HomeMy WebLinkAbout026-1000-30-120 (2) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
Request of Lloyd Peterson for a Special Exception )
Use. Article: 17.15 (6) (m) Limited Commercial ) A-89-3
Recreational--Paintball, ST. CROIX COUNTY ZONING ) Feb. 23 , 1989
ORDINANCE. Location: NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section)
1, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond. )
The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment conducted a public
hearing on Februry 23 , 1989, to consider the request of Lloyd
Peterson for a Special Exception Use. Article: 17.15 (6) (m)
Limited Commercial Recreational--Paintball, ST. CROIX COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE.
The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment conducted an on-
site inspection of the site in question.
After inspection, the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment
entered an executive session to discuss the request.
After returning to open session, the following decision was
rendered: Motion by Swenby, second by Kinney to deny due to the
incompatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding
residential properties. Vote to deny request: Swenby, yes;
Menter, yes; Kinney, yes; Meinke, yes. Motion carried.
All variances must be acted on or constructed within one (1)
year from date of approval or they `shall L-a be null and void.
Parr l�lC�c'CX c.mil%
John Bradley, cretary
St. Croix County Board of Adjustment
JB:MJ:rs
Lloyd Peterson
Richmond Town Clerk
p 6n,
a)
r a p
o �
ti
t%
c a
� m I
o I
a
r m
0 0
C
0
� Z
w N M
LL c a O
O
"0
O O
Q J CD
I
V
W Z y
Z = O
° a m
� z I
I
o z
4)i `Z 1 °
to 1- O N
c E
` N N 7
CY
N
N Q c c (O
n O
O O
N
• N
u
t4 N m O
N
V
U
O
Q `� z m Z 0 Z o
N � z I
LO °
_
N ! O 16 £ c
I/!
E .. m
d is U d d U
co
�'•�l Z M Z H H H 7I
a a i
O O O
•N o a a a
Q
�►��1�j N J U ! p Z
0
O N M w 0 O O
O 0 E N
m t d LO
o y c
N
O -J o Q (n o
►i w
O
O
C14 C:) j
C > N C
fl 7 O
N U O 0 O M m 0 0 a.
p
v 6Q
Or O > C N p C Cl)
O I`
o Li 7 O E N O .amp..
• , N M '? M rn O ai O E v
O O = N O Z N Z =i g fn
O �
w
E p`
a
` 0 Q 2 p a
E u c c °' o
0 0 3 0
Q U a E l 0 N U
Parcel #: 026-1000-30-120 01/12/2011 11:16 AM
PAGE 1 OF 1
Alt. Parcel M 01.30.18.213-20 026-TOWN OF RICHMOND
Current EXI ST. CROIX COUNTY,WISCONSIN
Creation Date Historical Date Map# Sales Area Application# Permit# Permit Type #of Units
00 0
Tax Address: Owner(s): O=Current Owner, C=Current Co-Owner
ROBERT&PAMELA RICCARDI O-RICCARDI, ROBERT&PAMELA
1449 CTY RD K
NEW RICHMOND WI 54017
Districts: SC=School SP=Special Property Address(es): *=Primary
Type Dist# Description *1449 CTY RD K
SC 3962 SCH DIST NEW RICHMOND
SP 8020 UPPER WILLOW REHAB DIST
SP 1700 WITC
Legal Description: Acres: 9.310 Plat: 2153-CSM 08-2153 026-89
SEC 1 T30N R18W PT NW1/4 NE1/4 LOT 3 Block/Condo Bldg: LOT 03
C.S.M. 8/2153 EXC PARCEL AS DESC 894/318
&INC PT 66FT ROADWAY IN SD CSM 8/21533 Tract(s): (Sec-Twn-Rng 40 1/4 160 1/4)
894/318 01-30N-18W
Notes: Parcel History:
Date Doc# Vol/Page Type
05/21/2010 916422 WD
03/04/1991 466926 894/318 QC
2010 SUMMARY Bill M Fair Market Value: Assessed with:
73605 386,800
Valuations: Last Changed: 06/23/2009
Description Class Acres Land Improve Total State Reason
RESIDENTIAL G1 9.310 76,000 353,900 429,900 NO
Totals for 2010:
General Property 9.310 76,000 353,900 429,900
Woodland 0.000 0 0
Totals for 2009:
General Property 9.310 76,000 353,900 429,900
Woodland 0.000 0 0
Lottery Credit: Claim Count: 0 Certification Date: 02/26/2009 Batch#: 09-01
Specials:
User Special Code Category Amount
Special Assessments Special Charges Delinquent Charges
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING
"•^d`� FEBRUARY 23 , 19 8 9
9:00 A.M.
