Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1146-40-000 STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAMES E. DOYLE 123 West Washington Avenue ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 Patricia J. Gorence Deputy Attorney General a Assistant Attarap Ctanerd April 23, 1993 sooer d-a"ms Richard A. and Mary E. Marzolf 1092 Fairmount Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 Fe: State v. St. Croix County Board of AdJustment Dear Richard and Mary Marzolf: I am in receipt of your letters dated April 6 and 8, 1993, and of the accompanying information you have sent me. I am in the process of evaluating all of the information I have received, both what you sent me as well as the record which has been filed by the county. I expect *to make a decision shortly as to whether settlement may be possible, as you requested. You stated in your letter that you are open to meeting with me if I wish. It appears that the written information I have received is rather complete; however, if you feel there is more that you would like to add in person, I am open to hearing that. So, I will leave the decision as to a meeting up to you. If you have more to add which you feel should be done in a meeting rather than by letter, please let me know and I will make arrangements to travel to St. Croix County as soon as possible. Sincerely, i Lorraine C. Stoltzfus Assistant Attorney General LCS•bhs cc: Greg Timmerman. 43 19 0J J L 11-0 April 8, 1993 '9hfi ~ S t I Lorraine C. Stoltzfus, Assistant Attorney General State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice 123 West Washington Avenue P.O. Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 Dear Ms. Stoltzfus: The purpose of this letter is twofold. It is our understanding that our file was sent to you last month by the St. Croix County Zoning Office. Therefore, we wish to thank you for the time you have spent in reviewing our case to date. Secondly, we respectfully ask that you bring this case to a settlement as soon as possible. A summary of our case, along with copies of some related documehts accompany this letter of transmittal. If you would like more information, or if you wish to meet with us in per- son, please let us know and we will make arrangements. As you can see, this case represents a great deal of time, work and expense. We are most anxious to bring closure to it and to move on to what we hope will be the more enjoyable part of our efforts, namely building our homes on our St. Croix River lots. In spite of our efforts to deal with this case in a straight-forward manner, we have encountered many disappoint- ments and set backs. Nonetheless, we continue to draw some of our strength to persevere from persons who believe we can and should receive a favorable decision. Among these people are Tom Nelson (St. Croix County Zoning Administrator), Greg Tim- merman (St. Croix County Corporation Counsel), the Troy Town Board, and the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments. We are hopeful that you will agree, also, and provide us with a decision in our favor. The main objection to our request seems to be that our homes would be visible from the St. Croix River due to the lack of trees between the project area and the river. Although that issue is debatable, we have nonetheless addressed it squarely by consulting with Cathy Nelson, St. Croix County Forester (Baldwin, Wisconsin), and by developing a comprehensive screening plan that is consistent with her recommendations. The implementation of that plan necessitates the planting of several rows of fast-growing trees on our property. With the most ideal tree planting season almost upon us, we wish to be ready to take full advantage of this window of opportunity for planting this spring. Furthermore, clean, uncontaminated fill (which we will need in order to raise our building sites up out of the flood plain) is going to be available from excavations planned by two adjacent land owners within several weeks. That fill would be not only ecologically favorable, but economically opportune as well. As for the Marzolfs, other factors prompt us to ask for your help in settling our case at this time. We are almost sixty years old and wish to retire soon. our dream is to become permanent residents in the St. Croix Valley and to live on land that has been in our family for over half a century. My husband and I are both teachers. We will be free this summer, and we would be able to be on the building site in question, in order to supervise the construction of our home during the months of June, July and August. In addition, both the Marzolfs and the Muellers wish to take advantage of the low interest rates which are available on construction loans at this time. We are also fearful that the rapidly rising cost of lumber may put the homes we have de- signed out of our financial reach, unless they can be built in the near future. Ms. Stoltzfus, on behalf of my husband and the Mueller family, thank you sincerely for taking time to read this cover letter. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours truly, Mary E. Marzolf mem it April 6, 1993 Lorraie C. Stoltzfus, Assistant Attorney General State f Wisconsin, Department of Justice 123 Welt Washington Avenue P.O. B x 7857 Madisoi, Wisconsin 53707-7857 Dear MO. Stoltzfus: Enclos*d please find copies of those documents which we thought would be mos helpful to you as you assess the case which is now before you concerning our property on the St. Croix River. These documents have been a~ranged chronologically, and conclude with a recent letter writ- ten to Mr. David Kluesner, Policy Advisor to Governor Thompson. In ord r that it will give you some idea of the overall picture, I am providing the following time-line summary of what has transpired. 1.111941 My parents, George and Ella Marzolf, purchased approximately 400 acres of Wisconsin farmland, just south of Hudson. This land included roughly l one-half a mile of frontage along the Wisconsin shore of the St. Croix River. I worked on this farm during the summers from 1941 to 1950. 2.11I1950 MY Parents sold this farmland but they retained approximately 68 acres of St. Croix River frontage [most of the one-half mile referred to above]. 3.11957 My parents built a winterized home on a portion of the riverfront acreage which they retained. 4. 1968 Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 were surveyed and platted. With the exception of parcel 4, these lots were subsequently deeded to my siblings a and me by our parents, George and Ella Marzolf, in the fall of that year. At the same time, my ~I parents also conveyed to each of their six sur- viving children a one-sixth interest in their river- front home and in the remaining acreage contiguous with it. 5.'1972 Federal legislation [NR 118] was passed, designating the Lower St. Croix River as a protected scenic riverway. 'Id jl 'r ~V, 6. 1990 Following my mother's and father's deaths in 1980 and in 1990 respectively, the decision was made by my five surviving siblings and myself to sell the St. Croix River home which had originally been built by my parents. The property was sold in June of that year to Douglas and Ann McMillan. According to the listing realtor's activity report, the McMillans were informed that the three lots to the north of my parents' former home could never be built upon per DNR regulations." This information, however, had never been previously substantiated by a test case [Please see paragraph 7, below]. It now appears that the McMillans are very upset with the prospect that the lots adjacent to their own might be developed by l those of us who own them. 7. 1991 The Troy Town Board approved my brother, Bill's, request for permission to build a seasonal cabin on his lot [parcel 5 on enclosed sketch]. The Town Board's approval was forwarded to the St. Croix County Zoning Office, and the application was placed on the Board of Adjustments' agenda for its May, 1991, meeting. At that meeting, the Board of Adjustments inquired of myself and of Dick Mueller as to whether or not we also had intentions of building N on our lots [lots 6 & 7, respectively]. When we each responded in the affirmative, some discussion followed among the members of the Board, and my brother's ap- plication for a building permit was subsequently tabled. My brother, Dick Mueller and I were then asked to develop a "Master Plan" reflecting all three building projects. This was done, and the plan was submitted to the Board of Adjustments at its August, 1992, meeting. 8.11992 The Troy Town Board granted conditional approval to Richard and Mary Marzolf's and to Dick Mueller's ap- plication for permission to fill and grade; the Town Board then forwarded its recommendation to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments. The two conditions contingent upon which the Town Board's approval was granted were immediately complied with [the easement road which provides access to lots 5, 6 and 7 was restored; overhanging tree limbs were pruned so as not to interfere with the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles]. My brother, Bill's, Application to build as well as the Richard and Mary Marzolf and the Dick Mueller application to fill and grade were presented to the I~ ~i St. Croix County Board of Adjustments at its hearing on August 27, 1992. Out of consideration for the objections voiced by Doug McMillan and by his at- torney at that meeting, the Board of Adjustments V tabled the issue, and a motion was made and seconded for it to be continued at the Board's September 24, 1992, meeting. The St. Croix County Board of Adjustments reconvened on September 24, 1992, and the permits referred to above were once again on the agenda. At this meet- ing, Dan Koich [Water Management Specialist, Wis- consin DNR, Eau Claire] spoke pointedly in opposition to our plan, in spite of having previously endorsed it. The Board of Adjustments apparently believed that Mr. Koich's argument was unreasonable, because on October 14, 1992, all three [3] applications [Bill Marzolf's, Richard Marzolf's and Dick Mueller's] were approved. However, in its summons dated November 12, 1992, the Department of Justice of the State of Wisconsin, in a document sent to the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments, ordered the Board of Adjustments to rescind the approvals which had been given to ourselves and to Dick Mueller. In the December, 1992, it was suggested by Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator for St. Croix County, that we [ourselves and Dick Mueller] submit to the Zoning Office and to the DNR in Eau Claire a set of renderings that would illustrate both the existing trees and those which we would plant. The purpose of this vegetation would be to screen the Marzolf/Mueller project areas from the riverway. 9. 1993 On January 25, 1992, two sets of this vegetative screening plan were hand carried by my spouse, Mary, and me to me to Tom Nelson. He, in turn, forwarded the second set to Dan Koich in Eau Claire. As I have indicated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of my [January 28, 1993] letter to David Kluesner, Doug McMillan was the only person present at the August, 1992, Board of Adjustments meeting who raised any opposition to our "Master Plan." Kindly refer to that letter. Doug McMillan spoke in a very vindictive manner at that meeting, and his objections to our "Master Plan" were neither truthful nor substantive. Instead, his remarks bordered on being libelous. i u For many reasons, Ms. Stoltzfus, my wife (Mary) and I, along with the Muelle's, are most anxious to have this issue become resolved: 1.,The property has been in my family for over 52 years; 2. The parcel of land we were given by my parents was IIplatted and deeded to us well in advance of the enact- ment of NR 118, and it is therefore a pre-existing u parcel; 3. Should we be prevented from doing what is legally provided for by the statutes in NR 118, it would seem that this will constitute an unlawful "taking" of land from a land owner; 4. We are close to retirement, and look forward to becoming members of the community in which we have been spending our family vacations for the past 36 years; 5. We have already invested a substantial sum of money in (legal fees; surveyor, sanitary waste and soil testing fees; 1topographic mapping expenses; land appraisal and land acqui- ~sition fees; and court costs in our quest for being given ,!;permission to fill, grade, and then build; 6.!1Mortgage loans in the metropolitan Twin Cities area are at is 20 year low. We would like to take advantage of this opportunity to obtain a mortgage we can afford to pay off on a fixed income; 7. Spring is the optimal season in which to plant those trees which will screen our project area, thus preventing its being from being viewed from the St. Croix River. We are sincere and eager in our intent to comply with the recommendation of the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments by planting the species of trees recommended by the St. Croix County Forestry Office, Baldwin, Wisconsin. 