PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
September 4, 2007
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 9:15 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
George Hammes – Chair, Terry Hanson, Tom Rauk, Brian Kapanke, Robert Keil, Don Bina, Don Meyer |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
None |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jeff Bluske, Chad Vandenlangenberg, Bill Jung, Mike Weibel (Recorder) |
The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Committee Chair George Hammes. Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 502 Chad Vandenlangenberg, acting on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 502 filed by Robert L. Happel N9002 Christopherson Road Holmen WI 54636, and passed by the County Board on May 18, 2000, to construct pallets, to store lumber and pallets, to store sack feed, seed and farm machinery in a 60’ x 64’ proposed building. Reason for terminating – permit never utilized, the conditional use has been discontinued for a period of 12 consecutive months. Town of Holland.
BLUSKE: Property also subject to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 58, a septage pumping business. Chad came across CUP No. 502 while researching CUP 58. Mr. Happel’s son planned to operate his business from here. He was relocating from Sparta after a fire destroyed the business. Purpose was short-term operation. August 2, 2007 phone conversation with Mr. Happel reveals CUP No. 502 never used and he has no problem with termination. Department recommends termination.
Motion Bina/Kapanke to terminate CUP No. l502.
Motion carries unanimously.
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 596 Chad Vandenlangenberg, acting on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 596 filed by David and Stephanie Bentzen W7824 Meadow Way Holmen WI 54636, and passed by the County Board on September 19, 2002 to operate a sign construction and repair business from the residence. Reason for terminating – business moved to 336 2nd Avenue South Onalaska WI in 2004, the business has been discontinued at the Holmen residence for a period of 12 consecutive months. Town of Holland.
BLUSKE: CUP No. 596 issued allowing operation of a sign business from their residence at W7824 Meadow Way in Holmen. Business known as Quality Sign Repair, LLC. Chad spoke with Stephanie Bentzen via phone on 07-31-07. Business relocated within City of Onalaska. Have not operated at Meadow Way site for past 2 years. New location is 336 2nd Avenue South, Onalaska, WI. Mrs. Bentzen stated they’d have no objection terminating CUP No. 596. Recommend termination.
Motion Hanson/Keil to terminate CUP No. 596.
Motion carries unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 753 Gerald and Beth Hoth, N7103 County Rd EE, Bangor WI 54614, and Matt Hoth, N6057 Big Creek Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Petition to operate an outside saw mill on the family farm, with one small storage shed, all of which are East of County Road EE, on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as: The fractional NW-NW of Section 3, T 17 N, R 5 W. Town of Burns.
Appearing in Favor: Matt Hoth, N6057 Big Creek Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Received a letter complaining we were sawing logs with no CUP. We thought we’d apply.
Question BLUSKE: What’s the size of the storage building?
Answer HOTH: Maybe 8-ft x 10-ft. It’s very small.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: 2 pieces of correspondence: 1 letter in support and 1 letter from Steve Nuttleman - Town of Burns Supervisor read into record.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with following conditions:
1. This permit is granted to operate an outside sawmill on the family farm on lands lying
east of County Road EE.
2. Existing equipment may be stored outside along with inside storage allowed in the
existing 8-ft x 10-ft shed.
3. Edging, slab wood and sawdust must be disposed of on a regular basis and not
allowed to accumulate.
4. Permit is valid for family members and is not transferable.
Motion by Hanson/Meyer to approve with department recommendations.
Motion carries unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1752 Benjamin H. and Kristina M. Allen, 1311 Bangor St, PO Box 61, Bangor WI 54614. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Residential District “A”, a 2.0 acre parcel in order to construct a single family residence, on land described as: Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 20 in Volume 12. Town of Bangor.
Appearing in Favor:
Ben Allen, 1311 Bangor Street, Bangor WI 54614. Bought land in June and want to build a house. Tearing shed down – in rough shape. Removed concrete. Yellow dots on sheet indicate possible house sites (indicated on sheets handed to committee from Mr. Allen).
Question BLUSKE: Ben, the public can’t see that. We’ll put it up on the screen – can you explain the two yellow dots again?
Answer ALLEN: The one by Antel Road is where I want the house. If I can’t do it because of setback rules, I’ll take half the shed down.
Question BLUSKE: Which half will be removed?
Answer ALLEN: The side on Antel Road. I had an excavator come in and level it off because of drainage issues. Town of Bangor did gutters on the road.
Question MEYER: You’ll remove large cement pads?
Answer ALLEN: I removed a feeding pad that went out into the field. There’s a stack of it there now. That’s being hauled away.
Question BINA: What’s the setback from Antel Road?
Answer BLUSKE: 27 feet from right of way, 60 feet from centerline. This property was surveyed. Should have irons on right-of-way, or pins in the center of the pavement.
Question BINA: Are you in the black-top business?
Answer ALLEN: No. I fixed that for my boss. I weld in a shop in town and parked it there.
Question BINA: You’ll tear the front part of the shed down?
Answer ALLEN: Yes, at least half of it.
Question BINA: You repair cars?
Answer ALLEN: Not here – that’s why I have my shop in town. I want to store my own cars here. We’d like to build our house here.
Question BLUSKE: There was trailer there during our tour – looked like it’s used in sheet metal work. We noted the tar trailer, a couple of axles and another trailer. There were a couple of older cars inside the shed. Those are now in violation of the zoning district. You can’t store anything out there related to a business. Why are they there?
Answer ALLEN: The vehicles are my personal vehicles.
Remark BLUSKE: We already talked about the tar business. You can’t do welding out there. What’s the other trailer for?
Answer ALLEN: I just bought it – it’s empty – a storage trailer. As far as a business, there’s no electricity or welders out there. The only thing power is a lawn mower.
Question BLUSKE: So tomorrow, if we went out there, the tar trailer would be gone?
Answer ALLEN: It’s still there my boss hasn’t picked it up yet.
Remark BLUSKE: He’s gotta pick it up tomorrow because it’s in violation right now.
Answer ALLEN: Okay.
Question BLUSKE: There’s a manure spreader there, is that yours?
Answer ALLEN: Yes. There’s a lot of junk out there from the farm next to it.
It’s full of metal I’ve cut up.
