the sewer layout
on the State application form and that working with the slopes , he then located
the house.
Attorney Wall stressed the point that his clients had obtained the
necessary permits ; and would be incurring additional expenses in the relocating
of the dwelling. Assistant District Attorney Lundell asked if they explored
the possibility of the contractor absorbing the added expense.
Mr. Richard Kinney stated that although he was an officer at Tri-County
Savings and Loan, he was not attending the meeting in that capacity. However,
the loan would be contigent on the Plank' s locating the building at an
�` approved location.
November 11, i.9°75 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Page 2
There had been no communication received from the adjoining landowners.
Chairman Afdahl informed the group that the copy of the lot would be
placed on file. That an on-site inspection would be made of the property
during the afternoon and that they would be receiving notification of the
decision. of the Board from the Zoning Office.
The Zoning Administrator stated the request of Robert and Mary Nasvik
for a variance to the setback requirements of Chapter—$ +.2 , St . Croix County
Zoning Ordinance. Location: SW4 of NWk of Section 19 , Hudson, T29N-R19W.
Mr. Nasvik was in attendance.
The application requests a setback of 85 feet from the centerline of
County Road A. Mr. Nasvik wishes to contruct an unattached garage measuring
24' x 24' .
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the sketch submitted by Mr. Nasvik.
Mr. Nasvik was asked to make his comments. He stated that they had altered
their original construction print of the house ommitting the attached
garage to meet the side yard requirements of his covenants on his land.
This covenant requires a 10 foot side yard. He also has a 33 foot easement
on the west side.
When the dwelling was constructed, his contractor had commented that
he could build an unattached garage later. His dwelling is located 133 feet
from the centerline. The well is located immediately to the side of the
dwelling. Discussion followed on the construction of buildings over
drilled wells.
The Chairman asked for comment from the adjoining landowners. Mr.
John Eton, neighbor to the east, explained that his view of the highway would
be impaired with the construction of the garage at the 85 foot variance
request. Mr. Eton stated that he had no objection to Mr. Nasvik constructing
the garage closer to his lot line than the 10 feet provided that it would
be setback at a greater distance. As an alternate plan, Mr. Eton suggested
the removal of the covenants of 10 feet side yards . Also, he suggested the
possibility of utilizing the area within the 33 foot easement on the west
side of the dwelling should be explored. The distance to the Eton lot line
is 30 feet.
Mr. Lewis explained the setback requirements of building locations in
relationship to the sanitary system.
Chairman Afdahl informed Mr. Nasvik that an on site inspection would
be made of his property and that he would be receiving notification of the
Boards decision through the Zoning Office.
The Zoning Administrator stated the request of Daniel & Alta Greenwald
for a variance to the St. Croix Riverway Ordinance of St. Croix County. Lot 3
Bomar Heights Subdivision, NW4 of Section 24, Troy, T28N-R20-19W.
This is the second application for a variance submitted by Greenwald.
The first hearing was held on May 23, 1975, his request for a variance was
denied.
The applicant requests the following variances to Section 3.10.4 (g)3 :
a. Setback from bluff-permitted 100 feet; requests 20 feet
b. Highway setback-permitted 133' from centerline; requests 77' from centerline
d. Net project area-permitted 1 acre; requests less than 1 acre
e. Height of structure-permitted 35 feet a lowest usable floor; requests 32
feet above grade.
Jack, son of Daniel Greenwald presented their request for variance. The
owners reside in Kansas. Mr. Greenwald explained the information contained in
his supporting papers. The papers contained information as to (1) Information
required by Section 3. 10. 6(a) , (2) Description of proposed house, (3) Photo
of Bluff from river with summer vegetation, (4) Topographical map of the
property, (5) View of centerline from property, and (6) Front plan of the
proposed house.
The Zoning Administrator read letter dated November 10, 1975, received
from the Department of Natural Resources , Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning.
r
m
November 11, 1975 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PAGE 3
Letter states in part, "If the Board concludes that the visual impact is
negligible and that the other standards contair,.ed within the ordinance can
be satisfied, then the spirit of the St. Croix Riverway Ordinance would be
observed and the Department would not - object to this Ai rian.ce request. '°
Chairman Afdahl requested that this letter go on file.
No communication had been received from the adjoining landowners or
the township.
Questions by Mr. Lewis regarding the variance requests and the follow-up
procedures. Mr. Greenwald believes that his parents are planning for a spring
contruction and that the height factor was flexible but would appreciate all
consideration for the variance request.
Chairman Afdahl informed Mr. Greenwald that an on-site inspection would
be made of the property during the afternoon period. They would make a
proposed decision and then would follow through with the guidelines
established in Section 3. 10. 6, St. Croix Riverway Ordinance.
Mr. Richard Kinne made the suggestion that the applicants should be
informed at the meeting-' when their inspection would be made. Supervisor
Holmes explained that by setting stringent timetables , they could not
give each inspection all the time it warrants.
The Zoning Administrator stated the request of Charles & Vesta
Wendorff for a variance to the setback requirements of Chapter 8.4. 2, St.
Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Location Sk of SW, of Section 4, Troy,
T28N-R19W. Mr. & Mrs. Wendorff were in attendance, accompanied by their
attorney, Nancy Barkla.
A violation notice was mailed to the Wendorff' s on April 10, 1975,
informing them they they were in violation of the setback section of the
St. Croix County the centerrlinelofnaetownsroad. had ancedrequiresbuilding
69 feet from
foot setback from the centerline.
The Wendorff' s had then made application to the Board of Adjustments for
a variance of 64' to permit the completed building to remain at its present
location of 69 feet from the centerline of the road.
Attorney Barkla addressed her client with questions relating to his
obtaining their building permit from the town clerk, Kenneth Schoettle.
Mr. Wendorff stated he applied for the building permit on April 3, 1975 , and
was given a preliminary okay. He had had the location staked out and he
had assumed that the town clerk had inspected the site when the building
permit was received on April 14, 1975 . Mr. Wendorff stated that actual
construction commenced on April 13, 1975.
Attorney Barkla asked Mr. Wendorff to give the dimensions of the
building ants andlis him. Mr. Wendorff
service, the
30' x 50' a
cattle.
Mrs. Barkla then addressed the Board stating that:
1. The applicants in good faith had obtained the building permit with no .
intent to defraud or to be non-conforming.
' 2. That it would cause hardship as no other site was available at the 133"
setback.
3. That this was not an unsightly building.
Communication received on the request was reviewed: Telephone
conversation received on 11/11/75 from Mrs . John Evenson, neighbor to the West,
stated that they much preferred the building to remain where it is as if it
was moved to the correct setback it would hinder their view and would permit
the animals to graze much closer to their home.
Letter received on 11/11/75 from Ken Steltteer, neighbor ttsetthe North,
expressed that the building should be removed
requirement.
Zoning Administrator, Harold Barber, stated that he had inspected the
property before mailing the violation notice on April 10, 1975. Therefore,
construction commenced before April 13, 1975.
Attorney Barkla, questioned 14r. Wendorff on the gully that lies at the
h his lot. Mr. Wendorff understood from the seller
133' aethack distance throug
91 1 4
November 11, 1975 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 4
of his land that the gully was a waterway. Discussion followed on the possibilit;
of this being a waterway.
The Zoning Administrator again crew the attention of the group to the
Court case sited in the Zoning Law and Practice in Wisconsin. This excerpt
appears earlies within terse minutes. f
Attorney Barkla stated that her clients had obtained the building
permit. The building permit application was not available. Mr. Wendorff
stated that he had supplied a sketch with his application . and that the town
clerk had informed him that an :inspection would be made. Mr. Schoettle,
town clerk, was not in attendance at the hearing.
. Chairman Afdahl informed the group that an inspection would be made of
the property and that they would be receiving notification from the Zoning
Office of the decision reached.
The Zoning Administrator stated the request of Wesley W. Halle &
Thomas H. Roy for a variance to the setback requirements of Chapter 8.4. 2, St.
Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Location NE4 of SWk of Section 28, Somerset,
T31N-R19W.
The application requests a variance to a 90 foot setback from the
centerline. The Ordinance requires a 133 foot setback from the centerline.
The applicants were unable to attend. No communication had been
received from the neighbors or the township.
An on site inspection was scheduled for the afternoon.
Discussion 1O , 1975. Pflieder
on October 1 ,
dated October 24, 1975, was read and discussed.
Motion by Supv. Luckwaldt to deny this request for a variance to be
in conformance with the Wisconsin- Department of Natural Resources recommendation
Motion seconded by Supv. Holmes. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing recessed at 12 :05 p.m.
Hearing reconvened at 1:30 p.m. in order to make inspections of all
property in question.
After inspection of the properties , the attached decisions were made.
Hearing recessed until Thursday, November 13 , 1975 , in order to have
assistance from the District Attorney' s Office.
Hearing adjourned at 12: 00 p.m.
Respectively submitted,
HERMAN AFDAHL
Board of Adjustments Chairman
HA:HCB:jh
Attachments (5)
4'=7
iI
--
CS
At-
Well
Tr
41Y 41 11111111
Now
ti
------------------- ---
i
i
i
� 2
l
'I
i
i
I
. III
i
IIi
,
i
III
---------------------- ----------
II'
i
_ II
I,
III
%I
i
li
I
N
m
n �
A
s z \
\ m
N O' O
\ O W Z (A \
rn
� ao
\ N
=1 p
oz
O
O .
i
D / Ol - SCR%r� �— \ \ OD 124.55
\ wti W ' UI
°) o) o n
p O
LA
W
-P N w \� 277.66
Ll 4E'O / � w
W �_-. W o A CN Ln
W v� (D ---j N 0 OD
�e (� /V N
' 177Y
258.4 YC�6'J
L
va 4\o o
<L-
- •s���a,w � :U � � `gyp;
C-
29s4r-- �!'• L
—
°' V)—
£d
/�
Z �
10
666.56 Z9•L9z +'
"48Z F H
co
4 9) Cn -4
W � r N -0 O
_ � _'-
°io Nt� a.
1 nog � ns��1Nd� N94S8 --
rn r � G> o �