8. Throughout the process of applying for permission to fill, in hopes of then building on our land, we have worked honestly and with integrity in attempting to comply with the requests and recommendations of the various agencies with whom we have been cooperating. If the a is any way in which you can be of help to us, Ms. Stoltzfus, we woud.be most grateful. Should you need additional information, or if you wish to speak with us, please call collect [HOME: (612) 224-886; WORK: (612) 454-6477]. Respectfully and appreciatively, II'I arzolf Richard A. and Mary E. M ',fl 1092 Fairmount Avenue 9 St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 ram j Enclostres NI~ ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ~1 - ICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL CROIX COUNTY COURTHOUSE 9 RTH STREET • HUDSON, WI 54016 - Q fie, (715) 386-4755 December 22, 1992 ,L~qg 4' L k The Honorable Eric J. Lundell Circuit Court Judge \ ~~~G°~ Branch L tiCN St. Croix County Courthouse . Hudson, WI 54016 RE: State of Wisconsin v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment and St. Croix County File No. 92 CV 503 (Mueller) and 92 CV 504 (Marzolf) Dear Judge Lundell: Enclosed is the Board of Adjustment record regarding the above entitled actions. It consists of one expanding file folder with sub-files as follows: - August 27, 1992 Exhibits - September 24, 1992 Exhibits - Transcripts of August 27, 1992, September 24, 1992 and November 25, 1992 - Miscellaneous The Board conducted a joint hearing for both applications; there are not separate transcripts for the 2 files. By copy of this letter, I am notifying Lorraine Stoltzfus, attorney for Plaintiff, of the filing of the record with the Court. Sincerely yours, Grego A. Timmerman Corporation Counsel St. Croix County, Wisconsin GAT/kas Enclosure cc Lorraine Stoltzfus, Assistant Attorney General Tom Nelson, County Zoning Administrator r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING November 23, 1992 (This meeting was recorded by a court reporter) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bradley at 8:00 A.M. Bradley explained the procedures of the hearing, requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their names and addresses on the sheet in the front of the room. Supervisors Kinney, Stephens, Menter, Neuman, and Bradley were all in attendance. Staff included Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator and Greg Timmerman, Corporation Counsel. Menter made a motion seconded by Stephens to approve the agenda. Motion carried. Bradley made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Seccnded-b-y-StepMnri Motion carr The next regular meeting will be December 29, 1992. OLD BUSINESS AMES CONSTRUCTION Greg Paranto presented an amendment to his original request for a nonmetallic mining application for the mining of clay. The new information included a two (2) year limit on the mining and restoration activities. The total depth of the excavation will be no deeper than ten (10) feet, taking about twenty-five thousand (25000) cubic yards of material. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve the request as presented restricting it to a two (2) year operation period. Motion carried. JON-DE FARM Keith Rodli, attorney representing the township of Rush river expressed concerns for a hospital barn that was recently constructed. Nelson stated that the hospital barn had no reflection on the decision of number of animal units permitted by the Jon-De operation. A building permit is required but could not be refused if a proper application was submitted. Discussion on building and waste management plan. NARZOLF AND MUELLER Nelson presented a letter from Dan Koich, DNR, who objected to the conditional approvals granted by the Board of Adjustment on these properties. In his letter he is requesting that it be reconsidered and denied because of the objections of the DNR. Motion by Kinney, seconded by Stephens to leave the decision as it stands in part because of the conflicting testimony given by DNR. Roll call vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, no; Bradley, no. Motion carried to leave the decision as originally granted. NEW BUSINESS Hearing was called to order at 8:30 A.M. Nelson read the notice of the hearing as published: 1. ARTICLE: 17.14(6)(h) Exceeding No. of animal units APPELLANT: Gary Duclos/Duclos Farms LOCATION: Part of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy 2. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(a) Duplex APPELLANT: LaVerne & Rosella Kattre LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond 3. ARTICLE: 17.18(1)(r) Expanding a commercial enterprise APPELLANT: Walter & Deborah Briskie LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 28, T29N-R15W, Town of Springfield 4. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(c) Road setback APPELLANT: Gerald Brennan LOCATION: N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 30, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond 5. ARTICLE: 17.64(5)(2) Driveway separation APPELLANT: Thomas F. Marson LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy 6. ARTICLE: 17.35(5)(C)1 Setback from bluff 17.31(5)(1) Filling and grading APPELLANT: Marc Putman/Dr. John Foker LOCATION: Gov't Lot 1, Sec. 36, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy be met as well as permits for septic system and EPA hazardous material storage. Setback variances to granted providing addition is no closer to the road than the existing structure. THOMAS MARSON Motion by Neuman seconded by Bradley to deny the request for the driveway separation of less than five hundred (500) feet. No hardship could be shown. Roll call vote: Kinney, no; Menter, yes; Stephens, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried 4:1. Respectively submitted: T Georg Menter, secre a rvy TCN:cj / I i GARY DUCLOS/DUCLOS FARMS Nelson read a letter from Gary Duclos stating that he was withdrawing his application and that he would operate his farm in accordance to the St. Croix County Zoning ordinance. Discussion. LAVERNE & ROSELLA KATTRE Nelson stated that this proposal was for a duplex in the Ag.- Residential district of Richmond Township. He outlined the standards that should be considered when reviewing this application. Rosella presented her request stating that they were selling the residence and the new owners wanted to make sure it had the proper permits. Discussion on the existing construction. WALTER & DEBORAH BRISKIE. Wafer presented a request for special exception to expand his grinding business by adding onto the existing building. The current structure is also too close to the town road and requires a setback variance. Discussion on lot size, septic system, and commercial code requirements. GERALD BRENNAN Gerald was not present to give testimony. THOMAS MARSON Joe Ryan presented a request to place a driveway less than five hundred (500) feet along STH 35. There should be access along the town road but so as to not interrupt the efficiency of the farming of the property they are requesting this access. Upon completion of the hearing the Board of Adjustment visited each site in question after which they entered in closed session to render the following decisions: MARC PUTMAN/DR. JOHN FOKER Prior to the hearing, Marc Putman requested that their hearing be delayed until the next month so as to receive DNR recommendations. LAVERNE & ROSELLA KATTRE Motion by Stephens seconded by Bradley to conditionally approve the duplex use providing the lower bedroom has a safe egress window and smoke detectors are installed on both levels. Motion carried. - "IFAIj=-- 4 DEBOd- BRISKiEd Motion by Menter seconded by Kinney to conditionally approve the expansion of the grinding shop. All commercial building codes must ST. CROIX COUNTY ~ ;,l . WISCONSIN OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL ST. CROIX COUNTY COURTHOUSE 911 FOURTH STRE W154016 MEMO `a Itonz, 410~,, t~ TO: Members, St. Croix County Board of Adjustment - , , Tom Nelson, County Zoning Administrator, Dan Koich, DNR FROM: Greg Timmerman, St. Croix County Corporation Couns DATE: November 17, 1992 RE: Marzolf and Mueller Hearings - September 24, 1992 This memo is in response to Dan Koich's letter to Chairman Bradley, dated November 2, 1992, regarding the above referenced hearing. A copy of the letter is attached. The purported effect of Mr. Koich's letter is to overrule the Board of Adjustment's decision in the Richard A. Marzolf appeal and the Richard G. Mueller appeal. Apparently the William J. Marzolf appeal is not objected to, since he does not mention that in his letter. Mr. Koich claims that special exception permits, conditional use permits, amendments or variances cannot be approved over the objections of the Department. That is true so long as the objections and the basis therefore are submitted to the Board of Adjustment in writing and the Department of Natural Resources appears at the hearing to explain its written objections. Mr. Koich claims that he presented "written testimony expressing the Department's objection." In a letter to Tom Nelson dated September 23, 1992, admitted as Exhibit 4 at the hearing, Mr. Koich indicates that "I have changed my opinion..." He had previously appeared before the Board and testified to his full support of the Marzolf and Mueller applications. Then he appeared at the hearing on September 24th with his letter of objection. This certainly raises questions of due process and fair play. He offers as an explanation for his change of heart that his support was clouded by a willingness to help. God forbid that a public servant should be willing to help a member of the public. His willingness to help removed his objectivity and his ability to review. We must conclude from this that the only way Mr. Koich can do his job objectively is to be totally unhelpful to the public. St. Croix County should not encourage that kind of "robotic behavior." I don't believe Mr. Koich's letter fulfills the spirit or intent of the ordinance requiring written objections. Mr. Koich also states in his letter that the variance granted is improper because it will result in a change in the natural appearance of the shoreline, slope or bluffline as viewed from the river. That condition applies to an application for a variance to a setback requirement. The Richard A. Marzolf and Richard G. Mueller decisions indicate that the variance requested was for grading and filling, not for a reduction in setback. Therefore, Mr. Koich's reason for objecting to a setback variance is incorrectly applied to a grading and filling variance. Mr. Koich concludes that he has the authority to overrule the Board of Adjustment's decisions. I could find no provision in the Wisconsin Administrative Code to support that position. I believe the Department of Natural Resources would be required to follow the provisions of §59.99(10), Wisconsin Statutes, allowing any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Adjustment to file within 30 days of the filing of the decision a petition seeking the remedy available by certiorari. (However, since it appears that the Department did not follow its own administrative code requirement of submitting written objections to the Board, the DNR may be precluded from having the Board's decisions reviewed by a Court.) If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. GAT/kas Enclosure i 1i F r I 'WISCONSIN , tnte of Wiccnn.-qin DEPARTMFNT OF NAMRAL RFS011RCFS DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2004 Highland Avenue Eau Claire, WI 54701-4316 Carroll D. Besadny TELEPHONE 715-8-19-TM Secretary TELEFAX 715409-1605 November 2, 1992 File Ref: 3590 St. Croix Co. Board of Adjustment John Bradley, Chairman 309 North River Road O D River Falls, WI 54022 Subject: Marzolf and Mueller Dear Mr. Bradley: At the September 24, 1992 Board of Adjustment hearing I presented both oral and written testimony expressing the Department's objection to the variance and conditional use permits by Richard A. "Buzz" Marzolf and Richard G. Mueller. On October 15,1992, I received the written decision of the board which conditionally approves the permits. Section 3.12 6.6 (3) of St. Croix County's Lower St. Croix Scenic Riverway Zoning Ordinance and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 118.07(2)(c) state: Special exception permits, conditional use permits, amendments or variances shall not be approved over the objections of the department. We feel that the variance you granted is not supportable for the following reasons: I 1.. Your ordinance and NR 118 both state that " ...no variance shall be granted for a setback which results in a change in the natural appearance of the shoreline, slope of bluffline as viewed from the river." Testimony from myself, Douglas McMillian, and his attorneys clearly indicates that there will in fact be a change in the natural appearance of the shoreline and slope as viewed from the water. 