Question BLUSKE: Have you had problems with the Village of Bangor?
Answer ALLEN: No I have not. I had a trailer that didn’t have a plate – I did
get it for that. That’s the only violation I’ve had in the Village.
Question BLUSKE: Have you been to the Town of Bangor and discussed this with
the Board?
Answer ALLEN: Yes. It passed unanimously.
Question BLUSKE: When was that?
Answer ALLEN: He was supposed to give you a call – Ken Manke.
Remark ALLEN: That was a long time ago that I went through the Town. I wanted to clean it up before I went through anything else.
Department Recommendations:
BLUSKE: Town and County plans call for area to remain Exclusive Ag. It has an Ag building therefore staff recommends denial. This could be attached to an adjacent farm. This parcel was petitioned January 2005 when we recommended denial.
Question HANSON: What was the request for that time?
Answer BLUSKE: For one single family dwelling. That was after-the-fact. Mr. Schomberg split off part of his farm with the Ag building with a CSM prior to getting zoning in place. Normally it’s the other way around.
Question BINA: We rezoned it so they could sell that part to the Amish?
Answer BLUSKE: That was to the north. That had the buildings. This parcel had the machine shed and a long trough.
Motion KAPANKE: I’d like to make a motion to approve this. Months ago Ben called me out here to review the site prior to his clean-up. I know we like the land to stay agricultural. I don’t see it ever being agricultural because that’s all the previous owner did – store junk up there. Ben’s done a good job cleaning it up. I make the motion to approve the request.
MEYER: Second.
Question BINA: What happened to the Amish up there – do they farm? How much land do they have?
Answer BLUSKE: I think just shy of 35 acres. I don’t know why Mr. Schomburg did that. I think they’ve been trying to pick up additional land.
Question BINA: So the Amish are farmers even though they have less than 35 acres? I know they were working up around that shed. The point is: Are they or aren’t they agricultural?
Reply WEIBEL: The farm to the north is about 32 acres, shy of the 35 acres to be a farm under Farmland Preservation. The problem for that owner is that whenever he wants to build a shed, even though it may be Ag-related, we consider it an accessory building. He would go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to build another building.
Remark BINA: That’s what I thought.
HAMMES: Any more discussion? I have a motion and a second, all in favor?
Vote on Motion: 6 – aye, 1 – no. Motion carries.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1753 Chad L. and Karen M. McCathie, W5548 Olson Rd, Holmen WI 54636. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, an 11.51 acre parcel for continued residential use for the existing single family residence, on land described as: Part of the NE-NW and part of the W½-SE-NW in Section 14, T 17 N,
R 7 W described in tax parcel 10-276-0. Town of Onalaska.
Appearing in Favor:
Karen McCathie, W5548 Olson Road, Holmen WI 54636. Bought the house 6 years ago, has 11.5 acres with a house and pole shed. We were unaware zoning wasn’t proper. Prior owner had 42 acres and sold 30 acres to the neighbor to northwest. At that time it should have been rezoned. We wanted to do a project, our builder went to get a permit and that’s how we found out. I’m here to clear this up so we’re zoned properly. Met with Town Board, they approved rezoning and amendment to their Town plan because it happened so long ago.
Question BLUSKE: For the Board’s benefit, which side (of house) is the improvement going on?
Answer MCCATHIE: On the back side. Isn’t visible to neighbors – on woods side.
Question BLUSKE: Will it be attached?
Answer MCCATHIE: It will be attached – a 20-ft x 20-ft family room. We have a
small house – it will be extra space.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Town of Onalaska dated August 28 addressed to me and Mike Weibel – a letter regarding approval of request for re-zone and plan amendment read into record. Approved by Town Board to begin process of amending Town’s comprehensive plan, with a condition not to further subdivide parcel.
Staff Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Parcel is considered legal non-conforming under Exclusive Ag District. Town plan calls for Preservation Agriculture, meaning no homes. Town must amend their plan – we just heard they recommended to do that. We recommend approval as conditional zoning subject to recording of deed restrictions stating no further subdividing of parcel, and use is for existing single family residence.
Committee deliberates.
Motion Rauk/Keil to approve with staff recommendations. Discussion.
Motion carries unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1754 Gary Lanke, 277 Fireside Drive, La Crescent MN 55947, acting on behalf of Lisa E. Lanke and Steven O. Stolfuss, 29016 46 Place N, Cave Creek AZ 85331. Petition to rezone from Transitional Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, a 4.98 acre parcel in order to reconstruct a new single family residence on land described as: Part of the N½-SW of Section 14, T 18 N, R 8 W more fully described in tax parcel 8-979-0. Town of Holland.
Appearing in Favor:
Gary Lanke, 277 Fireside Drive, La Crescent MN 55947, representing Lisa Lanke
and Steve Stolfuss, 29016 46 Place N, Cave Creek AZ 85331. We tore down old
farmstead 4 or 5 months ago, with knowledge from Town Board we could possibly
rebuild. We found out we must rezone. Yale, Hoyer and Gerke have been
rezoned. We’d like to rezone to build a house or sell it so someone else can.
Remark BLUSKE: Complaint from neighbors about trespassing and ATV’s and there was a fire, too.
Reply LANKE: The fire was before my daughter lived there. Her friend came up to clean up the area. Fire caused by someone else, not them. My daughter had ATV’s there. The people who came out to use them were told to stay on our property, which they didn’t. They went onto Peterson’s – he caught them, told them stay off and called the police. That’s been taken care of. In fact he might want to buy the land.
Question BLUSKE: It’s for sale now?
Answer LANKE: It’s for sale or, if they can’t sell it, they may build on it. The existing buildings there since 1900 are tore down and it’s all cleaned up. Well and septic only things there.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Holland Town Board received August 9 – unanimously
recommending approval - read into record.
Staff Recommendation:
Town and County plans call for conservancy district – does not allow any building. Town plan details allow existing land uses. Because it had a house, that use is still allowed. Recommend approval as conditional zoning subject to recording deed restrictions against further subdividing and use for only 1 single family residence.
Motion Bina/Keil for approval with staff recommendations. Discussion.
