PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
October 29, 2007
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
George Hammes – Chair, Terry Hanson, Tom Rauk, Robert Keil, Don Bina, Don Meyer |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
Brian Kapanke |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
None |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jeff Bluske, Bill Jung, Chad Vandenlangenberg, 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. 246 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. 246 filed by Kenneth and Barbara Feehan, W5267 County Road B, La Crosse WI 54601, and passed by the County Board on April 23, 1992 to operate a small engine repair business from their residence. Reason for terminating – no longer performing small engine repair. Town of Medary.
(BLUSKE) Reviews conditions of the permit – reviews Vandenlangenberg inspection notes of Feehan Conditional Use Permit No. 246. Feehan no longer does any small engine repair, has agreed to voluntarily terminate conditional use permit.
No persons appearing to give testimony.
Motion Meyer/Keil to terminate.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
CONTINUED 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. Here once before to go back to Town to change Land Use Plan and to receive approval from Town Board. Have addressed snow removal questions, cul-de-sacs not needed – easement to push snow off end of street all that’s needed – statement submitted. Statement from Earl Pedretti accepted – no concern for access to his adjacent lands.
Opposition: Vicki Burke W8349 Northshore Drive Onalaska WI 54650. Concern for planning in this area – 3 homes on 16 acres – not sure about acreage of each lot – concerned about lot having access off of current Town roads to larger adjacent parcel seems like poor planning.
Correspondence: E-mail received from Town Clerk – portion of Town Board minutes – Town recommends approval of 3 parcels for 3 homes, easement for snow removal, approval from Earl Pedretti regarding access to his property required.
Staff Recommendation: Approval as Conditional Zoning for 3 parcels.
Question BINA: County hasn’t completed Plan. When will County Plan be updated for this?
Answer BLUSKE: County will act on this in February to update County Plan.
Question BINA: This will hold up construction until next February?
Answer BLUSKE: No.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve as Conditional Zoning.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
REFERRED 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 the 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: Darryl Talcott, 125 E Hamilton St, West Salem WI 54669; attorney for James W. Davis, owner of the subject property. Appearing to address issues raised in a letter from Attorney Sean O’Flaherty dated September 20, 2007, as well as issues raised in a petition to protest the proposed amendment to the La Crosse County Zoning Ordinance which I assume you have been furnished copies of but I’m not sure. Would like to first address the issues raised in the September 20, 2007 letter. Order of sequence should begin with item “C” of that letter. In item “C”, Mr. Webster is making a claim that he owns this land, rather than Mr. Davis. This property was conveyed from La Crosse County to Mr. Davis on April 8, 1988. The property was acquired by La Crosse County from Northern States Power Company, who had acquired it previously from Swarthout who was the owner of the property. There was an old restriction in a deed from an earlier predecessor in title by the name of Bolles that had a reversionary interest to the Bolles family and successors in title. We feel none of that is applicable under the present circumstances for 3 legal reasons. First, the cabin and use of this property started in 1958 when Mr. Havens put this cabin on this property and ever since that time have used it to the exclusion, openly adversely and exclusively to all others, it’s been a fenced area and frankly even without the deed from La Crosse County it’s Mr. Davis’s position that he and his predecessors in title, being his family, have acquired that property by the 20-year adverse possession statute. Secondly, there is another adverse possession statute that provides that if you own property under color of title and you adversely, openly and notoriously use that as your own property for a 10-year period then you acquire it by adverse possession. There was a color of title established by the County in 1988 when that deed was given and after a 10-year period of time it is our position that, that statute bases title in the Davis family or now James W. Davis. Thirdly, there is another statute which is 893.33 Wis. Stats. that provides that if you have reversionary interest and it’s a recorded interest, then every 30 years you need to record something to protect that reversionary interest. I don’t believe there is anything of record here to indicate that, it’s my belief that the 30 year statute cut that right off and that is also a statute of limitations for Mr. Bolles or any successors in title of Mr. Bolles. That addresses the issue with regard to ownership. We are of the firm position that this land is owned by James W. Davis, that there is no problem with his title to the property and that can be adequately defended in any