2. The application or plans submitted by the applicants do not show how the natural appearance of the shoreline will be preserved. (In addition, the Department still has not received a copy of the revised plans submitted at the September hearing.) I made the board aware of the Department's objections to these proposals from the testimony I presented at the hearing, therefore the department must overrule these permits as the permits issued by the board are not valid. By means of a copy of this letter, the applicants are also notified that their permits are void and no work may begin. The Board of Adjustments must bring this issue back onto its agenda, make a finding of fact that the project was objected to by the department, and reverse the decision. In this manner, compliance with the ordinance and code will be achieved. ncerely, j Koich Water Regulation and Zoning Specialist cc: E. Bourget T. Nelson R. Mueller R. Marzolf L. Grooms. (D. McMillian) R. Henneger R. Mudge w a _ O to 0217 q ~ : 9 L*~ C T co d F ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING November 23, 1992 (This meeting was recorded by a court reporter) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bradley at 8:00 A.M. Bradley explained the procedures of the hearing, requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their names and addresses on the sheet in the front of the room. Supervisors Kinney, Stephens, Menter, Neuman, and Bradley were all in attendance. Staff included Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator and Greg Timmerman, Corporation Counsel. Menter made a motion seconded by Stephens to approve the agenda. Motion carried. Bradley made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Stephens. Motion carried. The next regular meeting will be December 29, 1992. OLD BUSINESS AMES CONSTRUCTION Greg Paranto presented an amendment to his original request for a nonmetallic mining application for the mining of clay. The new information included a two (2) year limit on the mining and restoration activities. The total depth of the excavation will be no deeper than ten (10) feet, taking about twenty-five thousand (25000) cubic yards of material. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve the request as presented restricting it to a two (2) year operation period. Motion carried. JON-DE FARM Keith Rodli, attorney representing the township of Rush river expressed concerns for a hospital barn that was recently constructed. Nelson stated that the hospital barn had no reflection on the decision of number of animal units permitted by the Jon-De operation. A building permit is required but could not be refused if a proper application was submitted. Discussion on building and waste management plan. MARZOLF AND MUELLER Nelson presented a letter from Dan Koich, DNR, who objected to the conditional approvals granted by the Board of Adjustment on these properties. In his letter he is requesting that it be reconsidered and denied because of the objections of the DNR. Motion by Kinney, seconded by Stephens to leave the decision as it stands in part because of the conflicting testimony given by DNR. Roll call vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, no; Bradley, no. Motion carried to leave the decision as originally granted. NEW BUSINESS Hearing was called to order at 8:30 A.M. Nelson read the notice of the hearing as published: 1. ARTICLE: 17.14(6)(h) Exceeding No. of animal units APPELLANT: Gary Duclos/Duclos Farms LOCATION: Part of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy 2. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(a) Duplex APPELLANT: LaVerne & Rosella Kattre LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond 3. ARTICLE: 17.18(1)(r) Expanding a commercial enterprise APPELLANT: Walter & Deborah Briskie LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 28, T29N-R15W, Town of Springfield 4. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(c) Road setback APPELLANT: Gerald Brennan LOCATION: N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 30, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond 5. ARTICLE: 17.64(5)(2) Driveway separation APPELLANT: Thomas F. Marson LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy 6. ARTICLE: 17.35(5)(C)1 Setback from bluff 17.31(5)(1) Filling and grading APPELLANT: Marc Putman/Dr. John Foker LOCATION: Gov't Lot 1, Sec. 36, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy GARY DUCLOS/DUCLOS FARMS Nelson read a letter from Gary Duclos stating that he was withdrawing his application and that he would operate his farm in accordance to the St. Croix County Zoning ordinance. Discussion. LAVERNE & ROSELLA KATTRE Nelson stated that this proposal was for a duplex in the Ag.- Residential district of Richmond Township. He outlined the standards that should be considered when reviewing this application. Rosella presented her request stating that they were selling the residence and the new owners wanted to make sure it had the proper permits. Discussion on the existing construction. WALTER & DRI)ORAR BRISKIB Walter presented a request for special exception to expand his grinding business by adding onto the existing building. The current structure is also too close to the town road and requires a setback variance. Discussion on lot size, septic system, and commercial code requirements. GERALD BRENNAN Gerald was not present to give testimony. THOMAS MARSON Joe Ryan presented a request to place a driveway less than f ive hundred (500) feet along STH 35. There should be access along the town road but so as to not interrupt the efficiency of the farming of the property they are requesting this access. Upon completion of the hearing the Board of Adjustment visited each site in question after which they entered in closed session to render the following decisions: MARC PUTMAN/DR. JOHN FOKER Prior to the hearing, Marc Putman requested that their hearing be delayed until the next month so as to receive DNR recommendations. LAVERNE & ROSELLA KATTRE Motion by Stephens seconded by Bradley to conditionally approve the duplex use providing the lower bedroom has a safe egress window and smoke detectors are installed on both levels. Motion carried. I= 11 1 ammm BRISKI Motion by Menter seconded by Kinney to conditionally approve the expansion of the grinding shop. All commercial building codes must i be met as well as permits for septic system and EPA hazardous material storage. Setback variances to granted providing addition is no closer to the road than the existing structure. THOMAS MARSON Motion by Neuman seconded by Bradley to deny the request for the driveway separation of less than five hundred (500) feet. No hardship could be shown. Roll call vote: Kinney, no; Menter, yes; Stephens, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried 4:1. Respectively submitted: Georg Menter, secre a y TCN:cj w ~ cop BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN The Application of: DECISION Richard A. & Mary E. Marzolf File No. 55-92 41' A hearing was held in the above referenced matter on Aug. 27, 1992 before the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, Chairperson Bernard Kinney and members, George Sinclear, Robert Stephens, John Bradley, and George Menter. The applicant, Richard & Mary Marzolf, whose address is 1092 Fairmont Ave.; St. Paul, MN 55105 requests a variance permit pursuant to Section 17.36(5)1 of the St. Croix County zoning ordinance for' the following described parcel of land, which applicant owns located in Gov't Lots 1 & 2, Section 13, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The applicant proposes to place fill in the floodplain to a level of one (1) feet dbove the floodplain elevation. This filled area will then be constructed upon so that the residence is one (1) foot above the filled area (two (2) feet above the floodplain) and at least fifteen (15) feet from the edge of the filled area. The structure will be less than one hundred (100) feet from the ordinary high water mark and immediately adjacent to the private road easement. The undue hardship applicant claims as a basis for the variance is the parcel that is in question is a parcel that was created prior to the effective date of the ordinance as a buildable lot. Due to the elevation of the property in relationship to the floodplain and the fact the property`, cannot meet the setbacks, a reasonable structure cannot be sited on the property. FINDINGS OF FACT (1.) Single family residences are permitted uses in the Riverway District. (2.) The lot in question was created prior to the effective date of the ordinance. (3.) The ordinance requires the residential structures to be two (2) feet above the floodplain elevation and two hundred (200) feet setback from the ordinary high water mark. (4.) The project is described in the permit and plans. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board of Adjustment has the authority to grant variance permits as per 17.36(5)(c)2 and 17.70(6)(c) of the ordinance, to the setback requirements for pre-existing parcels only where the applicant has proven that a hardship exists. The Board of Adjustment also has the authority to grant special exceptions as per 17.70(7) of the ordinance. DECISION Based on the finding of fact and conclusions of law, the application of Richard & Mary Marzolf for a variance permit is conditionally approved with the following conditions: 1. Stake the site showing the fill and buildable area as defined on the map; 2. Establish the fill area elevation and building elevation to a permanent bench mark; 3. Develop a stabilization plan for the fill area (seeding & mulching & silt fence) and time table as to when this will be done; 4. Develop a screening plan for planting trees. The basis of this decision is to permit the structures so they are visually inconspicuous to the river. The plan should be developed so that there is a density of trees of at least f ive (5) rows deep within a thirty (30) foot screening area. This should utilize existing trees and trees to be planted. Planted trees should be of a size and species that will provide rapid growth for rapid screening; 5. Prior to issuance of the sanitary permit and building permit complete building plans must be submitted for review so as to chick for compliancy. These plans should include the final site plan. These plans will then become part of the permanent file. 6. Color of house will be approved by providing a paint chip to the Zoning Administrator for approval prior to painting or staining; 7. All the above requirements are to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and in some cases the Land Conservation Office prior to implementation. NAME YES/NO Voting: John Bradlely yes Bernard Kinney yes George Menter yes Robert Stephens yes Jerome Neuman no y r 4 This decision expires after one year from the date of the decision. If the proposal is not commenced within that time, a new application must be submitted and approved before proceeding with the proposal. If the proposal is not completed within that time, an extension of the decision must be obtained. This decision may be revoked by the Board, after notice and hearing, if any condition of the decision is violated. This decision may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the decision by filing with the St. Croix County Circuit Court an action for certiorari within thirty (30) days of the date of filing this decision. Applicant assumes all risk of relying on this decision within the thirty (30) day appeal period. John Bradley , Chairman Filed: DATE: Oct. 14, 1992 I i I I . . . . . . . . . . TOWN OF TROY St. Croix County 706 Coulee Trail Hudson, WI 54016 August 12, 1992 Mr. Thomas Nelson, Zoning Administrator St. Croix County Courthouse 911 Fourth Street Hudson, WI 54016 RE:. Piueller/Marzolf request for filling Dear Mr. Nelson: At the recent Town Board meeting it was the understanding that your office had expressed concern regarding the Richard Marzolf lot. The feeling apparently was that since he owns more land across the road, he could put a house there. It is the feeling of the Town Board that the land across the road is immaterial. Since this is a pre-existing lot, the ownership of the land on the other side of the road should have no bearing on the river lot. Troy had recommended approval, based on the engineering of the road. Sincerely, Margaret DesLauriers, Clerk co ti r c~ C,- O ~n o 4z m ~ a rr~` . ti r ~ r Z-X 3 le ST. CROIX CO. ZONING OFFICE 911 4th St. Hudson, WI (715) 386-4680 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION NO: FEE: $150.00 DATE-7 / -3 i / APPLICANT OR AGENT: ~ c2 D c I ; /A ADDRESS L oc ` iLA,Jls I vi WU O - PHO ` & Z U U NE: Co !OWNER: 1L- -kk0--YiQ UyLt.~tiu.Q-~ ADDRESS : - N, c_ r v 1 lam. v, +Iuc~ S - \ } - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT, I SUBDIVISION: 1/4, Sec. I ~ , T.26 N, R,)~vW, Town of_ y(L~U PARCEL NO: VARIANCE. SPECIAL EXCEPTION X This property is currently used for reL✓ec,_) and has been used continuously since 1_~~w c`t~ Ez~~r.