Motion carries unanimously.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2007-07 Jeffrey W. and Diana C. Springer, W5465 Horseshoe Pl, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to construct a 60’ x 120’ outdoor horse riding arena by grading and filling an area 80-ft x 150-ft and diverting an existing drainage channel that falls within the Shoreland District of Pammel Creek on land zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as follows: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 54 in Volume 4 and Outlot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 53 in Volume 4. Town of Shelby.
Reasons for requesting special exception read into record by Bluske.
Appearing in Favor: Jeffrey Springer, W5465 Horseshoe Place, La Crosse WI 54601. Explained reasons for asking for special exception.
Question BLUSKE: We saw some orange stakes in the ground – is this where it will be?
Answer SPRINGER: Yes – we did an elevation survey – every 10 feet we took a measurement – that’s the orange stakes.
Question BLUSKE: Can you explain about that culvert under the road and how you plan to move the drainage?
Answer SPRINGER: You can see on the contour map (refers to overhead) where it will be. We’re going to route it around the arena.
Question RAUK: Will the arena be fenced?
Answer SPRINGER: Something like an arena fence – a small fence to define the arena.
Question RAUK: The arena will be visible from the road. Is there something you can do about this as an attractive nuisance? To make sure children aren’t drawn down there?
Answer SPRINGER: The horses will only be in there if someone’s riding them.
Question RAUK: How many horses at maximum?
Answer SPRINGER: Five. We currently have one and a miniature.
Question RAUK: Is it true this will never be a business?
Answer SPRINGER: Yes. Strictly personal use.
Appearing in Favor: Chuck Hanson, N2019 Stone Crest Road; a property across the road and adjacent. My wife and I don’t object, we do have a concern with what happens after Jeff leaves, if he were to sell. We’d like to see a condition that it cannot be used as a business. This is a residential area. Years ago there was a horse riding arena here. We would ask this be a consideration.
Question HAMMES: Before it could be used as a business the owner would petition that?
Answer HANSON: A condition of this – that it couldn’t be used as a business. Another concern – a fence or something to make it less attractive to children. In general we’re not opposed. With safeguards, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Land Conservation Department. They were there on June 26. Correspondence read into record describing changes in drainage pattern, brush removal, run-off. Seven recommendations by Land Conservation Department read into record.
Correspondence from Town of Shelby dated August 13 – letter unanimously recommending approval by Town Board read into record.
Remark BLUSKE: To address the last gentleman’s request for a condition on a special exception permit limiting this from becoming a business. Riding arenas are an approved use in the agriculture districts. There’s nothing we can do to restrict this. We have to take Mr. Springer’s word that if he sold, he’d restrict it so it couldn’t be used as a business.
Department Recommendations:
BLUSKE: Approve subject to 6 conditions:
1. Permit is granted to fill and grade an area for an outdoor equestrian riding arena and to realign an existing drainage channel.
2. The area to be disturbed is 80-ft x 150-ft being reduced to a 60-ft x 120-ft arena.
3. No buildings are allowed as part of this permit.
4. An approved erosion control permit is required from the La Crosse County Land Conservation Department before any filling or grading is commenced.
5. All bush piles shall be removed immediately after cutting to reduce any flooding hazards in Pammel Creek.
6. This permit is non-transferable and expires the end of August, 2008.
Clarification on depth of silt fence – 8 inches.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve with recommendations of Land Conservation and Zoning Department.
Discussion on horse arenas and non-transferability of permit.
Vote on Motion: 6 – aye, 1 – no. Motion carries.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1755 Linda M. Johnson, 2111 Travis St, La Crosse WI 54601, acting on behalf of Richard J. Lepsch, 9466 Hale Ave S, Cottage Grove MN 55016. Petition to rezone from Agricultural District “A” to Residential District “A”, a 0.495 acre parcel to be split into two separate lots, current addresses are N1608 and N1616 Hagen Rd, La Crosse WI 54601, on land described as: Outlot 1 except the north 100’ of Skyline Subdivision and part of the NW-NE of Section 15, T 15 N, R 7 W more fully described in tax parcel 11-1124-0. Town of Shelby.
Appearing in Favor: Linda M. Johnson, 2111 Travis Street, La Crosse WI 54601. Representing the owner - her brother who lives in St. Paul. Two houses on one lot, one parcel zoned Ag “A”. Asking to split into two approximately equal lots and Ag “A” changed to Residential “A”. Property is for sale, response has been positive. Most buyers not looking for two homes. We can’t sell only one home the way it is now. Over 70 phone calls on property – most want to renovate homes. Have received unanimous favorable recommendation from Town of Shelby as to rezone and split. Surveyor drew up split. Now have a prospective buyer as property is without rezone. Brother wouldn’t worry about houses, buyer is excited to restore houses. Restoration would fit in with neighborhood. Neighbors I’ve spoken with have no objections to split and rezone. Would be nice to see them restored – had belonged to our great aunt.
Opposition: None. Public hearing closed.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: (Ms. Johnson provides a copy of letter from Town of Shelby to Mr.
Bluske.) Letter dated 08-16-07 addressed to Mr. Bluske – supporting rezone and
allowing exception to moratorium on splits - read into record. Listed as item 6
on their agenda from July 23.
Department Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Recommend approval – County and Town plan recommend this. Additions/construction may require variances.
Motion Meyer/Bina to approve. Discussion on lot area.
Motion carries unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1756 Gary L. and Scott Gartner, 3100 Lincoln Ave, La Crosse WI 54601, acting on behalf of G & M Gartner LLC. Petition to rezone from Commercial District and Agricultural District “A” to Commercial District “B”, a 1.97 acre parcel for continued use of 129 Clinton Street as commercial use for Bob’s Bait & Tackle, on land described as: Part of Government Lot 5 in Section 19, T 16 N, R 7 W more fully described in tax parcel 4-859-0. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Gary Gartner, 3100 Lincoln Avenue, La Crosse WI 54601. Didn’t know it was zoned Ag “A” until Chad called and said it was noticed while reviewing maps. Operating under non-conforming status. He recommended to clean things up by rezoning to commercial. We went before Town of Campbell. If this is the right thing to do, we want to do it.
Question KAPANKE: Do you own the business now?
Answer GARTNER: I own the land, my son Scott owns the business; he rented from me.