court action. Then in regard to item No. 1(a) a statement that there are no easement rights. And this follows the same line. Mr. Webster’s argument is generated from a quit claim deed given by La Crosse County in 1988. In that quit claim deed the County obviously wasn’t going to guarantee access because there was nothing of record by adverse possession or otherwise that they had acquired with the property to provide access. I think the statement in the deed should be read for what it states. And that deed specifically stated, “La Crosse County makes no representations as to access as the property does not have a right of ingress and egress.” All they are saying is that there is nothing there that they had to give, and no representations went with regard to that . That still does not deal with rights of adverse user. Adverse user is identical to adverse possession statutes except it applies for easement rights and so forth. Again, Access to that property, if you look at the map up there (on overhead) where it says Day/Resheske in that area there has been access that has been continuously used off of that easement there to access the property that Mr. Davis owns. Our position regardless of what may have been in that deed from La Crosse County is that there is adverse user of that access although in this case should the Committee and County Board approve this there would be no use of that easement anyhow because access to the parcel would be from the west side from the existing campground. So it’s really in my mind a moot question if this is approved. If not approved that will be a private issue that apparently will have to be raised in a court action against Mr. Webster if he tries to deny them continued access to their property. Getting to item No. 2 or b with regard to the adjoining lands, again, if you look at the top end of the map, the only thing it shows as adjoining is the parcel to the east of the Day/Resheske property to where the line starts going south. It’s a small area, probably less than 100 feet. The only other argument would be that if Mr. Webster is taking the position that he owns the Davis property then he is also taking the position he owns the property called La Crosse County (on the map). He would own all of the shoreland that you people have had a dispute on for years or for the last couple years in heavy detail in which you are talking about selling to the adjoining landowners; at least those in that area in which Mr. Webster has lands. I don’t think anyone is buying that argument. When the County took the property over, they researched that issue and came to the conclusion that there aren’t any reversionary interests, but it was an argument that was made, but I don’t think you should be afraid of that argument because I think you own the land just as well as Mr. Davis owning the other land. Then I would like to get into the issues with regard to the items that were raised on the petition to protest. I addressed item No. 1 on that. Item No. 2 I don’t see that as relevant other than it’s a statement with regard to what the County is going to do with their zoning ordinance and then he cites a deed in Volume 500 page 76. I don’t know where he gets the idea that he has the right to fish or trap the lands owned by Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has title all the way to Lake Neshonoc from the deed granted by the County and it really doesn’t abut his property to the north. I don’t know where that argument is coming from, but we don’t believe that is applicable. Yeah, I suppose Northern Hydro could flood and cover the land, but it could cover all the land down there including the existing campground lands which I believe were sold by La Crosse County. These things that are set forth are items that were probably in Mr. Webster’s deed. I did not look at that today. I actually was the attorney that represented the seller to Mr. Webster many years ago. I was unavailable to get the deed. With regard to item No. 3 with regard to being inconsistent with Comprehensive Planning. I don’t think there was anything more consistent with the way it is right now. The adjoining land and part of the lands the sites are on are in the existing campground. It’s not going to interfere with anyone else’s use of the property. It doesn’t interfere with the Deml Trust property or anything further to the east. I don’t think that is a legitimate argument here to be made by Mr. Webster. With regard to drainage, it’s the same kind of issue. His land doesn’t drain down, it comes down through there, but there isn’t anything there where those sites are shown that is going to interfere with that. Where the existing cabin site is pretty high ground and it won’t drain directly on those areas. With regard trespassing, I indicated before we don’t consider that with being an issue. If you follow the map around, Mr. Davis has had that adjoining property on the west side for many many years, the family has had it since 1958 and they have not hand any problems with the campground people. I don’t know why any of that would change in the future. I think that is just one of those arguments you make just to make an argument. In summary I would like to request that you again reaffirm your previous action to this Committee to affirm the request to rezone and recommend it to the full County Board.