Meeting called to order by Chairman Meinke at 9:15 A.M. in the
County Board Room, Courthouse, Hudson. Committee members present
were Supervisors Meinke, Kinney, Menter and Swenby. Excused:
Supervisor Bradley.
i
Chairman Meinke explained the procedures of the hearing,
requesting that individuals wishing to testify sign their name
and address on the sheet in the front of the room.
Wendy Peterson was introduced to the committee, observing
government in action.
Zoning Administrator Tom Nelson requested that the March Board of
Adjustment meeting be held on the 22, (as opposed to regularly
scheduled date of March 23) due to scheduling conflict. Motion
by Kinney, second by Menter to schedule March 22 as next meeting
date. Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Harold Swenson Appeal: Chairman Meinke asked the Zoning
Administrator to brief committee on appeal to this point. Nelson
stated that Mr. Swenson had applied for a special exception use
permit for an RV and Boat Storage (Article 17.18 (1) (r) with the
appeal being heard the first time in August of 1988. It was
brought back to committee in October and November of 1988 with
the request for additional information. Nelson also referred
committee to letter from Town of St. Joseph dated October 18,
1988 , in which they tabled the matter, also due to lack of
information. Zoning Administrator has discussed subject with
Assistant District Attorney Greg Timmerman who feels after this
time period appeal should be dismissed and if hearing is desired,
a new appeal should be initiated.
Motion by Kinney, second by Menter to dismiss appeal, with
appellant to reapply if he so desired. Carried.
Chairman Meinke requested Zoning Administrator to inform Town of
St. Joseph and appellant of decision.
Hearings called to order by Chairman Meinke at 9:30 A.M. Zoning
Administrator read notice of hearings as published in the local
newspapers.
1. ARTICLE: 17.64 (1) (d) (2) Highway Setback
APPELLANT: Kevin Buck
LOCATION: Part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 20,
T29N-R18W, Town of Warren
1
2 . ARTICLE: 17 . 15 (6) (1) Cellular Telephone Facility
Transmission Tower
APPELLANT: Minnesota Cellular Telephone Co. Inc.
LOCATION: The NE 11.98 acres of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 34, T29N-R17W, Town of Hammond
3 . ARTICLE: 17 .15 (6) (m) Limited Commercial Recreational--
Paintball
APPELLANT: Lloyd Peterson
LOCATION: NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 1, T30N-R18W, Town of
Richmond
KEVIN BUCK APPEAL: Mr. Buck explained that he bought the
property with an existing house, obtained a building permit to
add on to the structure, and at a later date was informed that he
was not in compliance with the 133' setback from the Town Road.
Tom Nelson explained that he had driven by, seen the building
taking place, spoken with Mr. Buck's father and informed him that
Kevin should apply for a special exception use permit. Zoning
Administrator also clarified that the Deputy Zoning Administrator
had issued the building permit.
Discussion by committee on whether distance should be given on
building permits, and liability issue. Supervisor Kinney
requested that Zoning Administrator set up meeting with Deputy
Zoning Administrators. Nelson explained that the current
ordinance is being updated with the assistance of Attorney
Richard Lehmannn, and the legality of Deputy Zoning
Administrators will be addressed, and meeting will be scheduled
after that time.
CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY TRANSMISSION TOWER: Steve Lewis,
Bloomington, Minnesota represented Minnesota Cellular Telephone
Company. He is in charge of the company's service expansion
program for 1989, which includes St. Croix County. Lewis
explained how the cellular system operates. He stated that when
looking for a new site, the company looks for the least obtrusive
and less expensive site to serve as much area as possible. Lewis
presented map showing proposed tower site (John Ronnigen
property) . This site was chosen due to the ground elevation and
ability to tie in with existing system. Tower height would be
4801 , a 12 X 28" prefab concrete building would house all
equipment. The tower would require a strobe light or painting of
tower in red and white (Preference is to paint) . The facility
would be unmanned, but monitored 24 hours a day and visited
periodically by a Technician.