Question KAPANKE: Was he renting it before?
Answer GARTNER: No, we were across the street. That was Lumberman’s Bar. When that went south we thought it would be a good area.
Question KAPANKE: Jeff, what do you mean when you say it’s a government lot?
Answer JUNG: On the original government survey when they surveyed townships into sections and quarter sections and 40’s, the areas next to sloughs and rivers, etc., where they couldn’t get full 40’s, they called them a government lot. This area has about 9 government lots.
Question BLUSKE: Have you went before the Town of Campbell yet?
Answer GARTNER: Yes we did.
Question BLUSKE: What was their recommendation?
Answer GARTNER: Unanimous approval.
Opposition: None. Public hearing closed.
Department Recommendation:
BLUSKE:
Approval. Back in ’53 it was called Commercial with no A, B or C designation.
To change from non-conforming Ag “A” to Commercial B allows them a gamut of
things they can do.
Motion Hanson/Keil to approve. Motion carries unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 765 Richard M. and Sharon M. Martin, N8227 Flaten Rd, Holmen WI 54636. Petition to operate a retail ceramic business from the basement of their existing residence addressed above and zoned Exclusive Agricultural District, on lands described as: Part of the NW-SW in Section 21, T 18 N, R 7 W more fully described in tax parcel 8-281-3. Town of Holland.
Appearing in Favor: Richard Martin, N8227 Flaten Rd, Holmen WI 54636. We’d like a conditional use permit to produce and sell ceramic products, glazes, brushes. No noise impact. Small pouring machine and kiln. No employees. Minimal customers, no change in appearance of structure. Making a walkway from driveway to basement for wheelchair accessibility.
Question RAUK: Coming from the north, it’s a very tight right turn. Can you do anything about that?
Answer MARTIN: It could be done, yes. We hadn’t thought about it. That was also mentioned at Town hearing. I can easily make access larger. I own north of that – could put a sign there.
Question BINA: Will you have products delivered to your place? Does it come in trucks?
Answer MARTIN: No – I’m the trucker. We use liquid slip that comes in small boxes. There might be UPS delivery or shipment.
Remark BLUSKE: There are safety issues turning into the driveway. When driving in, we didn’t know if the rear tires hit the ditch and once in, we had a hard time turning around. You have a sandstone wall here (refers to overhead). We thought we’d need to back out, which would be very unsafe. You can’t turn around, so there is a legal safety issue here.
Reply MARTIN: The UPS driver comes in and turns around in there now. I can make more room in back.
Question BLUSKE: Where will customers park? Can you take a pen and draw on the map where your parking area is right now, so we can all see this.
(Mr. Martin describes two parking areas.)
Question BLUSKE: Could you draw in what the driveway looks like and where the parking area stops by the garage?
(Mr. Martin depicts two parking areas and driveway on overhead map.)
Remark MARTIN: I don’t expect more than a couple of cars at most on any day. We could enlarge the back area near the sandstone. I took some out when we built the garage.
Question RAUK: If there was one 4-door car parked in front, would you say no
other vehicle could get around it to the garage area to turn around?
Answer MARTIN: I think when you were out there my wife’s car was parked there
by the house. There’s room for one vehicle there – it could be widened there to
make more room.
Opposition: None.
Public hearing is closed.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Letter from Town of Holland received August 29 from their August 27 meeting. Board action to approve unanimously.
Department Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Solely basked on safety issues. By statute Committee must consider health, safety and welfare. Entrance is too steep coming in from either direction. No site to turn around unless enormous changes are made to the landscape. We recommend denial.
Remark MEYER: My concern is entrance from the highway. Parking could be solved.
Remark BLUSKE: I would recommend to postpone until a plan is brought in, indicating how he’ll do that.
Motion Meyer/Bina to delay until applicant brings in plan to address safety issues. Discussion on how to prepare plan and how to address safety issues.
Remark BLUSKE: Safety is the only issue we have with this. It would be deferred until he brings in a plan.
Question KAPANKE: Approved at the business meeting?
Answer BLUSKE: No. He’d have to come back in.
Question BINA: Flaten Road, that’s a town road?
Answer BLUSKE: Town road.
Remark BLUSKE: Land Conservation should probably go out there – may be erosion problems.
Question HAMMES: How detailed should the plan be?
Answer BLUSKE: With all dimensions. We would recommend the next time the Committee goes out there, if on October 1, we need it within two weeks. We’d like to see stakes out there that show new driveway location. I believe the November meeting might be October 30.
Remark BINA: You could put a plan together in a couple of weeks.
Remark HAMMES: I’d strongly recommend getting Land Conservation involved, because you’ll probably need an erosion control permit.
Remark BLUSKE: You’ll want to weigh whether you’ll make enough from the business to make it pay for trucking the dirt from here.
Motion carries unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1757 Mark D. Dummer, N5530 Hole Rd, West Salem WI 54669, acting on behalf of Rodney R. Loging, N2441 County Road YY, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to rezone from Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, a 12.872 acre parcel in order to split the existing home and farmstead outbuildings, on land described as: Part of the NE-NW, of the NW-NW, and of the SW-NW of Section 3, T 15 N, R 6 W described as: Commencing at the N¼ corner of Section 3; S74°04’18”W 1262.13’ to the intersection of the westerly right-of-way line of County Highway YY and the east line of the west 114.00’ of the NE-NW, the point of beginning of this description; S01°44’42”W 1106.28’ along the east line of 114.00’ of the NE-NW of said Section 3, to a point on the north line of the SE-NW of Section 3; N89°10’55”W 114.01’ along the north line of the SE-NW to the Northwest corner of the SE-NW, S01°44’42” W 138.05’ along the west line of the SE-NW, N89°10’55”W 393.74’; N01°44’42”E 658.62’; N15°56’20”E, 497.84’; Northeasterly 76.34’ along the arc of a 67.00’radius curve concave to the Southeast, the chord of which bears N48°34’50”E and measures 72.28’; thence N81°13’20”E 338.58’ to the point of beginning of this description. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in Favor: Mark Dummer, N5530 Hole Rd., West Salem WI 54669.
I intend to purchase this farm along with my brothers. The current owner, Rodney Loging would like to retain the parcel which is being rezoned.
