Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1169-80-000(2) t. Croix County Zoning Administration OLD COUNTY COURT HOUSE HUDSON,WISCONSIN SIGN HAROLD C.MERGE. AdWalAralor now:ES4i6E 1-ixt.M May 6, 19 75 Mr . & Mrs. Westberg Rt. 3 River Falls, Wi. 54022 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Westberg: After considering your request for variance, the t. Croix County Board of Supervisors. Board of Adjustments, unanimously to deny your request for a variance. The Board, after considering your requesn, afdfact ;record in this matter , made the following f indi g 1. A non-conforming lot mould be created: a. ratio of lot depth to frontage would be greater than ratio two to one. b. Frontage would allow no access beycrea to non- conforming property sought f 2. Hardship asserted was created by persons seeking variance. questions, please contact me at this office. If you have any i Yours truly, +p HAROLD C. BARBER. Zoning Administrator HCB:lp a i May 2, 1975 BOARD OF ARRISTMET S HZIARING hearing canei to order by Claainian Afaiahl at 10:05 A.114. All. �t�?ttsr�.x i3 pr.Ase�:tt;. Z,xiina Administrator introdviced the Board. Zoning; Administrator read notice of hearing of 11r. David Rnc e :ev rf questirg to build closer to tw,#n road than the 133 foot sct}uric requi.rement. Neighbors were concerned about cut.Zirt tree and erosion problems. Mrs. Judith Todd was concerae—d about t t,:i e ing too close to the property lira. Questions asked by the Boar"'. C'ilairman Afdahl informed I-.r. Roek:ar that th_ t Zoning. :dnInt".-- tr,�,ter wou-Id notify him of their decision. tAr. W.M. Westberg request the division of a parcel that woo, rd nuke a aon- _-onforming let. Zoning AftivIstrat;or rand the notice of the hearing. Mr.. John Hey000d. presented the case for Mr. Weetberg stat►y.ig that no new buildi a would be erected or. the property. No new roads would be put on the property. tT s. Ken Spear (a neighbor) has no objection to they division of this property. Questions were asked by the Bo^.r3. George Holmes suggr-sted that tzte "Board contact the ri.stri`:t: At-i--or- .ey before t.py Tnalte a.-y air. :sirT�. ^hair.... Af'ah informed "Ar, Uas;.her�; that r:?aey will the request XLld the Zoning Uf-r 11 inform tr.c*^. of the decision. Ms. Connie Cla k and Claude;:te Cl.cck requested to pyiL a-, addition to an existiag st; :uct-use that is non-con- forming as co setb ck. Zoning Administrator read notice of hearing. Questions umxe asked by COUMittee members about location and other rea- sons for requssting a variance. Having no other cases, hearing adjourned for field is pec- tions. After discusslng, the Westberg variance with the District Attorney, the Board of Adjustments in considering this matter for the second time and having reviewed the ;record and t r property upon which the variance is sought, unanimously voted to deny the request for variance. The Board of Adjustments made the following finding of fact. 1. A non-conforming lot would be created. a. ratio of lot depth to frontage would be greater than two to one ratio. b. Frontage would allow no access by road to non- conforming property sought to be created. 2. Hardship asserted was created by persons seeking variance. Accordingly, on this basis request was denied. M After inspection of the David Roet:.er property, a motion to approve the variance with the fcilowing conditions, that the driveway and sanitary systems meet with the Zoning Administrator Mot ,)n carried uiianiwot'sly. 'uspection of the Clark and Clock property. A motion to ap,)-a~o,%re the variance as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Z3ing no further business, hearings were adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Next scheduled hearing is May 23rd at 10:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, LUCkIUXDT, Secretary I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Appeal Nn. Date Hearing Advertised Land Use Application No. Date Fee $_2,1 ,00 Date NOTICE OF APPEAL COUNTY OF ST. CROIX BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Owe)W1 /%leL-5rA 6- of 17-,r 0c F'+ L C.J I (Name) (Mailing g hereby appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the decision of the ,tilfy6 A-Ulv Wher,eb,y, the A4(.1,7,1 1't) , did grant q ° an application to: Us Lan �o,l for use as family. residence erect ucture or buildin aocessory�uIlTing alter business add to industry occupy , for fan interpretation of the ordinance or map P a special ex�pl io n to the ordinance on which the Board of,Adjustment is re uired to ss. 9. variance relat,341g,to the 1 area�frontage0 yard height use of state, if re uest is for purpose other than those enumerat d,),/ G' / q P P The description of the property involved in this appeal is as follows: Location ' ,,11 Lot Size: Ile If rl_rAresent Use: ! �. Zoning District Present improveme is upon land: Q Proposed use: i cx-•a .