John Ronnigen stated that
he is the owner of the property for the
proposed tower site. Supervisor Kinney questioned Ronnigen as to
whether land is in Farmland Preservation. Ronnigen said it is in
a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and he has already spoken
with Richard Gade regarding
this subject. Zoning Administrator
expressed concern over a previously approved tower in the county
190 and that he had been told ano ther was to be applied for in
'n aware of the Emerald site,
Lewis denied being Emerald Township. Le i g
and suggested it may be another company's application. When
2
questioned, he stated that McCaw of Washington is owner of entire
Cellular Telephone Company facility.
Discussion and questions from committee and Assistant District
Attorney Timmerman regarding whether site to west would serve
needs, whether whole facility including guy wires would be
fenced, whether it was feasible to have cooperative use of
tower, whether new county system would be able to connect with
McCaw system, compatability of cluster towers of other types.
Mr. Ronnigen was asked proximity of nearest residence to proposed
site. He stated the closest one is over 1/4 mile away.
Question also surfaced as to whether tower could be overloaded.
Lewis stated that Cellular One proposes 2 antennas, tower would
support 10 . Swenby questioned if county could negotiate use.
Timmerman said it would need to be a condition of the Special
Exception Use permit plus an agreement with Mr. Ronnigen.
Zoning Administrator read letter from the Hammond Town Board
stating they have no objection to the proposed tower.
Chairman Meinke informed Lewis and Ronnigen that committee would
view site later in the day.
Committee recessed for five minutes and reconvened at 10:40 A.M.
LLOYD PETERSON APPEAL: Chairman Meinke asked Mr. Peterson to
explain the intent of his appeal. Using overhead projection,
Peterson described himself and family, stated that he had
attended the Richmond Town Board meeting on February 20, 1989, to
show concept and wished to address the concerns brought forward
at that meeting as well as to briefly explain how the game of
Paintball is played. He stated that the game is similar to
"Capture the Flag, " however, the tag is made with a paint pellet
from a CO2 air gun. Peterson stated that clothing is functional
(camouflage) , paint is non-toxic and environmentally harmless.
The safety of the sport was another township concern. Peterson
said that statistics of inquires are directly proportional to
fees for liability insurance. He also stated that liability lies
with the player, field owner and insurance company participating
in the game. Another issue of concern is being injured by a
stray paintball on adjoining properties. Peterson said he would
be willing to negotiate field boundaries with adjacent neighbors,
as well as the county committee. The boundaries would be marked
with yellow "CAUTION" tape; however, Peterson stated he would be
willing to use standard fencing.
Noise factor: Peterson stressed that making noise gives players
position during the game; however, there would be some laughing,
talking, popping of air guns. He presented the noise factor as
comparable to chain saws, helicopters, a train, truck, lawnmower,
snowmobile or boat.
Another factor Mr. Peterson addressed is the "label" of War
Mongers on people who play paintball. Peterson pointed out that
3
he himself is an engineer by profession, a number of his peers as
well as managers play. He named three New Richmond businessmen
and stated he knows of at least one Doctor, Clergyman, and
Commercial Pilot in St. Croix County who play Paintball.
Peterson also showed on overhead an article from National
Survival Game, Inc. stating "Survival is the Name of the Game. "
It spoke of companies looking for team building experiences, and
spoke of the National Survival Game as the newest approach to
corporate team building. Peterson summarized his presentation by
saying that he wishes to promote paintball as a reputable
"recreational" activity; to be played and enjoyed by sound minded
and sober adults.
Assistant District Attorney posed questions to Peterson on (not
totally inclusive) the following: Where is land located?
Answer: 1 1/2 miles from main street, east of New Richmond.
Timmerman: What will days and hous of operation be? Answer:
Not yet established, anticipate taking reservations. Timmerman:
Are only goggles needed? Answer: Whatever the insurance company
states. Zoning Administrator Tom Nelson asked Peterson which
insurance company he was working with, to which Peterson replied
that was confidential . Peterson was questioned on the number of
players at one time. He replied that a maximum would be 30.
Timmerman questioned admission procedures; Peterson said they
were not yet established. Chairman Meinke inquired as to need
for any other permits, and Zoning Administrator questioned the
need for filling and/or grading as river and wetlands are close.
Peterson said no filling or grading would be done. Timmerman
also asked if participants would be allowed to bring their own
equipment and parking at home site location--whether there would
be space for 15 vehicles. Kinney inquired whether Peterson had
checked with the Department of Industry, Labor and Human
Relations (DILHR) regarding sanitation. Peterson said no and
questioned if satellite or house facilities could be used.
Zoning Administrator informed Peterson this would need to come
through the Zoning Office.