Question BINA: Will you be constructing a new bridge to gain access to the property?
Answer DUMMER: I have been in contact with Dave Pericak and Carrie Olson from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and we would need to construct a new bridge to the north for access to our property.
Question BLUSKE: There is an access issue with the parcel which Mr. Loging intends to keep. The survey shows that he does not have direct access to the road. Can you explain this situation?
Answer DUMMER: The survey shows a small sliver of land which is actually owned by Evenson. We believe that Mr. Loging will be claiming adverse possession on this piece of property. If Mr. Loging is not successful in that claim, we intend to offer him access along our new driveway and bridge/creek crossing via easement.
The Committee, Bluske and Dummer discuss the new access, bridge and possible new town road, depending on how many homes are intended to have access along the new road over the new bridge.
Appearing in Favor:
Dick Berg, W7463 Sylvester Rd., Holmen WI 54669. I am the licensed engineer
and surveyor on this project. I believe that Mr. Loging has a very strong case
of adverse possession on the sliver of land mentioned earlier. He has been
using this access and bridge for a number of years. Mr. Loging could have
created and kept a 5-acre parcel and this petition would not be in front of you
as it would not have needed rezoning. But Mr. Loging wanted to keep all of the
outbuildings, which would have been a long, narrow five acres.
Question BLUSKE: Is there any plan for future subdividing?
Answer BERG: No, he just wanted to keep all of the farm buildings of the original farm.
Question BLUSKE: What about the rest of the property being sold to Dummer?
Answer BERG: The Dummers will be purchasing the larger farm acreage, about 260 acres. Each brother would own about 65 acres and the property is intended to remain in Exclusive Agricultural Zoning. They intend to continue to farm the property.
Opposition: None
Correspondence: None
Department Recommendation: Recommend approval for conditional zoning of the 12.87 acre parcel, no further subdivision.
Motion by Hanson/Bina to approve as conditional zoning, no further subdivision.
Motion carries unanimously.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2007-08 Ronald E. and Susan J. Anderson, W2295 E. Olson Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Petition to perform grading and fill work in order to install a 4-ft diameter by 36-ft long culvert for crossing an unnamed stream off Kendhammer Road, this project lies within the Shoreland District of said creek, on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as: The NE-SE of Section 6, T 17 N, R 5 W. Town of Burns.
Appearing in Favor: Ronald Anderson, W2295 East Olson Road, Bangor WI 54614. Want to put a culvert across creek. Received DNR Permit last Friday. Town Chairman was supposed to contact Ron Peterson this morning. (Provides copy of DNR permit to Jeff Bluske.) I need to get to the fields. I raise hay for horses and beef and a little corn. Had been driving through daughter’s place but she sold last week, so after about 1 month I’ll be landlocked.
Question HAMMES: Do you intend to do this right away?
Answer ANDERSON: Yes, as soon as I get all permits. I am working with Erosion Control people.
Question BINA: Is Kendhammer Road a Town road?
Answer ANDERSON: Yes.
Question BINA: Does the DNR determine culvert size?
Answer ANDERSON: Yes, well they didn’t but I have drawings.
Question BINA: Did someone analyze the volume of water that comes down there?
Answer ANDERSON: It’s a non-engineering culvert permit. Very little water comes down the creek – it didn’t need to be done.
Question RAUK: I’m curious about elevation difference between the roadbed and the creek bed. Looks like a high crossing.
Answer ANDERSON: I have it drawn out (presents sketch to Committee).
Question BINA: That ditch must be 25 to 30 feet deep there isn’t it?
Remark RAUK: Bottom of culvert is generic elevation of 93 feet, assuming centerline of Kendhammer is 101.8 feet for a difference of 9 feet? I’d have guessed it at 15 to 20-ft difference.
Question BLUSKE: You indicate a 36-foot x 4-foot diameter culvert. Did Land
Conservation given an idea on end slopes? 36 feet isn’t very wide with end
slopes and top. How wide will the top be?
Answer ANDERSON: 20 feet.
Remark BLUSKE: You’ll have some steep sides on that – they’ll drop off quickly. Could you explain what non-engineered means?
Answer ANDERSON: So that we didn’t need an engineer to do it.
Question BLUSKE: In your application, it’s called a field road but in Land Conservation notes it says there’ll be a house, too. You didn’t apply as a residential crossing.
Answer ANDERSON: That’s not true. All I want is for agriculture at this time.
Question BLUSKE: So there may be a house at some time?
Answer ANDERSON: Some time maybe. I’d have to sell my house first.
Question BINA: We’re coming off a Town road, putting a farm driveway in. What’s the difference between this and a house driveway? Are there different standards?
Answer BLUSKE: I’m thinking there might be. In our shoreland ordinance it says you need dry land access. There’s a culvert upstream that regulates how much water comes through this one. If this one washes out, he needs access to get out of that property.
Question BINA: The road goes up to the old Gilster farm that burned a few years ago. Is there a way you can come over the Gilsters to get to your land?
Answer ANDERSON: Kendhammer stops at Gilsters. It’s possible.
Remark BLUSKE: That’s where you originally wanted it to go.
Reply ANDERSON: Yes. That isn’t feasible. It was like $10,000, so I talked to the DNR again. They gave me this permit without engineering.
Remark WEIBEL: That’s a general permit.
Remark BLUSKE: I don’t know the difference between engineered and non-engineered. I’m thinking for residential it needs to be engineered.
Remark JUNG: Maybe I can give you some details from the plan. Top of road to bottom of culvert is about 9 feet. Culvert is below paved portion only 6 feet – when they come off road they’re going down 12 percent. Side slopes off 20-ft top are 1:1. Culvert is laid at 1.87 percent slope. This is non-engineered maybe because this is an Agriculture access. The plan is pretty detailed.
Remark BLUSKE: I don’t know if Land Conservation would go with a 1:1. 3:1 is normal, especially with water running up against it.
Question BINA: Can we hold this over 30 days to see if Land Conservation can analyze the plan? What’s the difference between a field road and a driveway for a house? Will he need to redo the road if he builds? He has to change it then.
Question ANDERSON: What kind of change? Making the culvert wider?