Appearing in Favor: Barbara Resheske, N5317 Lake Rd, West Salem WI 54669. Not opposed, have 145 feet adjoining the Davis property. Couple concerns – tree cutting that may cause erosion. Concerned for future ownership of lands east of Davis property, Resheske or Webster? Would like to have some access to the lake.
Question HAMMES: That’s not up for sale is it?
Answer BLUSKE: All this land from here (indicates on map) all the way east is for sale.
Question HAMMES: Is for sale, then would be to the highest bidder?
Answer BLUSKE: The people who are adjacent who would be ones bidding, it’s already been surveyed. That hasn’t gone to the Facilities Committee yet.
Question HAMMES: Now it’s just the ones in that one area right? At the moment so far?
Answer BLUSKE: Maybe Bill could answer the question better how the lines are running. Let’s let Bill Jung, the County Surveyor, answer that.
Question JUNG: What was your last question Mr. Chairman?
Question HAMMES: Well at the current time it’s not right here that they’re doing the appraisals on?
Answer JUNG: Yes, it’s this site by Lake Road. The other one is down by Shorewood, we finally got permission from DNR to do that and the other site is on the west side of the lake by the new Neshonoc Lake subdivision. All the properties from Mr. Webster east, there are 7 properties. The adjoining County lands have been surveyed and appraised and I believe that’s going back to the Facilities Committee at their November 5 meeting. The appraisals will be reported to the Committee at that time.
Question HAMMES: So those that would be able to purchase are the adjacent property owners?
Answer JUNG: Yes, in this case, would be Mr. Webster.
Appearing in Opposition:
George Webster, W2730 State Rd 16, West Salem WI 54669. Bought farm in 1971,
bought from Mr. Brevik, before that it was rented to Harlan Meyers, grew up on
this farm – this changes the culture of our shoreline – Brevik sold to persons
who would maintain single family private homes – private shoreland use. Brevik
probably had opportunity to sell to people that would like having a boat livery
or something of that sort but he didn’t do that. He kept the culture of being
single family, private shoreline homes. This changes all that in Government Lot
4 – this is the camel sticking his nose under the tent where the campground has
found a way of acquiring this land. I want to say that the Davis parcel was
first to Alma Havens and that parcel was of the same stretch as all the rest of
these, now that you have surveyed and are going convey to various owners. In
that sense Barb Reshesky and her co-owner would now be in the position of
receiving the Davis parcel from this County land in the same way that the
project you have for Lake Road. Because Barbara Resheske is the shoreland
frontage for that, but because Davis was given a deed earlier he’s actually in
her place. Regarding the access, there is no access and the reason the Davis
deed says there is no access is because going back to the Swarthout-Bolles deed,
the Swarthout side of that agreement his interest, expressed clearly in the deed
was only to establish a lake behind the dam. That was all he wanted out of this
land that we call the County land. On the other hand the Bolles family were
standing on their side of that line that the surveyors presented to them all
they cared about, they could see the water rising and as far as it could get for
that elevation beyond that they felt their farm was no different. That the land
that was un-flooded, that’s the way it says in the deed, that the un-flooded
land retains all these uses that the Bolles family were accustomed to use on
their farm. So it’s nothing antique- these are things that they used express
their constructive use of what we call the County land. There wasn’t any
provision for access to the County land. Swarthouts didn’t ask for access, in
fact it was the other way around. The Bolles family, in order to agree with
Swarthout’s plan, they wanted to be assured that they held exclusive access from
the flowage line down to the lake. Mr. Davis found himself in the situation
that he is landlocked and he accepted a letter of permission from me to use my
land. The access that Mr. Davis uses or used until I learned he wasn’t going to
be a single family dwelling anymore. He accesses from a gate close to the Deml
property and here is where he crosses my land to get to the County property – I
gave him permission to do that for the last 8 or 9 years. He accepted the
permission, it’s not that he got some adverse use of it.