►u ,r~ c cam, ~i~,~ to 6~;lcQ SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOTE: Special exception use permits are granted in the discretion of the Board of Adjustment Committee. The are made available to validate uses which, while not approved within the zoning district in question, are deemed to be compatible with approved uses and/or not found to be hazardous, harmful, offensive or otherwise adverse to other uses, subject to review by the circumstances and the imposition of conditions, subject to the provisions of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. If it is your belief that a special exception use permit should be granted to you for the above-described property, please set forth, in detail, the intended use of the property and your justification in applying for such a permit: ✓l CSC ott" a Ll CT (i~~ Get ze,:~4 d ~ At'_~ lnno Iw;AI~'j ("'h 1 ~ f~lYlf 1 t_t~' ~7 i ~(~~~~h ~1?c7c f2zfvr~ ~1 ~Uv~ ~fctc~ d7c~r ~U$C7_i~nc~1Ct17~~ c V~r~2 7 4 , i-~ ~k ~1c4 C~ ( C + C~ f~ nCf w t U ~tQ t ~2r Ct.L( Sk f S I C i U; U 1 t n lL,UC~~-t~ VARIANCE NOTE: Variances from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be applied for-only where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in an "unnecessary hardship" which is defined, in the Zoning Ordinance as meaning "an unusual or extreme decrease in the adaptability of the property to the uses permitted by the zoning district, which is caused by facts, such as rough terrain or good soil conditions, uniquely applicable to the particular piece of property as ,distinguished rom those applicable to most or all property in 'the same zonin'' district" . If you believe that under the facts and circumstances unique to your property a variance could be granted to you, under the definition cited above, please set for both the type of variance which you are requesting and the reasons that you have for making the request. 1 ry C Y ~JVIG'•~~Gl CC ✓i-UCA ~ , U"J Y! ~Z ~ G'` L•~1 C t . w~ f'E L "vY L! T ~ lE'u ~c'ln ~L✓~ ~ J tad lt rc~L:c, f 1c n~_ ( ~~cc_Y 1 L is ) Zit Cx l„e1 l~+Z tE 5 ( G~YtYy11( 1 ~Y~ 1 , u C(- {r~r ; lcd vti o ~ {z~k_ l(x' u s (~Q , ~ { t-f k Gl G V"rti1S i' lec ld i The section below is to be completed by the Zoning Office. A Variance/Special Exception use permit is requested as authorized by Section OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES: THE APPLICANT, AS WITNESSED BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS READ AND THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE FOLLOWING: 1. Go to Township for approval and have Township send letter to the Zoning Office stating their position on your request. 2. Applicants must submit a site plan showing distances from property lines; roads, and/or water. 3. Applicants are to submit a list of adjoining property owners including those directly across the road and their addresses. 2 4. Applicants will be heard by the Board of Adjustment committee. After a public hearing on the application, at which time testimony and arguments will be received, the Committee will adjourn to view the sites in question after which time they will reconvene to render decisions. However, the applicant should not consider the decision to be final until written notice of the decision has been presented to him. 5. At the public hearing the applicant may appear in person or through an agent or an attorney of his choice. The applicant/agent/attorney may present testimony and evidence and arguments in support of his application. 6. The fact that an application for a permit has been filed does not *automatically mean that a permit is granted. If you are uncertain as to how to present your case you may want to consider the advise of legal counsel. ,7. The fee as bssed for this application is nonrefundable. 8. All site plans, pictures, and etc. become property of the Zoning Office and.will remain in your file. 9. Statements of representatives of the Board of Adjustment made to you concerning matters of whether the Committee can, will, or will not grant the permits you seek are understood to constitute the opinions of those represetatives. Staff are not empowered to act on behalf or instead of the Board of Adjustment Committee. 10. Applications must be returned to the Zoning office by the end of the month prior to the month of the next regular meeting. Board of Adjustment meetings are held the fourth Thursday of every month. Any assistance in the filling out of this application will be provided you by a representative of the St. Croix County Zoning Office at your request. DATE: - s / G Z SIGNED- plicant/Agent e~ 2- owner 8/90 cj 3 to _ s rte f Part of G ^r't Lots 3 ac. ? _ S ion 13-28-20 St. Croix County, 41s-. .^.Qirl desirr-Sir:foilo-4g- (:mkiiencing- at a point on the Nox#h a _ - tine of said G©verrn n Lot 1, a c2ls anee of 743.0 feet 'test of the Northeast corner of said Govert nt Wt 1; thence 6out.n paraiiei s wish the East l-'_ of Ysaid--Govenmen' -Lot 3,', -a distance of 1230.0 feet; (said last described lint: hatuil-,an assumed.bearinc3 of due South) thence - due:=West, -a-.distance .of .34A; th6r c dt*- S6qth, a; _distance of - = 788.0_feet, (to a paint to, bie known as point "A") thence North 67 - ,-1h degrees 10 minutes West, a 3lstance of -2°0.0 fe- 41 et; ` ~henc e tb 5„ degrees-.4C-.:ninu*~s 4e'est, _a dstance 40` 3 ;eet, ` (tn a pnir~t.i known ;as point "B") ; thence North 70 degrees 10 minutes West, a _ distance of 4177.0 feet, thence North 47 degrees 10 minutes West, a distance of-310:0-feet met ce I3 -r -12'~degre~s 410=minut~s West; a distance of-289-:50 feet to-`the_adtual point-o1 beggz of the tract - of land to be described;; thence continuing North 12 degrees 40 minutes watt a Mi~thnc~ of 385 feet. more or less, to tle_Easterly shore line of St. Croix Lake; `hence Southerly along said Easterly shore line to a point in a line bearing n+ of -lY?vi nnina:. thence _East, a distance of 420 feet, ulc 'PO/ .lA 4.. Vt ucy saaa a...y-, Together with and subject to a road easement for ingress and egress to said' tract;--over that part--of=said Government Lots -1--and, 2,_--Section 13-28-20 described as follows: A 30.0-foot road eassme<,t ly~West of and adjacent .the f o 1 lowing described line Beginnirt At,, e e ve a a 3- `distance of 6217 feet; more or uescr~ed point yA ~_nrn d,l~ South rrnent Lot 2, and there tezmnats.rig, less, to--the South line of said ;cove ' - Also, A 30._0 foot, road easement `-being,_15.0 feet on either, side of the following described line: Beginning at the above described point '"A" thence North 67 degrees 10 minutes West, a distance of. 290.0 feet; thence North 53 degrees 40 minutes West,'•a distance of 400 .-0 feet; (to the above described point-_ "B°) ; thence-=North `70 degrees,-10--m mutes' West, _ a distance -of177.0 feet, thence__Nor*th--:47 degrees-l0 minutes West, a distance of 310.0 feet; tYxence North 12 degrees 40 minutes West, a distance,.of 450 feet.and there terminating. Lt •Eaenyan FOR RECORMNO DATA - VT. u~eooAhlTV nFFrf (I II STATZ k3AR OF WISCONSIN FORRi _ l9924 R'S j' REGISSE OFFICE ST. CROIX CO., W1 it 11 ! aec'd fat- Record ` THOMAS. A..._IVZAZOL' I{ Jan. 1~., 1988 ii 450 p ii II - _ l Ij cauvevs and warrants to RICIL RD...G....MU LEER it R*2,1derOf Deeds - - i 11 . - R-- - kt,.Jtl1Y : v ii 1! II St Croix !I__ - the,iollowing described real estate JU Geunty, State of Wisconsin: ` II ~I • -91, Parcel No: S- EE REVERSE FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~I n t - n . - m is not., rnn acr:r»ri pruner t±. I( (is) (is not) I xceptior to warranties: Subject to easements, reservations, restrictions -I~ and rights.-of-way of record, if any. T'f ~ II Dated this . day of 79 ! I~ ~ II - .-(51+AL)~ (SEAL) ii . w -.-Thomas..-A... Iii fzolf 1 - ......._..-(SEAT,) (S1s`AT.,i I I ~i II ATT PUR vTICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT - it cmAm~ TAT. OF tiyl._r 1,S 1.1 1 Signature (s) „ O ~ SS. St Croix autnenticai:eri ibis flay Gf 19 f a r, (r y , Personally came before me this . ii December 10 tS the above named Thomas A. Marzolf t; TITLE: MEMBER STATE BAR. OF WTSC'ON51ti (if not . authorized by 706A6, Wis. Stets.) ,n n n a n to he •:n r„'5 INSTRIMA.FNT WAS DRAFT EL) °Y ..r Robert W. Mudge, Att(-'rney at Law tr.lr,1 110 Second Street Ra crT ytr, /?I (~j riixasvrr;.. ..-50 1 r'. St. Grr~~;. are not Ar'ttAN I t i): ; RICHARD A. MARZOLF 1092 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55105 July 15, 1992 Mr. Daniel S. Koichi Water Management Specialist State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources 2004 Highland Avenue Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701-4346 Dan: Please accept my apologies; it was my intent to have these materials in the mail to you last Tuesday. Because of my son's wedding last Saturday, and because of commitments to family members who were visiting from out-of-town, I had no free time until yesterday in which to make an additional set of the cross- sections you had requested from us earlier. As I have indicated in my enclosed letter to you, the location of the OHWM is of critical importance to us. It is our understanding of the St. Croix County interpretation of NR 118 that-only if no variance(s) is(are) requested--may we then build a home whose maximum height is 35 feet, as specified in paragraph NR 118.06 (5) titled HEIGHT. When you have had a chance to look over my enclosed letter along with the accompanying documentation from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,- would-you kindly get in touch with Tom Nelson in - regard to this appeal. As you will note on the last page of my enclosed letter to you he, also, has been sent a duplicate copy of this mailing. If you and Tom are willing to concede that the OHWM is, in fact, the 676.60 feet above mean sea level (1912 adjusted), shown at the bottom of page 3 of 6 of my July 2, 1992 letter to you [enclosed], and if you are also able to grant ap- proval for filling of the two building sites which are currently in the flood plain, would you kindly give me that approval, in writing, before Monday, July 27, 1992. We will then know where we stand on this issue in time to prepare sufficiently for the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments August, 1992 meeting. You, may send your reply to me at the address on this stationery. I would also like you to know that at its July 13, 1992 meeting, we applied to the Troy Town Board [Dean Albert, Chairman] for an exceptional use permit which would grant us permission to fill, subject to your approval. This permission was granted by a unanimous vote of the Town Board. Once again, thank you for taking the time on June 17 to come to the site in question. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincere i hard ram/Enclosures 67r cc: Tom Nelson, Dick Mueller, Jim Weber, Bill Marzolf RICHARD A. MARZOLF 1092 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55105 July 20, 1992 Richard Mueller, Ann and Robert Cummings True Value Hardware Plaza 94 Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Dear Dick, Annie and Robert: Enclosed is a copy of my July 2, 1992 letter that was sent to Dan Koich. I have also attached a copy of the cover letter written last week, in which I requested that Dan grant his ap- proval, in writing, for the fill we need. As you will note, I asked him to reply to us before Monday, July 27, in order that we may then prepare for the August St. Croix County Board of Adjustments meeting. All of the materials [July 2nd letter, aerial topographic map, six cross-sections, site plan showing locations of the three proposed homesites, and my July 15th cover letter] were sent to Dan Koich by certified mail last Wednesday, July 15, and I have been mailed a receipt which indicates that they arrived at the DNR offices in Eau Claire on Thursday, July 16. I will let you know as soon as I hear from Dan Koich. Dick, thank you for representing us so well at the July 9th and 13th Troy Town Board meetings. Sincerely, Richard A. Marzolf ram Enclosure Page 2 of 6 embankment which made the identification of characteristics a-d of the definition somewhat easier. As you will recall, we found a shallow "shelf" which appeared to have been caused by the erosive action of surface water at some time in the past. It was then determined that this "shelf" would define the OHWM, and we placed a flagged stake at that point. We have been on a family vacation, out of town, for the past week, and as I reflected on what had transpired on June 17, when we met at the site in question, I became increasingly concerned about an apparent contradiction. The contradiction is this: If the OHWM is, in fact, the point on the em- bankment at the foot of the flagged stake which was placed there, then the last several steps on the stairs which lead to the sand beach in front of the three developed properties which are closest to that stake would have been continuously under water, for significant periods of time. During the 52 years in which my family has been enjoying our property on the St. Croix River, that has simply not been the case. The property in question has been in our family since the year 1940. We can recall only several periods of time during which the elevation of the river was so high that we did not have use of the waterfront. These periods of time include the years 1965 and 1969 when the water rose to 694.09 and 692.24 feet above mean sea level respectively. My wife, Mary, and I have already invested a considerable amount of money and time in our attempt to abide by and conform with the statutes con- tained in NR 118 [Standards and Criteria for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway] as we pursue the possibility of building a retirement home on waterfront land given to us by my parents which was then platted and deeded to us prior to the enactment of NR 118. Because the particular parcels in question (Dick Mueller's lot and our lot) are characterized by such a gentle slope, any vertical error committed in determining where the OHWM is situated will result in a corresponding horizontal error that will be many, many times greater if the 200 foot setback ordinance is then applied to that incorrect OHWM. Since paragraph (3), (a),.2. of NR 118.06 stipulates that the minimum setback from the OHWM shall be not less that 200 feet, as exact a determination as possible of the OHWM is therefore critical. Because the ultimate location of the home we have designed is so contingent upon the exact location of the OHWM, I recently went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offices in downtown St. Paul for assistance. What follows is a summary of what I learned and of the conclusions which I have subsequently reached. 