Remark BLUSKE: I have something from Land Conservation here.
Question RAUK: Did the DNR come out to the site?
Answer ANDERSON: Yes.
Question RAUK: Did you have it staked out then?
Answer ANDERSON: No.
Remark RAUK: The difference in crossing the creek bed on the Gilster end is huge. Twenty feet up or down the creek bed makes a huge elevation change. I’m skeptical it’s only a 9-ft elevation change.
Remark BLUSKE: Without engineering, this might not be sized for the amount of water coming down there.
Remark ANDERSON: After the 3.7 inches of rain we had the weekend of heavy rain, I went out there the next day and the creek was about 2 feet wide with 6 inches of water.
Opposition: None. Public hearing closed.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: I’m assuming Town of Burn has taken action but I have no correspondence. I have correspondence from Land Conservation in June, but the plan has changed since then. (Notes from Matt Hanewall’s June 4th site visit read into record.) The application and permit from the DNR was for a field road and that’s what they’ve given permission for.
Department Recommendation: Approval subject to these conditions:
1. A permit is hereby approved to allow grading and filling in the Shoreland District for
a field over a culvert access crossing off Kendhammer. (Not for residential use - not
contained in application.)
2. Permit allows the placement of one 4-ft diameter by 36-ft long culvert into the bed of
the stream.
3. This permit is subject to DNR permit and approval.
4. An approved Erosion Control Plan is required from the La Crosse County Land Conservation Department before any grading or fill work is commenced.
5. This permit is non-transferable and expires the end of August 2008.
Question HAMMES: If Land Conservation requires a greater slope, can we state that the culvert must be longer? Maybe that the length be determined by Land Conservation?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes.
Question HAMMES: Would that change the DNR permit?
Answer BLUSKE: I don’t know. I didn’t get a chance to read it. We need a copy for our file.
Remark HANSON: There’s a lot less ditch at the end of Kendhammer Road. Where I looked at it, it looked like the wrong place for a crossing.
Remark ANDERSON: This road would be about 420 feet from the center of County Road DE.
Reply HANSON: Yes, just beyond your line fence.
(Inaudible discussion)
Motion Kapanke/Bina to approve with Department recommendations. Discussion of Land Conservation activity relating to this proposal, township driveway standards.
Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1758 Gary Lass, Gerrard-Hoeschler Realtors, 1131 Main Street, Onalaska WI 54650, acting on behalf of David L. Whistleman, 230 19th St S, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to rezone from Transitional Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A” with deed restrictions, on a 16.25-acre parcel for development into three single family dwelling sites, on land described as: Part of Government Lot 1 in Section 26, and in part of the SE-SE of Section 23, all in T 17 N, R 8 W more fully described in tax parcels 10-1783-0 and 10-2144-0. Town of Onalaska.
Appearing in Favor: Gary Lass, Gerrard-Hoeschler Realtors, 1131 Main Street, Onalaska WI 54650. There was another request here tonight contingent on amending the Town Plan. We’ve been through that process with the Town of Onalaska. On August 23 we had a public hearing and a special Town Board meeting to amend the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel, originally 2 parcels here, a total of 16 acres, to amend Town’s Plan from Preservation Agriculture to Conservation Residential. We thought at that time that the Town had made a recommendation to the County on the rezoning, but have been informed that we need to go back and get that, so we don’t have that but hope you can consider this contingent on getting that. Our goal here is to have 3 residential single family sites. This land is currently Transitional Ag. Looking for Conditional Zoning for 3 homes in Ag “A” District. Couple of considerations here, this is surrounded by residential on two sides. Lake Park Addition on one side, which will be the access for these 3 single family sites on existing roads and then the other 2 sides by Earl Pedretti’s land which is Preservation Agricultural. So we don’t need any new roads for this, we think that putting 3 single family home sites here is the highest and best use for the land. In fact when you look at those roads - Schaller, Lark and Robin - it looks like there was the intention initially, when this subdivision was laid out, that this was to be residential. Those roads were kept open, they end right there (at this property). This will increase the tax base for both the Town and the County. The parcels are too small to be profitable for agriculture; there are only 16 acres. In fact if Earl Pedretti didn’t farm this 16 acres there wouldn’t be any access for farm equipment. I don’t think the neighborhood would want fancy equipment coming in and out on those roads so it’s really not practical for Agricultural if Earl Pedretti decided not to farm that. He in fact supported our change when he was at the Town Board meeting. They buyers are here and are happy to speak to the Committee. They actually live in the neighborhood now, so this is not a speculation development or anything like that. They plan to live there and raise their families as they are doing now. So I guess what we are looking for is your approval tonight contingent upon the Town of Onalaska approving this at their September meeting.
Question BINA: You have three separate parcels – each will be sold to a separate family to put one house on.
Answer LASS: Correct.
Question BINA: So you’re not going to have a housing development there, you’re
going to have lands that are bigger and broader than the houses that you see on
the map here?
Answer LASS: Two of the prospective home owners are here, they could describe
the types of homes they are going to build. We have not found a buyer for the
third parcel yet, that is what the deed restrictions will do, limit that to one
home per parcel, there is no future subdivision of these lots to occur here.
Question BINA: There won’t be a city built up out there beyond these homes?
Answer LASS: Kind of wanted to point out that part of the Town of Onalaska’s
plan would maybe like to see a higher density development go in here but with
objections from some of the people. We are having enough trouble just getting
three homes on this let alone trying to put in more. The roads coming in there
now are not constructed to support higher density beyond this property.
Question KEIL: Will any of those streets go to Pedretti’s property or will he be landlocked?
Answer LASS: He will not be landlocked, he’s got another way to come in if he wants to. He supported this actually.
Question BLUSKE: When staff took a look at this we definitely considered this a
waste of ground for three houses on it. When you talked to the Town what is
their minimum acreage size? For parcels in this district?
Answer LASS: 1½ acres I believe.
Question BLUSKE: In Conservation Residential?
Answer LASS: I believe that’s the Comprehensive Plan - I think a half acre but
I’m not certain of that. At 1½ acres we had to do an impact study.
Question BLUSKE: So you’re saying it’s a half acre in Conservation Residential
and 1½ acres in everything else?