Timmerman questioned enforcement, i .e. field judges and referees
and Peterson said they would be picked and trained by owner
according to rules. Timmerman also inquired about ID and
violations of players, and if the surrounding area is developing
as Residential. Peterson stated any violations could be refused
entrance, and that there is not much development occurring in
area; however, what is there is residential .
Chairman Meinke asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the
appeal. William Hanson, Hudson, told committee he was not so
much expressing favor or disapproval, however owns a similar
operation in Minneapolis and would be happy to answer any
questions or clear up any misconception concering Paintball. The
following spoke in opposition of appeal approval:
Harvey Christensen, Sr. , owns land to the west of Peterson
property. He is concerned about players getting off established
4
perimeters, liability on other owner's property, and feels the
area is not large enough.
Lisa Simonds: Mrs. Simonds stated she had only moved to her home
12 days ago and found out about appeal 8 days ago. She feels a
concern for her small children due to increased traffic, security
of her home, and that sale of her property would decrease greatly
(should she desire to sell) with Mr. Petersons operation on land
adjoining her.
Thomas Heffron: Heffron is also an adjoining landowner and
objects to the imposition on a semi rural wooded setting.
Heffron owns approximately 190 acres in Richmond and Erin Prairie
Townships, feels this would break up the serentity of this
residence. His residence is quite a distance south of County
Road "K" and he wants to maintain this privacy for his family.
Mr. Heffron's wife is employed by St. Croix County Public Health
and has gained information regarding eye injuries associated with
war games (Canada Medical Association) which he presented copies
of to committee. Heffron also presented copies of pages from
catalog showing types of guns used in Paintball. Heffron also
expressed concerns regarding parking and foot injuries.
Fern Amundson: Mrs. Amundson, adjoining property owner expressed
opposition largely on increased traffic and noise. When asked by
Assistant District Attorney Timmerman, Mrs. Amdundson stated that
she does have a separate access (driveway) from the Peterson
property.
Jim Simonds: Opposed as he feels rules and regulations as
presented by Peterson are indecisive.
Janet Heffron: Mrs. Heffron stated that the back yard of her
property is adjacent to Peterson property, that Heffrons often
have family gatherings at their home, which includes children and
she is opposed to submitting them to possible injury from
Paintball Operation.
Sherry Nelson: Mrs. Nelson, Clerk, Town of Richmond, read letter
stating that the town board would like to go on record as opposed
to this appeal.
Chairman Meinke asked Mr. Peterson if he wished to give rebuttal
to anything said in opposition.
Peterson stated he didn't feel traffic would be a problem,
admitted to confrontation with Heffron regarding Heffron's dog;
however, disagreement with Mr. Christenson over deer run across
Petersons property and feels the concept of privacy is already
gone.
Zoning Administrator read letters of opposition from Fern and
Gerald Amundson to Town of Richmond and Board of Adjustment.
5
Hearing recessed for viewing the parcels in question. After
viewing the sites, the board returned to session to render
decisions. The following decisions were made:
HAROLD SWENSON: Motion by Kinney, second by Menter to dismiss
appeal . If Mr. Swenson wishes to come before committee, new
appeal shall be filed. Vote to dismiss appeal: Swenby, yes;
Menter, yes; Kinney, yes; Meinke, yes. Motion carried.
KEVIN BUCK: Motion by Swenby, second by Kinney to approve as an
undue hardship exists because original structure was closer than
100111 building permit had been erroneously issued by Deputy
Zoning Administrator allowing construction to be initiated.
The township and county assume no responsibility should future
road construction impose on structure. Vote to approve request:
Swenby, yes; Menter, yes; Kinney, yes; Meinke, yes. Motion
carried.
LLOYD PETERSON: Motion by Swenby, second by Kinney to deny due
to the incompatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding
residential properties. Vote to deny request: Swenby, yes;
Menter, yes; Kinney, yes; Meinke, yes. Motion carried.
MINNESOTA CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. : Motion by Kinney,
second by Menter to postpone decision for thirty days. Vote to
postpone decision: Swenby, yes; Menter, yes; Kinney, yes;
Meinke, yes. Motion carried.
Motion by Supervisor Kinney to adjourn, second by Supervisor
Swenby. Meeting adjourned at 3 :00 P.M.