� VARIANCE of the following section of the Ordinance is requested: a Strict application of the regulations would produce U14DUE HARDSHIP because: VO G u�R 8� G r, Q�c c'.li cc �� cdta► �Y. b The harddhip created is UNIQUE; and not shared by all properties alike in the neighborhood because: (c) The variance would not change the CHAAACTER OF THE 1VEIGHBGRHCGUD because: �L2GA- G' -t N c� st P.� X . U — Q �-c_Qr r" ,ti l�--C,c.�vmL-•��rt.[,�ii.. /LF.-1��E'��`- . r " { �r-77— A SPECIAL EXCEPTION is requested as authorized by Sections of the Ordinance because: (If industrial use, specify product, process, materials used, and capacity) THE ISSUANCE of permit No. for the above named premises by the is APPEALED because: Dat e f iled _� ��� 0 — ?S'^ �-e�c ems, ec)e ,,-c Signed Appellant s) or agent HEYWOOD AND HAYES ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN D.HEYWOOD MICKLESEN BUILDING PHONE 886.5551 KENNETH H.HAYES HUDSON. WISCONSIN 54016 March 24 , 1975 St. Croix County Board of Adjustment c/o Mr. Harold C. Barber Zoning Administrator Old Courthouse Building Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Re: W. M. Westberg Appeal Gentlemen: On March 20, 1975 we filed a Notice of Appeal on the printed form which you furnished. I am writing this letter to set out the reasons why we feel we should be permitted to divide our present tract of land into two parcels and why we feel that your granting of authorization to do so would not set a precedent which would be an embarrassment to you in other cases. First of all, if we are given authority to sell our year round home together with the north portion of our land and to retain ownership of the south portion, we will not in any real sense be "developing property" . Nor will we be_ causing congestion or overcrowding or disfiguring the river valley. There is a main house and garage and a cottage on the property now. We are perfectly willing to agree on the record that if we are permitted to retain the south portion of the land on which the cottage is located, we will not build a new road to the cottage and will not enlarge the present cottage building, although we would want the right to rebuild a unit of the same size if it should be destroyed. Since none of us can look into the indefinite future,. there probably should be a time limit of 20 or 25 years on these restrictions . If we retain the cottage property and sell the house we will have to reserve some easements over the main residential property. The terms of these easements would have to be worked out with the prospective buyer, but we would agree of record that no road would be built to the cottage. Therefore, the danger of erosion and the unsightly mess which can be created by road construction down steep slopes will be avoided. I know there was concern for our safety if there is no road to the cottage. However, the danger to us there would certainly be no greater .than .if we were in some other part of an unde- veloped park or riverway. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment March 24, 1975 Page 2 I believe that the former subdivision ordinance contained flat prohibitions against a division which would create a long narrow lot. However, we believe the present ordinance is more flexible and that under this ordinance you would have authority to authorize the division. At the time of your earlier decision reference was made to the Department of Natural Resources regulations issued under Chapter 197 of the 1973 Session Laws. However as you know, those regulations have expired and no DNR regulations are now in effect for the river area. We would not propose some drastic disfiguring change during this interim period, but we think that our proposal is reasonable. Any decision in our case,-m will not result in any new construction on the land we retain . Therefore this case would not set a precedent for permitting the division of vacant land for new construction. It may be that instead of filing an appeal we should have merely asked for the pre-application consultation mentioned in Section 5.3 .1 of the subdivision ordinance. If so, please consider this letter the basis for such a consultation. We will furnish a certified survey map so that the division of the land will be properly made. If there are any other questions, I or my wife or Mr. Heywood will meet with you any time at your convenience. I Very truly yours, Walter M. Westberg State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES L. P. Voigt Secretary Box 450 