Answer LASS: I believe so, I’m not certain. They were in the process of
approving this. I’m sure we’ll have approval when the Board meets again.
Appearing in Favor: Rick Rayburn (no address given). I’ve been living on the prairie for the better part of 40 years. We have 2 small children now, my parents live down there. We like to keep everything close. Our current house is about 1000 square feet, pretty small to raise two small children. We have a friend that will be building next to us, their house is pretty small too. We have a third friend who may build on the third lot, the far upper one. We all wanted more lot, we all have about a half acre now and not much you can do on a half acre with kids. Like to add on to house but really can’t, just no room. Our idea is to build our dream house out there, not something we want to sell off. That lower lot, once house built on it can not be subdivided, would be landlocked, no other way to get in there. The other house, too small to split off. Third one above, he doesn’t want to split, has the money, doesn’t want neighbors that close. Some flaws in Comprehensive Plan regarding this parcel. Not big enough for agriculture, but owner can’t build on it either the way it’s set up. We though this would be perfect for this use; no roads, no impact, no costs to the Town. I think it’s Ag “A” now so the Town was the only one that had to change.
Remarks HAMMES: It’s Transitional Ag now so you need to rezone to Ag “A.” Town
Chairman supports it, most Board members do. One abstaining – his brother owns
land next to it.
Question BLUSKE: Could you show on the screen where the three houses would be built? Answer: (Rayburn depicts house locations on overhead.)
Appearing in Favor: John Zabel, W8314 Prairie Pine Lane, Onalaska WI 54650. Not looking at further subdivision.
Question BLUSKE: Did you go to the Town meeting?
Answer ZABEL: I did not.
Remark/Question BLUSKE: Each one of these roads would typically end in a cul-de-sac, don’t know why they weren’t put in. Did the Town say you had to dedicate any land for cul-de-sac?
Answer ZABEL: No (discussion on vehicles turning around).
Appearing in Favor: Rhonda Rayburn, N5812 Lakeview Court East, Onalaska WI 54650.
Onalaska Comprehensive Plan encourages green space and is important to residents. Idea of wasted space is what the residents want.
Question BINA: Which lot is yours?
Answer RHONDA RAYBURN: The one on the bottom (refers to overhead map) – the 7
acres.
Question BINA: Will whoever owns the long narrow lot use the bottom as green
space for neighbors?
Answer RHONDA RAYBURN: Can’t answer that. I know I’d like to be the home where
the kids come to, so I know they’re safe.
Unidentified Testimony from Gallery: I might be able to answer Mr. Bluske’s earlier question – Town Plan calls for minimum 1.5 acre lots.
Appearing in Opposition: Dave Paudler, W7769 County Road ZB, Onalaska WI 54650.
Not in opposition – just want to point some things out. Cul-de-sac needs to be dedicated at ends by owners. Difficult for town vehicles to turn around. Were probably plans at one time to do that. Take a look at what’s available for lots – is there a need? We did a master plan for Brice Prairie and that was not included in future development. The master plan is important because of groundwater issues. I replaced my well because of high nitrates. I went deeper but am still at 9 parts per million. Things go through the soil quickly. If we tip that balance the cost to taxpayers will be tremendous. Keep in mind if approved there will be more requests for lots. At what point to we stop? To bring water out would be about $20,000 per resident.
Question BINA: If Pedretti wishes to sell/develop this will land lock his land and they’ll need to come in a different way.
Reply PAUDLER: They’d need to bring in a Town road from the north.
Remark BINA: You’re gonna get growth out there, depends on what kind you want.
Reply PAUDLER: That’s the reason for the master plan, to protect that balance. We need to consider future requests and question the need for rezoning. We have probably over 200 lots available in the School District of Holmen.
Question BLUSKE: Did you get a chance to sit in with the Planning Committee when they were asked to change this?
Answer PAUDLER: Yes.
Question BLUSKE: Do you know why they changed this?
Answer PAUDLER: This is my personal opinion. I think there is confusion over rights. They feel a farmer should be able to rezone to any higher and better use. They have the right to use it for what it is zoned without restriction by the Town. If that’s the case, I’d want the right to rezone my house to a higher and better use. Maybe commercial. If we do that, we have a huge problem.
Appearing in Opposition: Merlin Paudler, N5781 County Road OT, Onalaska WI 54650.
Not against it completely. Plowed snow for Town for 20 years. Streets need cul-de-sacs.
Question RAUK: Has the issue been addressed by the Town? This has been this way for a long time.
Answer M. PAUDLER: At one time Schaller owned it. He developed it. That was before I worked for the Town. He wanted a cul-de-sac but not until he developed the rest.
Question RAUK: The roads have been there a long time. Streets have been plowed. Why is the cul-de-sac issue coming to us?
Answer M. PAUDLER: The roads might have went in further when it got developed.
Appearing in Opposition: Lloyd Reno, N5654 Theron Court, Onalaska WI 54650. One of the properties abutting. Not so much opposition – several questions. At Town hearing they talked about going Ag “A.” They’d be taxed $3.00 per acre. I’m taxed at full value for my acre. What will they be taxed?
Answer BLUSKE: If the use is residential, they’re taxed residential. He’s not farming it now.
Remark RENO: They took a crop off today. They take it off about three times a year. Town has no weed control. We could have lots of weeds.
No further testimony. Public hearing closed.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Town dated August 28 (Read into record that zoning
change has not been made to Town of Onalaska, only change in Plan). No
recommendation from Town. Town of Onalaska has standing resolution that if it
doesn’t make an agenda, they have until next month to make a recommendation.
Nothing from the Town about Plan amendment either. Recommend referring to next
month. If the new Town Board would like an orientation on zoning issues, I
would do that. They haven’t asked for that. I extended that to the Town
Planning Commission too. We need something in writing from them.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to refer to next month.
Carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1759 Thomas Whitney, 3638 E Blackhawk Dr, Milton WI 53563, acting on behalf of James W. Davis, 11002 460th St, Wanamingo MN 55983. Petition to rezone from Agricultural District “A” to Agricultural District “B”, a 0.52-acre parcel to be used for a nine campsite expansion of the existing Neshonoc Lakeside Campground on land described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 33 in Volume 4. Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: Architect Jerry Schomberg. We’re helping the owners develop the property. Mr. Whitney can explain answers to business questions. We represent owner Jim Davis – remote owner who doesn’t get here often. Town went through reassessment – owner needs to do something with parcel. Parcel has shortcomings – that’s why we’re here. Currently zoned Ag “A” where we can’t develop campsites. We need to rezone to Ag “B.” There’s no well, potable water or septic. It’s low land. There’s no electric or utility easements to the parcel (shows proposed location on map). We could get 5 campsites and expand existing camping for a total of 9 campsites. We have utilities and access from existing campground. It’s seasonal campers all self-contained with approved tanks pumped with a honey bucket and put in sanitary system. We went to the Town. There’s an existing cottage we’d raze and improve the site with campsites – improve the use. I spoke with Jim Speropulos and there’s no county owned land in front of it.
Question BLUSKE: What campsites would the proposed road go through? There’s an area with poor drainage.
Answer SCHOMBERG: The area with poor drainage is on the north part of the parcel. The road would go through by the north end of that fence (refers to survey).
Question BINA: Would it go in from the bottom?
Answer SCHOMBERG: Definitely the bottom (refers to survey). This is the current campsite, the fence is here – we’d go right here. It’s all on the lower level – elevation difference from one end to the other isn’t more than a couple of feet.
Question BLUSKE: Would the campsites go on a slope? That goes uphill – we looked at it. The house is up here – that’s about a 20-foot elevation change. They’ll be on a side slope (discussion on site location).
Answer SCHOMBERG: We’re south of that – the elevation from north to south end is plus or minus 2 feet.
Remark JUNG: This is a cabin on the lot – I’ll show you on the map where the cabin is located (refers to survey). Campsites are here – it’s fairly flat (further discussion on site location).
Question BLUSKE: Current campground has 31 sites considered non-conforming. A question for the Committee is whether we should allow expansion when there are existing non-compliant sites. We’ve sent them a letter, talked to DNR, and asked for something in writing how they’ll remove the 31 sites. Can that be addressed?
Answer SCHOMBERG: The new campsites will be 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The other sites have existing campers where they’ve put in permanent items like decks within the 75-ft setback. My understanding is that there was a sunset clause – that new owners coming in wouldn’t be allowed to do that.
Remark BLUSKE: I’m not aware of that, no.
Appearing in Favor: Thomas Whitney, 3638 E Blackhawk Dr, Milton WI 53563.
Remark WHITNEY: Regarding non-compliant campsites – I understood there was an “agreed to” period for those units to comply.
Reply BLUSKE: No.
Question BINA: Who’d you receive correspondence from?
Answer WHITNEY: Somebody from within our offices. I don’t know if it’s complete.
Remark BLUSKE: This is why we have a staff meeting because there’s other people in the office working on things related to issues that might come into play. Mike deals with the building portion of this. I’ll let Mike explain this.
Remark BINA: We’re really not talking about that tonight.
Reply BLUSKE: I know, but it has a bearing on whether this should happen. Right now, recommendation will be no. I’ve talked with Corporation Counsel and we can’t get into contract zoning. We won’t support more campsites when we have some that are non-compliant.
Remark WEIBEL: There is no “agreed to” time period for the campground to come into compliance. There were talks with prior owners Martells. There’s been no agreement among the County, DNR and owners on compliance timeframe.
Question BLUSKE: Tom, is this contingent on you getting the zoning or will you
purchase it anyway?
Answer WHITNEY: It is contingent on the zoning. We have been converting some
of those campsites. I don’t have the numbers. If anyone sells their campsite
within the 75 feet, we make them remove their items from the site. We then put
a mobile travel trailer on the site with no improvements. We’re not allowing
anyone to put anything within the 75 feet. We’re taking steps to resolve it.
People have money invested in their sites – we’re trying to juggle things as
best we can.
Appearing in Favor: Richard Schomburg, Chairman – Town of Hamilton, W3679 County Road C, West Salem WI 54669. We weren’t aware of the non-compliance. Doesn’t make a difference to the Town – this is landlocked land and it will be turned into something profitable/taxable for the Town of Hamilton – Board supports this.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Town of Hamilton received August 28, 2007 – recommending unanimous approval – read into record.
Department Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Corporation Counsel recommending deferral until Shoreland violations are resolved on adjacent campground. Letter to Mr. Martell was sent in February of 2006 with no resolution to date. Hopefully we can get something in writing from Mr. Whitney to start these talks. Deferral won’t get us anything. We recommend this be rezoned with the understanding they must contact us to start resolving non-compliance issues.
Question RAUK: What do you recommend?
Answer BLUSKE: Approval.
Question KAPANKE: Approval? With any conditions?
Answer BLUSKE: We can’t make this contract zoning. We can’t force them to come to the table – that’s an exchange for something. Conditional zoning is limiting uses or subdividing allowed in the district.
Question MEYER: Are you willing to resolve this issue?
Answer WHITNEY: I don’t have the final say. We need to resolve this – there’s differences of understanding where we’re at. I know we need an agreement.
Remark HANSON: You need to do this. Somebody could come in tomorrow and say you need to get these things out now. You need to let people know where they stand.
Remark VANDENLANGENBERG: I was there with Carrie Olson last week. It’ll be difficult to deal with enforcement on all other properties on Lake Neshonoc when they can point to the campground and see other structures and the grass mowed. We need to resolve this.
Question HAMMES: For the record, could you state the range of possibilities of
enforcement?
Answer BLUSKE: They can be fined immediately, could be a daily fine. If they
ignore that, we can get an injunction to have them removed. That could have an
enormous financial impact, then breach of contract on his part for not informing
the people (campers). Somebody has to tell these people. It has to be done –
it’s not going away once every 10 years.
Question HAMMES: Do you understand, Mr. Whitney?
Answer WHITNEY: Yes.
Question MEYER: Who gets fined – the owner of the campground or the camper?
Answer BLUSKE: The owner.
Motion Hanson/Keil to approve.
Motion carries unanimously.
Motion Hanson/Keil to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Motion carries unanimously.
Adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.
Mike Weibel, Recorder