Remarks HAMMES: There’s one thing I think you should understand. This Committee has 3 things to look at: how it affects the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. Those are the 3 things we are looking for. As far as rezoning this they have access from another point. It doesn’t matter if you’ve cut off the access, if we rezone it it goes to another point, are we going to rezone it or not? How is it going to affect your health, safety or welfare?
Remarks WEBSTER: That’s the point I’m raising for the whole distance along the flowage line. Each of these properties, this is Deml’s, eight others along the way, to have this become a commercial use, there will be any number of people coming off the highway and they’ll be trying to explore, to find a way of getting to the campground that isn’t there. That’s all additional traffic on our road. There’s little kids at the campground that are going to come exploring and we’ve already had that sort of experience, one of the houses at the very end of the road got burned down. Not to say that they were from the campground but it’s the traffic that is coming over this private road. So in regard to the health and welfare the issue is the single families enjoying this part of the lakeshore. Thank you for this chance to speak.
Appearing in Opposition:
Pat Houlihan, 3413 Geneva Lane, La Crosse WI 54601. The law firm I am with
represents Mr. Webster. Sean O’Flaherty would normally be here but could not
attend tonight. Let me address the issue of health, safety and welfare. I gave
many of you maps showing the wider area, the big picture here. That you can
tell, all of this where the line is was owned by one common owner, that had been
farmed for years, when this common owner, back in the 1940’s, started selling
off the land, the farm land as it were. Originally NSP bought some of it for
the dam and then NSP in turn is the one that sold it to the County for a buck, I
believe, back in 1971. When NSP transferred it to the County, a lot of you have
a portion of that deed that the County got from NSP with these restrictions on
it. You have to understand that Webster owns a sliver next to Day that comes
down to the north end of the Davis property. He also owns quite a bit of land
just to the north of the shoreline, he owns a lot of farmland and he even owns
land to the east of the homes out there so he is all over the place. So you ask
how it’s going affect him. (Houlihan indicates on overhead map lands owned by
Webster.) Could own some land north of Highway 16. If and when this is to be
developed or whatever; I did talk to Jeff Bluske and Mike Weibel to see what the
plan was for the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Apparently it has not been
finalized, the Town is still working on it. I would think that they would want
some consistency on that side of the line because that again was all one
farmer’s. So those people living east of that line (on the map) would have the
assurance. Frankly, zoning is a big deal, I’ve learned that with working for
the City of La Crosse. It affects the people more than fixing their street,
because that’s where they live. They need to know that they have some security,
that it’s not going to be change to the extent….now they are going to have
people camping there. And how are they going to get in there? How do you know
they aren’t going to come in from Lake Road? Also as some of the neighbors
indicated what about the drainage concerns? How would this be separated off
other than if you do some spot zoning? It is almost like a sore thumb in
connection with this piece of land. That’s why these restrictions are on
there. The people who owned it years ago said we’ll sell it off, but we’re
going to make sure that anybody that owns land within this one piece is going to
be able to share fish and trap. And where that fishing and trapping business
came from was in the deed that the County got, frankly before they sold it to
Davis. You would be able to go across it, get ice out of the river, you could
collect wood on this Davis property. So with this use, it’s not a residential
use. Goose Island is way out by itself. Pettibone Resort is by themselves,
they are not next to some homes. You have to have some sort of buffer. I don’t
know of too many campgrounds that are right next to someone’s house. You have
people living out there and you need to have a buffer between them. This is
just encroaching and that’s why we feel strongly that this is inconsistent, this
is not healthy in the long run for that particular area and the County. I want
to address some of the points that Mr. Talcott brought up. With respect to this
issue of ownership, I don’t think that George necessarily claims that he owns
the Davis property, but it’s just that we have this one piece of property and
assuring the use of it there is a common interest. Now with respect to the
access rights it’s clear that the deed with the County gave Havens and Davis,
says that others may have access to your land. All we are giving you is just a
quit claim deed. We don’t know what we have rights to give you, but we are just
giving you….that deed that the County gave refers to the 1971 deed which NSP
gave the County and then NSP got the land from the Bolles or whoever way back
and that’s when these restrictions were put on it. Whether there is adverse
possession or not, I doubt it. All there is is just a cabin there. It might be
adverse possession where the cabin is, but it’s not what you are talking about
here. One cabin you’re talking about 9 campsites. The other points were
fishing rights and clear, that’s in that deed that the County got from NSP and
so on, it’s clear the restrictions are there. The main point is, like the
Chairman mentioned, health, safety and welfare, plus in addition your code does
say you are not going to rezone something if it is going to interfere with these
covenants or easements on the land. Why would you want to get involved with
that? You would go to court for 10 years or whatever to wrangle over that?