1. The Corps of Engineers personnel with whom I spoke, either in person or on the telephome, are: a) Gordon E. Heitzman, P.E. [Civil Engineer, Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch; (612) 220-06201 b) Robert Engelstad [Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch; (612) 220-0602] Page 1 of 6 Richard A. and Mary E. Marzolf 1092 Fairmount Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (612) 224-8896 July 2, 1992 Mr. Daniel S. Koich, Water Management Specialist State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2004 Highland Avenue Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701-4346 Dear Dan: Thank you for coordinating our June 17, 1992 meeting between yourself, Gary Lepak, my brother Bill, Dick Mueller, his daughter Ann and her husband Robert Cummings, my wife Mary and me. We are grateful for the helpful input we received from you and from Gary at that time. Regarding the elevation we arrived at for the Ordinary High Water Mark [0HWM],9I have the following reservations and concerns. While reading through the Wisconsin DNR publication titled Building Near Wetlands (PURL- WZ - WZ021 91; JG WZ41 91; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, August, 1991) I came across this definition in the "Wetland Glossary." Ordinary High Water Mark The OHWM defines the bed of a lake, river, or stream. It is [that] point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and action of surface water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark a) by erosion, b) by destruction or prevention of ter- restrial vegetation, c) by predominance of aquatic vegetation, d) or [by some] other easily recognized characteristic. The use of the word "or" in paragraph d, above, implies that any one (or perhaps a combination of several) of the conditions listed in items a-d are useful in determining the OHWM. I accept that, but I do so with the following reservations. Because the slope of Dick Mueller's lot and of our lot is so gentle, it was necessary for us to.walk several hundred yards south along the shore to the property owned by my brother, George, where there was a well-defined Page 4 of 6 4. Dan, please note that this average pool elevation of 676.60 feet above mean sea.level is 5.40 feet lower than the approximate 682.00 feet which was thought to be the OHWM when--on June 17, 1992--we examined the embankment on my brother George's property, then placed a flagged stake at the apparent OHWM, and finally had Jim Weber (Registered Land Surveyor) transfer that approximate 682.00 foot elevation onto the site maps we have been using in our dis- cussions with you, with Gary Lepac and with Tom Nelson. This approximate 682.00 foot elevation now appears on those maps as a contour line, outlined in red, along with a benchmark of 702.50 feet above mean sea level which Jim Weber established by driving an iron spike into a tree which is in very close proxi- mity to the lots on which Dick Mueller and I would like to build our homes. 5. According to Bob Engelstad [Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN; June 29, 1992] the bed of the St. Croix River-and therefore the elevation of its water surface--drops approximately one-half (2) of a foot between Stillwater and Hudson, and again an additional one-half (2) of a foot between Hudson and St. Mary's Point. Hudson is approximately 7 miles downstream from Stillwater, and St. Mary's Point, in turn, is approximately 5 miles south of Hudson. Were it not for this constant drop in the elevation of the river bed, the water would not flow downstream. 6. If, for the ten (10) years during which the Corps of Engineers kept records at both the Hudson and Stillwater bridges, the ten annual highs at Hudson are subtracted from their corresponding counterparts at Stillwater [see pages 4 and 3 respectively of the attached data sheets], and if the resulting differences are averaged, the average difference in elevation between the water surface at Stillwater and that at Hudson is 0.53 feet. This is very consistent with the above information provided by Bob Englestad. If it can be assumed that the riverway between Stillwater, MN and Prescott, WI is of approximately uniform depth, then the elevation of the surface of the pool should be therefore inversely proportional to the width of the riverway at any given location along its course. That is, the narrower the riverway, the greater the pool elevation, and--conversely-- the wider the riverway, the lower the elevation of the surface of the pool. The fact that our property and that of Dick Mueller are situated along the Page 3 of 6 c) Donna Zappa [Electronic Service Center, Lock and Dam No. 3, Hastings, MN; (612) 437-2210) d) Greg Eggers and Terry Engle [Hydrology Section; (612) 220-06071 2. On June 19, 1992, Gordon Heitzman provided me with the enclosed four-page set of high and low pool levels for the St. Croix River, recorded at Stillwater, MN, and at Hudson, WI, and dating from the year 1850. This data base represents a period of 141 years, 35 leap days, 5 months and the first 19 days of the sixth month (June) of 1992. In total, the data en- compasses a period of 51,671 days, arrived at in the following manner: 141 years x 365 days + 35 leap days + 171 days in 1992 = 51,671 days 1 year 3. The first three (3) of the attached pages contain 281 dif- ferent sets of high and low pool levels which were processed into an average as follows: Pg. 1 (1850-1916): 40 sets of high readings, having for their sum 3,295.06 feet 68 sets of low readings, having for their sum 4,860.46 feet Pg. 2 (1917-1964): 53 sets of high readings, having for their sum 4,345.34 feet 62 sets of low readings, having for their sum 4,425.08 feet Pg. 3 (1965-1992): 28 sets of high readings, having for their sum 2,352.61 feet 30 sets of low readings, having for their sum 2,246.12 feet The average of these data sets was next calculated in the following manner: (3,295.06 + 4,860.46 + 4,345.34 + 4,425.08 + 2,352.61 + 2,246.12) ft. _ 21,425.67 feet (40 + 68 + 53 + 62 + 28 + 30) sets of data 281 readings = 76.60 feet = 676.60 feet Page 6 of 6 elevations of 678.2, 677.2, 676.4, 677.0, 679.5, 678.8, 680.5 and 679.5 feet printed on them on that topographic map. I am calling these facts to your attention, Dan, in hopes that this will enable you to more clearly understand the perspective from which I am appealing the 682.0 foot figure. If the OHWM really is 682.0 feet, then the pond would not be a pond at all. Instead, it would continuously appear, year after year, as merely a bay along the east shore of Lake St. Croix. In point of fact, this has never been the case, except on those rare and extraordinary occasions [1965 and 1969 for example] when we have experienced extraordinarily high water along the St. Croix River. In conclusion I would like to mention one more factor which I believe is quite significant. When I saw Gordon Heitzman on June 17, 1992, he in- formed me that the pool level of the St. Croix River is established and maintained by what he referred to as the "project pool" at Lock and Dam No. 3, at Hastings, Minnesota. In the upper right-hand corner of the third page of data which he gave me that day, he wrote in by hand the words "675 = project pool for L & D #3." This gives further evidence in support of my belief that the OHWM in the vicinity of our property and Dick Mueller's property could not be 682.0 feet, but is more likely to be the 676.6 feet which represents the average of 142 years of recorded data. Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read through, and to consider, the contents of this letter and the attached documentation. Please telephone me if you have any questions. Respectfully, Richard A. and Mary E. Marzo ram cc: Tom Nelson Jim Weber Dick Mueller Ann Mueller WEBER u s LAND SURVEYING ~ 1421 k st. Menomonie River Falls • Certified Survey Man • Topographic Mapping • Consh cdon Staking ; ter: DICED • Site planning 1 ee . s+ e*wya • Flom Tea" JAMES M. WEBER - Registered Land Surveyor s 421 N. Main St. Residence 772-3264 $21 N. Broadway River Fails, WI 54022 Menomonie, WI 54751 (715) 425.0164 (715) 235-6641 Page 5 of 6 shoreline of Lake St. Croix [i.e. along the very widest portion of the river between its source and its confluence with the Mississippi], adds further support to our belief that the Ordinary High Water Mark at our property is considerably lower (5.40 feet lower to be exact) than the approximate 682.00 feet at which we arrived on June 17, 1992. Dan, I found on the four data sheets from the Corps of Engineers that on only 72 dates in the 51,671 days which have elapsed since 1850, the'year in which the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers began maintaining records on the pool levels of the lower St. Croix River, has the recorded level of the river been at, or in excess of, the approximate 682.00 foot elevation which we arrived at visually on June 17, 1992. Expressed as a percent, 72 days x 100% = 0.139% 51,671 days In other words, the surface of the river at Stillwater has.been at an elevation that was either at, or in excess of, 682.00 feet above mean sea level for less than two-tenths of one percent of the time that has elapsed since 1850. That really does not seem "ordinary." On the contrary, it appears to be very extraordinary. Based on these statistics, Dan, and based upon the individual experiences of the members of my family who have habitually enjoyed the riverfront property in question for the past 52 years, we are finding it extremely difficult to accept the 682.00 foot figure we arrived at on June 17, 1992, as the OHWM. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you review the attached copies of the print outs which I was given by Gordon Heitzman on Friday, June 19, 1992. Please also review the calculations which I have done in the process of arriving at what I sincerely believe to be a very precise average of what the OHWM is in reality at our property and at Dick Mueller's property. If you are in agreement with the figure of 676.6 feet above mean sea level, using the 1929 adjusted level as a frame of reference (as I have done throughout this documentation), would you kindly grant Jim Weber [our surveyor] permission to use that elevation (676.6 feet) for the elevation of the OHWM instead of the 682.0 foot figure. I would like to add one final observation as I end this letter of appeal to you. I would like to call your attention to the 675.4 foot elevation which is printed on the area of the enclosed topographic map that denotes the surface of what tae call Goose Pond. That map was prepared for Al Nyhagen [Registered Land Surveyor] at our request by Horizons, Inc. [Minnetonka, MN] and dated April 7, 1990. The pond is spring fed, and its water surface has consistently been at 4 level several inches to several feet above the surface of the river into which it flows. Please also note that the upper and lower peninsulas of land which separate the pond water from that of the river have respective Page 2 of 6 embankment which made the identification of characteristics a-d of the definition somewhat easier. As you will recall, we found a shallow "shelf" which appeared to have been caused by the erosive action of surface water at some time in the past. It was then determined that this "shelf" would define the OHWM, and we placed a flagged stake at that point. We have been on a family vacation, out of town, for the past week, and as I reflected on what had transpired on June 17, when we met at the site in question, I became increasingly concerned about an apparent contradiction. The contradiction is this: If the OHWM is, in fact, the point on the em- bankment at the foot of the flagged stake which was placed there, then the last several steps on the stairs which lead to the sand beach in front of the three developed properties which are closest to that stake would have been continuously under water, for significant periods of time. During the 52 years in which my family has been enjoying our property on the St. Croix River, that has simply not been the case. The property in question has been in our family since the year 1940. We can recall only several periods of time during which the elevation of the river was so high that we did not have use of the waterfront. These periods of time include the years 1965 and 1969 when the water rose to 694.09 and 692.24 feet above mean sea level respectively. My wife, Mary, and I have already invested a considerable amount of money and time in our attempt to abide by and conform with the statutes con- tained in NR 118 [Standards and Criteria for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway] as we pursue the possibility of building a retirement home on waterfront land given to us by my parents which was then platted and deeded to us prior to the enactment of NR 118. Because the particular parcels in question (Dick Mueller's lot and our lot) are characterized by such a gentle slope, any vertical error committed in determining where the OHWM is situated will result in a corresponding horizontal error that will be many, many times greater if the 200 foot setback ordinance is then applied to that incorrect OHWM. Since paragraph (3), (a), 2. of NR 118.06 stipulates that the minimum setback from the OHWM shall be not less that 200 feet, as exact a determination as possible of the OHWM is therefore critical. Because the ultimate location of the home we have designed is so contingent upon the exact location of the OHWM, I recently went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offices in downtown St. Paul for assistance. What follows is a summary of what I learned and of the conclusions which I have subsequently reached. 