Milton Meinke, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
MM:MJ:rms
6
' SPECIAL EXCEP'T'ION USE PEKMI`1' APP1_,"f.CATION FU1: :>T C1:OIa COUNTY
The undersigned hercaby apjalius to ,t17Lj S,r. CR01 ), COUNTY BOARD 011
APJ U ,TMLNT pursuant to Chapter
of the ST. CROIX COU1.41fY ZONING UI:ULNANCE
-; 1:c�11uw5
l,a
•e �� intit 1
for' a s special ex Ition l
� P
APPLICANT
G7
ADDRESS
(r1
OWN1,R of SITE
ADD EI SS /
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, CONTRA TOR � ,a
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE lilt) f' '14 a M,
> ���^ ) 1 /� r
ADDRESS OF SITE
1
TYPE OF STUCTURE
PIt01'USED USE OF STRUCTURE OR SITE -•
ZONING- DISTRICT
-BSI
SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IDENTIFIES THIS USE AS A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT
PLAT OR SURVEY OR SCALE MAP MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
The applicant must submit , as part of tihis application, those items
of information identified in the following checklist as being relevant to
the ordinance standards applicable to the proposed use.
DATE SIGNF
OTL_
iCiiTlt AEc'nt
Payment of $150 .00 payable to St . Croix Councy Zoning Administration is
due at time of submittal to Zoning Office of application.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE PERMIT CHECK-LIST
NOTE: The following checklist identifies information to be
included with the application for a conditional use permit.
The applicant is required to submit to the zoning office
all of those items of information marked with an "X."
I . A Title sheet which includes the following information:
a. project location map . . . . .. . . .
b total lot area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. building/dwelling unit information:
1 . number of buildings per parcel . . . . . . . . .�
2. number of dwelling units per building . . . .C]
3. average square feet of lot area per
dwelling unit provided. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. usable open space per dwelling unit provided. . .F_1
5. total usable open space provided. . . . . . .El
2. A General Development Plan which includes the following
information:
a. statement describing the general character of the
intended development . . . . . . . . . .
b. accurate (to scale) map of the project area in-
cluding its relationship to surrounding properties
and existing topography and key natural features .�
C. number of parking spaces provided. C]
d. underground electric and telephone service . . . .�
3. Complete description of existing utilities adjacent to site
a. Existing and workable proposed grades (contour lines
at two foot contour interval minimum) and surface
drainage. Supplement the contour lines with spot
elevations along drainage swa les where necessary.
If the project is adjacent to an existing improved
street, elevation of the top of curb and sidewalk shall
be indicted at 50 foot stations.
If the street and/or sidewalk is riot existing,
proposed elevations shall be shown . . . . . .E]
b. Complete existing and proposed storm sewer and
sanitary sewer information including pipe sizes, �
invert elevation of manhole, inlets, etc. . . . . •
C. Property lines, building sizes, locations and
distance between both existing and proposed. . 0
d. Location of all easements, existing or proposed. . . 0
e. Location, type and size of all existing trees,
utility poles, fire hydrants and other structures,
etc. , both on-site and in all street terraces
adjacent to the site. . . . . . . . . . . . Q
f. Parking lot informations
I . A scaled drawing plot plan of I" = 20' or
larger of all on-site surface, structure
or underground parking. . . . . . . . . . . �
2. Location of driveway approaches--existing,
proposed and adjoining. . . . . . . . . . . . . �
3. Rate of slope or grade or approaches and
driveways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.. Indicate number, arrangement and size of . �
parking stalls and drive aisles. . . .
g. Vehicular access to inner courts for emergency
servicing of buildings. . . . . . . . . . .
h. Pedestrian walks connecting buildings, other
buildings, and on-site parking areas and with
public sidewalks. (Walks shall be kept separate
from drive aisles and driveways. ) . . . . . . . . . . [�
I . Building floor plans and elevations. . . . �
4. Statements regarding the impact of the proposed project on
a. schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
b. roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q
C. police and fire services . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. groundwater supply and quality . . . . . . . . [�
e. surrounding uses . . . . . . . .
flocal economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a
g. local government fiscal situation. . . . . . . . . . �]
5. Site reclamation plan (mining, quarrying ,and . I�
drilling operations) . . . . . .
6. Shoreland Impact statements as described in
Section of the County
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. . . . . . . . .
7. Floodplain Impact Statement as described in
Section of the County
Floodplain Zoning Ordinance. . . . . . . �
8. Shore Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . , . . EJ
9. Erosion/Runoff Control Plan . . . . . . . . .
10. Other items as specified by the zoning office:
11 . NamQA an d h PAApA n4 ay p . .
adjoining tandowneu
. . Q
Q
SWA apt P
"LA
VII
EA
P47-H
t
�y
w
Q