February 25, 1975 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3590 Mr. Harold C. Barber Zoning Administrator Courthouse Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Dear Mr. Barber: In response to your letter of February 18, 1975, I wish to offer the following comments regarding the division of the Halter Westberg property which we inspected in the field and discussed with Attorney John 9eywood as well as the proposed building sites in the Town of St. Joseph overlooking the St. Croix River. While' the division of the Westberg property into separate parcels would ordinarily slot cause any significant problem given smooth topography, the lay of the land itself and the activities that would ensue if this property were divided, caws am to be negative about the prospect. If the property were divided there certainly would be need for access to the cabin which is on the dowaslope facing the river. Any access to the cabin would rewire substantial earth moving and the removal of a nnnber of tress which could have sever aesthetic and erosion problems. I would prefer to have further exploration into the notion of a lease back or ease- neat type proposition to keep the property in single ownership and allow Westberg the use of the place of their choice. Further it is difficult to respond to this proposition in that the only documenta- tion I have seen regarding the splitting of the property is a rough map with a dotted line drawn on it to show the separation. Should the Westbergs wish to pursue this further, I would suggest a detailed plan of operation including road construction and earth moving activities. In all instances, however, I would suggest that application for building on land division be reviewed and if use can be made of the property without a reduction 8 9 co FF9 CFO�i ,� �n 49 O �9� A,NO S THIS IS 100%RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Harold C. Barber - February 25, 1975 2• in standards, either setback or use, that there is no basis for variance. If you have any questions an this natter, please contact me. Very truly yours, Bure u of Water Regulation & Zoning 1 Ted F. Lauf, AIP Coordinator Special Projects TFL:gmp cc: Gordon Slifer - WCD, Eau Claire Parcel #: 040-1169-80-000 10/1312014 11:52 AM PAGE 1 OF 1 Alt. Parcel M 36.28.20.646C 040-TOWN OF TROY Current F 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 O-VINCE, MAUREEN TR MAUREEN TR VINCE 782 HILLTOP RD MENDOTA HTS MN 55118 Property Address(es): *=Primary * 114 BLACK BASS RD Districts: SC=School SP=Special Type Dist# Description SC 4893 SCH DIST RIVER FALLS SP 0100 CHIP VALLEY VOTECH Notes: Legal Description: Acres: 2.800 SEC 36 T28N R20W 2.8A IN GL 1 COM NE COR GL 1,TH S 50 FT,W 400 FT, S 24 DEG W Parcel History: 325 FT, S 10 DEG E 890 FT,S 31 DEG E Date Doc# Vol/Page Type 280.6 FT TO POB: S 76 DEG W 431.7 FT TO 12/05/2011 946702 EZ-U SHORE, S 13 DEG E 50 FT, S 6 DEG W 200 11/09/2007 863912 WD FT, N 76 DEG E 250 FT,TH N 70 DEG E 318 11/09/2007 863911 WD FT,TH N 31 DEG W 214.4 FT TO POB AND 08/22/2006 832699 WD LAND TO LAKE more Plat: *=Primary Tract: (S-T-R 40%160'/.GL) Block/Condo Bldg: *N/A-NOT AVAILABLE 36-28N-20W I I 2014 SUMMARY Bill M Fair Market Value: Assessed with: 0 Valuations: Last Changed: 11/09/2009 Description Class Acres Land Improve Total State Reason RESIDENTIAL G1 2.800 550,000 281,200 831,200 NO Totals for 2014: General Property 2.800 550,000 281,200 831,200 Woodland 0.000 0 0 Totals for 2013: General Property 2.800 550,000 281,200 831,200 Woodland 0.000 0 0 Lottery Credit: Claim Count: 0 Certification Date: 11/2112012 Batch M 12-08 Specials: User Special Code Category Amount Special Assessments Special Charges Delinquent Charges Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 ST. see. dfi a i R r ,� -� s. . oc r41 IL a t � t 4 ...'°"., i t 4e- A �1 \ i � o° t e r o I h O v> 0 6'> N �p t1q O O c 0 O O L a I Qo 3 c N w N w CL C N 2-0 N c4 U N 0) m CD Y Ln c a 0) � a`n g E z° L) z° m lY i y CD d c l C O a O > N o E a N N a U M M co M N 0) �- Z O E £ C,j J !. !' 0 00 Z w °p o !' am am roi FN- C7 I I c t i co o Z v c c `- a> Z c c E c m E N N rn N N • a) a @ a 2 o 0 N 0 0 o z a dt CS z z o z m LO z o N N .. _ CN N O y �� O > o •� M C ' 0 N N d 4) CU CL > d O T y c� 3 0a aa0- a E H H > > � °c "o > 3 3 3 ° 3 •N R a a a y a a (a �i ., g m c (iy O y N O O Y N N N z M N N } m CO f� �V m N CO Z `� CU p C) rz a0 4. 0) O O :� N .N-- v m C c m CL in m O cy '6 to c} ` a z a A U ,� a .. N N Cn N N C ca M V) C i� OO U O 'a E w0 In 0) O © C� v"' N U �- N O U 7 tU a 0 �- o Q) r N N N • ��„�� O o fM 0 Fa- >>? V O o O N N c f rn 10 GS N>; ao � 0 N N N N O N N z 2 = z z 2 d Y CU/) w £ = Q � i �, a da a a yaw ua • a d 2 m m r �