1. The Corps of Engineers personnel with whom I spoke, either in person or on the telephome, are: a) Gordon E. Heitzman, P.E. [Civil Engineer, Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch; (612) 220-06201 b) Robert Engelstad [Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch; (612) 220-0602] Page 1 of 6 Richard A. and Mary E. Marzolf 1092 Fairmount Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (612) 224-8896 July 2, 1992 Mr. Daniel S. Koich, Water Management Specialist State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2004 Highland Avenue Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701-4346 Dear Dan: Thank you for coordinating our June 17, 1992 meeting between yourself, Gary Lepak, my brother Bill,.Aick Mueller, his daughter Ann and her husband Robert Cummings, my wife Mary and me. We are grateful for the helpful input we received from you and from Gary at that time. Regarding the elevation we arrived at for the Ordinary High Water Mark [OHWM], I have the following reservations and concerns. While reading through the Wisconsin DNR publication titled Building Near Wetlands (PURL- WZ - WZ021 91; JG WZ41 91; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, August, 1991) I came across this definition in the "Wetland Glossary." Ordinary High Water Mark The OHWM defines the bed of a lake, river, or stream. It is [that] point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and action of surface water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark a) by erosion, b) by destruction or prevention of ter- restrial vegetation, c) by predominance of aquatic vegetation, d) or [by some] other easily recognized characteristic. The use of the word "or" in paragraph d, above, implies that any one (or perhaps a combination of several) of the conditions listed in items a-d are useful in determining the OHWM. I accept that, but I do so with the following reservations. Because the slope of Dick Mueller's lot and of our lot is so gentle, it was necessary for us to.walk several hundred yards south along the shore to the property owned by my brother, George, where there was a well-defined I Page 4 of 6 4. Dan, please note that this average pool elevation of 676.60 feet above mean sea.level is 5.40 feet lower than the approximate 682.00 feet which was thought to be the OHWM when--on June 17, 1992--we examined the embankment on my brother George's property, then placed a flagged stake at the apparent OHWM, and finally had Jim Weber (Registered Land Surveyor) transfer that approximate 682.00 foot elevation onto the site maps we have been using in our dis- cussions with you, with Gary Lepac and with Tom Nelson. This approximate 682.00 foot elevation now appears on those maps as a contour line, outlined in red, along with a benchmark of 702.50 feet above mean sea level which Jim Weber established by driving an iron spike into a tree which is in very close proxi- mity to the lots on which Dick Mueller and I would like to build our homes. 5. According to Bob Engelstad [Geotechnical, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering Branch, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN; June 29, 1992] the bed of the St. Croix River--and therefore the elevation of its water surface--drops approximately one-half (2) of a foot between Stillwater and Hudson, and again an additional one-half (z) of a foot between Hudson and St. Mary's Point. Hudson is approximately 7 miles downstream from Stillwater, and St. Mary's Point, in turn, is approximately 5 miles south of Hudson. Were it not for this constant drop in the elevation of the river bed, the water would not flow downstream. 6. If, for the ten (10) years during which the Corps of Engineers kept records at both the Hudson and Stillwater bridges, the ten annual highs at Hudson are subtracted from their corresponding counterparts at Stillwater [see pages 4 and 3 respectively of the attached data sheets], and if the resulting differences are averaged, the average difference in elevation between the water surface at Stillwater and that at Hudson is 0.53 feet. This is very consistent with the above information provided by Bob Englestad. If it can be assumed that the riverway between Stillwater, MN and Prescott, WI is of approximately uniform depth, then the elevation of the surface of the pool should be therefore inversely proportional to the width of the riverway at any given location along its course. That is, the narrower the riverway, the greater the pool elevation, and--conversely-- the wider the riverway, the lower the elevation of the surface of the pool. The fact that our property and that of Dick Mueller are situated along the 16 Page 3 of 6 c) Donna zappa [Electronic Service Center, Lock and Dam No. 3, Hastings, M; (612) 437-22101 d) Greg Eggers and Terry Engle [Hydrology Section; (612) 220-06071 2. On June 19, 1992, Gordon Heitzman provided me with the enclosed four-page set of high and low pool levels for the St. Croix River, recorded at Stillwater, M, and at Hudson, WI, and dating from the year 1850. This data base represents a period of 141 years, 35 leap days, 5 months and the first 19 days of the sixth month (June) of 1992. In total, the data en- compasses a period of 51,671 days, arrived at in the following manner: 141 years x 365 days + 35 leap days + 171 days in 1992 = 51,671 days 1 year 3. The first three (3) of the attached pages contain 281 dif- ferent sets of high and low pool levels which were processed into an average as follows: Pg. 1 (1850-1916): 40 sets of high readings, having for their sum 3,295.06 feet 68 sets of low readings, having for their sum 4,860.46 feet Pg. 2 (1917-1964): 53 sets of high readings, having for their sum 4,345.34 feet 62 sets of low readings, having for their sum 4,425.08 feet Pg. 3 (1965-1992): 28 sets of high readings, having for their sum 2,352.61 feet 30 sets of low readings, having for their sum 2,246.12 feet The average of these data sets was next calculated in the following manner: (3,295.06 + 4,860.46 + 4,345.34 + 4,425.08 + 2,352.61 + 2,246.12) ft. _ 21,425.67 feet (40 + 68 + 53 + 62 + 28 + 30) sets of data 281 readings = 76.60 feet = 676.60 feet i Page 6 of 6 elevations of 678.2, 677.21 676.4, 677.0, 679.5, 678.8, 680.5 and 679.5 feet printed on them on that topographic map. I am calling these facts to your attention, Dan, in hopes that this will enable you to more clearly understand the perspective from which I am appealing the 682.0 foot figure. If the OHWM really is 682.0 feet, then the pond would not be a pond at all. Instead, it would continuously appear, year after year, as merely a bay along the east shore of Lake St. Croix. In point of fact, this has never been the case, except on those rare and extraordinary occasions [1965 and 1969 for example] when we have experienced extraordinarily high water along the St. Croix River. In conclusion I would like to mention one more factor which I believe is quite significant. When I saw Gordon Heitzman on June 17, 1992, he in- formed me that the pool level of the St. Croix River is established and maintained by what he referred to as the "project pool" at Lock and Dam No. 3, at Hastings, Minnesota. In the upper right-hand corner of the third page of data which he gave me that day, he wrote in by hand the words "675 = project pool for L & D #3." This gives further evidence in support of my belief that the OHWM in the vicinity of our property and Dick Mueller's property could not be 682.0 feet, but is more likely to be the 676.6 feet which represents the average of 142 years of recorded data. Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read through, and to consider, the contents of this letter and the attached documentation. Please telephone me if you have any questions. Respectfully, Richard A. and Mary E. Marzo ram cc: Tom Nelson Jim Weber Dick Mueller Ann Mueller WEBER LAND SUR VEYING 4,J4 21 U~ p Menomonie • River Falls Cwr-d Survey Topographic Maps ; Mapping • Construction Shkirgo. • j h `f fir': Sks Planning perc Testing JAMES M. WEBER . Registered Land Surveyor s Residence 772-3264 ' 421 N. Main St. 521 N. Broadway River Falis, %m s4o22 Menomonie, WI 54751 s?. (715) 425.0164 (715) 2354641 Page 5 of 6 shoreline of Lake St. Croix [i.e. along the very widest portion of the river between its source and its confluence with the Mississippi], adds further support to our belief that the Ordinary High Water Mark at our property is considerably lower (5.40 feet lower to be exact) than the approximate 682.00 feet at which we arrived on June 17, 1992. Dan, I found on the four data sheets from the Corps of Engineers that on only 72 dates in the 51,671 days which have elapsed since 1850, the year in which the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers began maintaining records on the pool levels of the lower St. Croix River, has the recorded level of the river been at, or in excess of, the approximate 682.00 foot elevation which we arrived at visually on June 17, 1992. Expressed as a percent, 72 days x 100% = 0.139% 51,671 days In other words, the surface of the river at Stillwater has been at an elevation that was either at, or in excess of, 682.00 feet above mean sea level for less than two-tenths of one percent of the time that has elapsed since 1850. That really does not seem "ordinary." On the contrary, it appears to be very extraordinary. Based on these statistics, Dan, and based upon the individual experiences of the members of my family who have habitually enjoyed the riverfront property in question for the past 52 years, we are finding it extremely difficult to accept the 682.00 foot figure we arrived at on June 17, 1992, as the OHWM. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you review the attached copies of the print outs which I was given by Gordon Heitzman on Friday, June 19, 1992. Please also review the calculations which I have done in the process of arriving at what I sincerely believe to be a very precise average of what the OHWM is in reality at our property and at Dick Mueller's property. If you are in agreement with the figure of 676.6 feet above mean sea level, using the 1929 adjusted level as a frame of reference (as I have done throughout this documentation), would you kindly grant Jim Weber [our surveyor] permission to use that elevation (676.6 feet) for the elevation of the OHWM instead of the 682.0 foot figure. I would like to add one final observation as I end this letter of appeal to you. I would like to call your attention to the 675.4 foot elevation which is printed on the area of the enclosed topographic map that denotes the surface of what, we call Goose Pond. That map was prepared for Al Nyhagen [Registered Land Surveyor] at our request by Horizons, Inc. [Minnetonka, MN] and dated April 7, 1990. The pond is spring fed, and its water surface has consistently been at a level several inches to several feet above the surface of the river into which it flows. Please also note that the upper and lower peninsulas of land which separate the pond water from that of the river have respective • A~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING (This meeting was recorded by a court reporter) August 27, 1992 This meeting was called to order by Chairman Bradley at 8:00 A.M. Chairman Bradley explained the procedures of the hearing requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their names in the front of the room. Supervisor Kinney, Menter, Stephens, Neuman and Bradley were all in attendance. Staff present was Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator. Stephens made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Menter. Motion carried. Stephens made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting as mailed. Seconded by Neuman. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS TOM & KELLEY LEMIRE Nelson stated that this was before the Board of Adjustment for an extension of time on their permit for a Golf Course in Star Prairie Township. I Kelly stated that the financing took longer than expected and an additional year was needed for completion. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to extend their permit for an additional year. Motion carried. JOHN BETTENDORF Nelson stated that this was a request to be placed on next months agenda so as to provide more information for his driveway permit that was denied. Dan Federly will assist in developing additional information for this commercial driveway. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Kinney to allow this to come before the Board of Adjustment Committee next month. Motion carried. DENNIS ULLOM Nelson stated that Ullom was requesting to be heard again next month. Stephens made a motion, seconded by Kinney that the decision rendered last month to deny should stay. Motion carried. PRINTING COSTS Bradley stated these could be a cost savings to the Board of Adjustment budget if hearing were only published in the county paper and ,not the local papers. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Kinney to keep the publishing as it has been with both county and local papers. Motion carried. FRANK BACHMAN Attorney Steve Dunlap, representing the Bachmans requested that this be placed on next months agenda so as to provide additional information. He wants to show why there is a need for the garage. Motion by Kinney, seconded by Stephens not to rehear the application. Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, no; Neuman, no; Bradley, no. Motion defeated. Motion by Menter, seconded by Bradley to allow this appeal to be reheard. Kinney, no; Bradley, yes; Stephens, no; Menter, yes; and Neuman, yes. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS The hearing was called to order by 9:30 A.M. Nelson read the notice of the hearing as published: The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, Aug. 27, 1992 at 8:30 A.M. in the County Board Room of the St. Croix County Courthouse, Hudson, WI to consider the following appeals to the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. An onsite investigation will be made of each site in question, after which the board contemplates adjournment into closed session for the purpose of deliberating on the appeals, pursuant to Sec. 19.85(1)(a), Wisconsin Statutes, and will reconvene into open session for the purpose of voting on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: 17.31(2) Setback from Water APPELLANT: Robert & Carol Benish LOCATION: NW 1/4 the NE 1/4 of Sec. 26, T30N-R19W, Town of St. Joseph 2. ARTICLE: 17.31(2) APPELLANT: Walter Laumeyer (Money was sent back) LOCATION: Gov't Lot 1, Sec. 14, T30N-R18W, Town of Somerset 3. ARTICLE: 17.50(1) Road setback' APPELLANT: Philip & Carol Nelson LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 2, T31N-R18W, Town of Star Prairie 4. ARTICLE: 17.35(3)(i) Boathouse APPELLANT: Robert Kunz LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 2, T31N-R18W, Town of Star Prairie 5. ARTICLE: 226(89) Nonmetallic mining APPELLANT: Arthur Overgaard LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 33, T31N-R15W, Town of Forest 6. ARTICLE: 226(89) Nonmetallic mining 15.03(3) Demolition/Solid waste disposal APPELLANT: William Liddle/Tri-County Disposal LOCATION: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 13, T29N-R18W, Town of Warren 7. ARTICLE: 17.64(5)(3) Driveway separation APPELLANT: Brian Siedschlag LOCATION: N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 16, T29N-R18W, Town of Warren 8. ARTICLE: 17.60(1)(c) Road setback APPELLANT: Charles & Kathy Lederer LOCATION: NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 9, T29N-R19W, Town of Somerset 9. ARTICLE: 17.70(3)(c)3 Temporary occupancy APPELLANT: Mary Jo Gray LOCATION: NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 5, T29N-R16W, Town of Springfield 10. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(1) Filling & grading 17.36(5)(c) Setback from water APPELLANT: Richard G. Mueller LOCATION Gov't Lots 1 & 2, )ec. 13, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy 11. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(c)l Setback from bluff APPELLANT: Wm. & Patricia Marzolf LOCATION: Gov't Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 13, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy 12. ARTICLE: 17.36(5)(c)l Setback from water 17.31(5)(1) Filling & grading APPELLANT: Richard & Mary Marzolf LOCATION: Gov't Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 13, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy 13. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(o) Golf course APPELLANT: Patrick O'Malley LOCATION: N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 26, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy ROBERT & CAROL BENISH Carol presented a variance request to add onto an existing cabin that is twenty-eight (28) feet from the high water mark of Bass Lake. This addition would be on the side of the existing structure and no closer than twenty-eight (28) feet. The septic system and well will also be replaced. The township of St. Joseph as well as the Bass Lake Rehab District support the proposal. WALTER LAUNEYER Nelson stated that this is a variance request for a fifty-five (55) foot setback from the highwater mark of Bass Lake. The structure will be no closer than the residence or the neighbors cabin to the south. The township of Somerset and the Bass Lake Rehab District support the proposal. PHILIP & CAROL NELSON Nelson stated that this is a setback variance request of thirteen (13) feet from a town road. The original residence is one hundred- twenty (120) feet from the centerline of the road and they would lake to build a garage next to it, no closer than the residence. Discussion on the location of the property lipes. The township of Star Prairie supports the proposal. ROBERTS KUNZ Nelson stated that this was a request for a twenty-four by twenty- four (24x24) foot boat house fifteen (15) feet from waters edge of Cedar Lake. Boat houses are special exceptions in the Shoreland District. Kunz stated the large dimension is for storage of his boat and other items such as lawn mowers and etc. Nelson cautioned the Board stating that the intent of the boat house should be restricted to only boat storage. The township of Star Prairie supports the proposal. ARTHUR OVERGAARD Dick Erickson presented the application for a nonmetallic mining permit for property in Forest township that has been in operation since the 1950's. They are currently expanding the pit and need this special exception use permit. Discussion. The township of Forest supports the proposal. WILLIAM LIDDLE/TRI-COUNTY DISPOSAL Nelson stated that this is a two part request for special exception use permit. One part is for a nonmetallic mining operation for clay to be used at the North Hudson landfill. The other part of the request is for the expansion of the demolition land fill after the hole is enlarged. Both DNR and township of Warren support the proposal with some conditions. Discussion. BRIAN SIEDSCHLAG Nelson stated that this is a request for a driveway variance on a town road. Siedschlag indicated that due to the difficult topography on the property he cannot meet the two hundred (200) foot driveway separation. The township of Warren supports this proposal. CHARLES & KATHY LEDERER Nelson stated that this is a request for a setback variance from a town road. Lederer stated that a variance allowing one hundred-twelve (112) feet from center of road is desired so as to protect trees on the property and to accomplish to overall traffic plan developed for the property. Discussion on whether this was a hardship or q convenience. MARY JO GRAY Nelson stated that this was a request for a temporary occupancy permit to live in a mobile home while the permanent residence is being constructed. The township of Springfield supports the proposal. RICHARD MUELLER, WILLIAM & PATRICIA MARZOLF AND RICHARD AND MARY MARZOLF Nelson stated that it was best if these were all heard at the same time since they were all neighboring properties. The requests being asked are: 1) Forty (40) foot setback variance from the bluffline for William Marzolf; 2) Filling & grading in the floodplain and setback from the highwater mark of the St. Croix for Richard Marzolf; 3) Filling & grading in the floodplain and setback from the highwater mark for Richard Mueller. Detailed plans were presented showing details of the property. Nelson stated that he was recommending a buildable project area to be considered which he described rather than what was being requested. The reason for this area was that it met the intent of the ordinance for a reasonable use beyond which should be considered convenience. Discussion. McMillian an adjoining property owner expressed his objections to these projects stating that he purchased his property from the Marzolfs with the understanding that these lots were unbuildable. Discussion. PATRICK O'MALLEY Nelson stated that this was a request for a golf course as a special exception permit. O'Malley presented his plans for an 18 hole golf course he was planning. Several of the neighboring properties have expressed concerns for safety and the need for screening. Discussion. After the hearing the Board visited each site in question and upon returning rendered the following decisions: ROBERT & CAROL BENISH Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve the variance providing the septic system and well be replaced. Motion carried. WALTER J. LAUMEYER Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to return applicaton fees since applicant can use setback averaging. Motion carried. PHILIP & CAROL NELSON Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to postpone a decision until the lot line can be surveyed to validate testimony of lot line location. Motion carried. ROBERT KUNZ Motion by Bradley seconded by Kinney to approve a sixteen by twenty-four (16x24) foot boat house. Kenney, yes; Menter, yes; Stephens, no; Bradley, excused. Motion carried. ARTHUR OVERGAARD Motion by Stephens, seconded by Bradley to approve the nonmetallic mining operation providing proof of insurance can be provided and performance bonds be secured. Motion carried. WILLIAM LIDDLE/TRI-COUNTY DISPOSAL Nonmetallic mining issue: Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve the nonmetallic mining operation providing proof of insurance can be provided and performance bonds be secured. Motion carried. Demolition issue: Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve the permit as per all DNR requirements. Motion carried. BRIAN SIEDSCHLAG Motion by Bradley, seconded by Menter to approve the variance as requested. Motion carried. CHARLES & KATHY LEDERER Motion by Stephens, seconded by Bradley to deny the requested setback since no hardship can be demonstrated. This request of convenience, alternate sites available. Motion carried. MARY JO GRAY Motion by Stephens, seconded by Kinney to approve the temporary occupancy permit for one year. Motion carried. MUELLER, W. MARZOLF AND R. MARZOLF Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to postpone the discussion until further information can be obtained. Motion carried. PATRICK O'MALLEY Motion by Bradley, seconded by Menter to approve the golf course conditionally with the conditions being all screen be planted with two (2) rows of mature trees and percolation test be conducted. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, -1~11-1 11-~Z-tjo d" George Menter, secretary TCN:cj s BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING September 24, 1992 (This meeting was recorded by a court reporter) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bradley at 8:30 A.M. in the County Board Room, Courthouse, Hudson, WI. Bradley explained the procedures of the hearing requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their names and addresses in the front of the room. Supervisors Kinney, Menter, Stephens, Neuman and Bradley were all in attendance. Staff included Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator. Stephens made a motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Menter. Motion carried. Stephens made a motion to approved the August minutes, seconded by Kinney. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS JOHN BETTENDORF Nelson stated that Mr. Bettendorf was appealing the original decision on not allowing a driveway width of not greater than thirty-five (35) feet for his truck terminal. The Board of Adjustment had directed Bettendorf in August of 1992 to work with the County Highway Department to develop an engineered plan. Dan Fedderly, Highway commissioner, presented the plan showing a forty (40) foot access with a one hundred (100) foot structure running through it. Also the plan provided for the abandonment of one of the existing driveways. Matt Biegert, counsel for Bettendorf, stated that he felt this was unreasonable. This access accommodates twenty-five (25) trucks per day and it is not wide enough to provide the safety needed in this area. A petition of support has been signed by local residents and there are other driveways that are much wider in the county. There was a general discussion on the requested one hundred-fifty (150) foot width and what Fedderly was recommending. Supporting comments were received from Don Gilbert and Warren Bader. FRANK BACHMAN Steve Dunlap, legal counsel representing Bachman, presented a request for a variance setback from the one hundred (100) foot setback from the bluff required by the ordinance. The new plan shows two additions that are being added away from the St. Croix River. He feels since they will not be visible from the river , they will not effect the intent of the ordinance. Dan Koich from DNR stated he was not properly provided with plans so that he is unable provide a recommendation. Stephens made a motion to delay the request until the next regular meeting so as to provide DNR and Township time to review the request. Seconded by Kinney. Motion carried. PHILIP NELSON Tom Nelson, Zoning Administrator, stated that this variance request was back before the Board of Adjustment because Nelsons had requested a survey to show the relationship of the property line with the proposed garage. Phil Nelson stated that the property line was closer than he thought and the new garage would be on the adjoining property. He is currently working with the adjoining property owner trying to purchase additional land. Nelson stated that this had been postponed because additional information and maps were needed so as to make a proper decision. These maps and information had been completed and are being presented today. Attorney Mudge presented these materials and explained the complexity of the family development and requested variances. Bill Marzolf is requesting a bluffline setback of forty (40) feet and an road easement setback. Richard Marzolf and Dick Mueller are both requesting filling in the floodplain of the St. Croix River, special exceptions and variances from the ordinary high water mark setback. Supporting comments were heard from Ann Cummings, Richard Marzolf, William Marzolf and Dave Hense, Township of Troy. opposing comments were heard from Dan Koich, DNR and Thomas Boyd, counsel for McMillan, the neighboring property. Their position is that it would be conspicuous from the river. DAVID HUEHN Nelson stated that this was back before the Board of Adjustment so as to provide more information regarding Huehns junkyard. Nelson and Dave Hense from the Town of Troy had recently inventoried the junk vehicles on the property. There were approximately forty (40) vehicles most of which had been located on the property since 1974 the effective date of the ordinance. There was also a lot of miscellaneous "junk" on the property. Huehn uses these vehicles for his auto repair business. CHARLES LEDERER Nelson stated that there has been a request to be reheard next month on the Lederer appeal. Motion by Stephens, seconded by Neuman not to rehear the request since no new evidence would be provided. Roll call vote: Neuman, yes; Menter, no; Bradley, no; Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes. Motion carried 3:2 not to rehear the appeal. NEW BUSINESS The hearing was called to order at 10:00 A.M. Nelson read the notice of the hearing as published: The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, Sept. 24, 1992 at 9:00 A.M. in the County Board Room of the St. Croix County Courthouse, Hudson, Wisconsin to consider the following appeals to the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. An onsite investigation will be made of each site in question, after which the board contemplates adjournment into closed session for the purpose of deliberating on the appeals, pursuant to Sec. 19.85(1)(a), Wisconsin Statutes, and will reconvene into open session for the purpose of voting on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: 17.15(6)(a) Duplex APPELLANT: Roland Mortell LOCATION: The SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 23, T31N-R19W, Town of Somerset 2. ARTICLE: 17.64(1)(d)2 Setback from town road APPELLANT: Barbara Thomas LOCATION: SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 11, T28N-R18W, Town of Kinnickinnic ROLAND MARTELL Nelson stated that this was a special exception request for a duplex on property currently served by a single family residence. Martell presented plans showing the layout of the building as converted. Discussion on the septic system. The township of Somerset supports the request. BARBARA THOMAS Dennis Christianson, representing Thomas presented a request for a forty by one hundred-ten (40x110) foot hay barn that would only be sixty (60) feet from the town road. The original building has burned down recently and they would like to replace it on the original concrete pad. The township of Kinnickinnic supports the proposal. Having completed the hearing, the board visited each site in question. Upon returning the following decisions were rendered. NOTE: These are abbreviated decisions. A copy of the complete decision may be obtained at the St. Croix Co. Zoning Office. JOHN BETTENDORF Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to conditionally approve a fifty (50) foot driveway width. Installation is to be according to plan and inspected by the St. Croix Co. Highway Department. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried. PHIL NELSON Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to conditionally approve the construction of the garage providing he acquire additional property from the adjoining land owner. CRP release and property transfer (deed) to be provided to the permanent record. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried. WILLIAM MARZOLF Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to approve conditionally the variance request. Site to be inspected by Zoning Administrator. Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried. RICHARD MARZOLF Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to conditionally approve the special exception and variance in accordance with the plans. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried. RICHARD MUELLER Motion by Stephens, seconded by Menter to conditionally approve the special exception and variance in accordance to the plans. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Neuman, yes; Bradley, yes. Motion carried. DAVID HUEHN Motion by Menter, seconded by Stephens to conditionally approve the junkyard request allowing no more than forty (40) vehicles and proper containment and storage of hazardous materials. Vote: Kinney, yes; Bradley, yes; Stpephens, yes; Neuman, no; Menter, no. Motion carried. ROLAND MARTELL Motion by Neuman, seconded by Menter to approve the duplex use conditionally. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Bradley, yes; Neuman, yes. Motion carried. BARBARA THOMAS Motion by Bradley, seconded by Stephens to approve the variance request as presented. Vote: Kinney, yes; Stephens, yes; Menter, yes; Bradley, yes; Neuman, yes. Respectfully submitted: ,r George enter, secr a~ TCN:cj T Y Planning & Land Use ST. Land Informaiion CR . C.S~ C'f~'Z~.S t62 Resource Management ~1~l1i~11~1~ ~ivrw" Community Development Department September 26, 2014 File Ref: SE88073 Ann Blide, Ben Hanke, Calda Donna 131 Glenmont Road River Falls WI 54022 Re: Variance to the required 200 foot setback to the St. Croix River pursuant to Section 17.36 G.5.c.1) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Property is located in section 13, T28N, R20W in the Town of Troy. Dear Ms. Blide and Mr. Hanke, The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment (Board) has reviewed your application for a variance to construct a house that will be 44 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark at the property referenced above. At the meeting on September 25, 2014 the Board denied your variance request. The enclosed document is the formal decision regarding the application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 715-386-4680. Sincerely, 146 8l Alex Blackburn Land Use and Conservation Specialist cc: Jennifer Clark, Troy Town Clerk, 654 Glover Road, Hudson, WI 54016 Bruce Lenzen Design Build LLC, 106 Buckeye Street #202, Hudson WI 54016 Jon Sonnentag (by e-mail) Michael Waterman, Mudge, Porter, Lundeen and Seguin, 110 Second Street, Hudson WI 54016 Michael Rogney, Water Management Engineer, 1300 West Clairemont, Eau Claire WI 54701 Michael Wenholz, Shoreland Zoning Specialist, 1300 West Clairemont, Eau Claire WI 54701 File Phone 715.386.4680 Government Center, 1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, W154016 Fax 715.386.4686 www.sccwi. us/cdd www. facebook. com/stcroixcountvwi cdd(@co.saint-croix. wi. us FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN File: SE88073 Applicant: Ann Blide, Ben Hanke, Calda Donna Agents: Bruce Lenzen and Jon Sonnentag Location: Section 13, T28N, R20W, Town of Troy FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Having heard all the testimony, considered the entire record herein, and reviewed the site the Board of Adjustment makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the variance; 1. The applicants are Ann Blide / Ben Hanke / Calda Donna, LLC (collectively, the "Owner"), along with agents Bruce Lenzen and Jon Sonnentag (collectively, the "Applicants"). 2. The site is located in Section 13, T28N, R20W in the Town of Troy, with a future address off of Salishan Drive ("Property"). 3. The Owner desires to build a house that will be 44 feet from the ordinary high water mark which requires a variance from the requirements of the St. Croix County Zoning Code ("Code"). 4. State statutes and the Code prohibit the Board from granting a variance to the enforcement of the Code unless the property owner has demonstrated an "unnecessary hardship." (Wis. Stat. Ann. 59.694(7)(c); St. Croix County, Wis. Ord. §17.70(5)(c)(3)). 5. The Owner has not demonstrated that there is an unnecessary hardship that is unique to the Property which would be sufficient to deviate from the established setback requirements within the St. Croix Riverway. 6. The Owner has reasonable use of the property without the variance because the property can continue to be used for agricultural and recreational purposes. 7. In evaluating a request for a variance, the Board is charged with considering the purpose of the zoning restriction in question, its effect on the property, and the effect that the proposed variance will 2 have on the neighborhood and the larger public interest. (State ex rel. Ziervogel v. Washington County Bd. OfAdj., 676 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. 2004)). 8. The Code establishes the following purposes for the 200 foot setback requirement: a. Reduce the adverse effects of poorly planned shoreland and bluff area development; b. Prevent pollution and contamination of surfaces and groundwaters and soil erosion; c. Provide sufficient space on lots for sanitary facilities; d. Minimize flood damage; e. Maintain property values; and f. Preserve and maintain the exceptional scenic and natural characteristics of the water and related land of the Lower St. Croix River Valley in a manner consistent with the National Wild and Scenic River Act, Federal Lower St. Croix River Act and the Wisconsin Lower St. Croix River Act. (St. Croix County, Wis. Ord. § 17.36(B)(1)). 9. The preservation of the Lower St. Croix River's scenic beauty and recreational use is a public interest. (Wis. Stat. Ann. 30.27(1) (noting that "[t]he preservation of the unique scenic and recreational asset is in the public interest")). 10. The requested variance - from 200 feet to 44 feet - constitutes a 78% reduction in the applicable setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). 11. The Zoning Code defines a "structure" to include "swimming pools, hot tubs, patios, decks and retaining walls". The proposed home cannot be built without also constructing extensive retaining walls. 12. Granting a variance with such a limited setback will necessarily result in a building process that increases the risk of contamination of the riverway and backwaters because of the proximity of building to the OHWM and the potential for erosion. 13. There is a reasonable chance that granting a variance within the setback area will exacerbate existing flooding conditions and lead to erosion. 14. Granting a variance to allow construction of a home within 44 feet of the OHWM will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and the overall scenic and natural characteristics of the area because the construction of the home in this location also creates a need for significant fill and tree removal. (State ex rel Kandl, 337 N.W. 2d at *2; Paulson v. St. Croix Cnty Bd. Of Adjustments, 528 N.W.2d 504 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998; Block v. Waupaca Cnty Bd. Of Zoning Adjustment, 738 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007); State v. Winnebago Cnty., 540 N.W.2d 6, 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). 15. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the proposed home will be able to be screened from the St. Croix River 3 16. The proposed variance will result in the construction of a house that will not be visually inconspicuous from the midpoint of the river in violation of requirements for the Lower St. Croix Riverway. 17. The Board has heard testimony from an expert appraiser that granting the proposed variance will negatively impact the property values in the surrounding neighborhood and finds that evidence more credible than other expert evidence presented. 18. The granting of the variance will be contrary to the public interest. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law and the record of all proceedings of the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Adjustment denies the requested variance. The following vote was taken to deny: Chairperson Malick, yes; Peterson, yes; Nelson, yes: Sontag, yes; All votes in favor, 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 Planning and Zoning 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. Z I~TING BO OF AD STME T 7 , Signed: Clarence W. Malick, Chairperson Date Filed: 09/26/2014 4