After you give them the right to use this and then we have to take them to
court? Well, that shouldn’t happen. Especially since the County is the one
that transferred this land to Davis and Davis got a quit claim deed from Havens
and that’s in that deed to which you have a copy of. It’s all there. This is
no surprise. Your code says that you are not going to get mixed up in this
thing if there are certain covenants and restrictions out there that should make
you aware that this is not the appropriate use of the land. I thank you very
much.
HAMMES: Any questions? Hearing none. Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?
Remarks WEBSTER: May I add something? I’m the farm owner. I bought this parcel from Mildred Brevik in 1967 for individual purposes of my family. The family that owns this parcel (looking at the map) the Bockenhauer/Rhyme, Delores Rhyme is here this evening. I won’t speak for them whether they are favoring this petition or not, but just to show that we are all here. Harlan Meyer, the man who grew up on my farm, has this parcel here. Mr. Maddocks isn’t here this evening, but I’ve know him for years. Darrel Kammel isn’t here this evening and I believe this is his (looking at the map). Mr. Krause is here and Shirley Wavra is here. And Carl Deml is here. Also here is Beverly Resheske who you already heard from. All of us, or most of us who have an interest in this land are here this evening. One more thing, Mr. Griswold is here and as a group we have plans for upgrading the road which shows that we are together to have this culture of a single family use of the shoreline.
Beverly Hendrickson-Bochenhauer, N5355 Lake Road, West Salem WI 54669. Own land to the north of Day/Resheske parcel. My question is about the huge drainage ditch – a lot of water goes through during heavy rain. Will that still drain to the lake or are culverts going in? Proposed site is drainage area. I’m wondering if waterway will go there (refers to map) or on the other side? Maybe a lot of water doesn’t end up there.
Answer HAMMES: If anything is approved, they would need erosion control permits from Land Conservation. It would be addressed then.
Remark WEBSTER: The water Beverly is talking about is the watershed from my farm and the Gilsters that converges and goes under the highway, to the lake in the ravine.
Delores Rhyme, N6334 County Road C, West Salem WI 54669. We have the first cabin that was put down there, in 1966, when we bought the Brevik farm. Thought we’d need to relocate when I-90 was built. Didn’t keep that farm. This is a giant watershed coming off the hill. Aunt and uncle have land down there. We got it from Brevik at the time of resale back to him. The Osterhouts became owners of next lot to the west, and then Maddocks. So there were 3 cabins down there. Lake Road was our ingress/egress. It’s a sand road with a grade. My dad, uncle and Mr. Maddocks repaired the road with a couple of culverts. We have maintained that road. In the last 10 years we’ve gotten a lot of neighbors down there. Our concern is that we’ll have a commercial campground expanding eastward in a narrow area that water goes to. We have nice privately owned homes there. That piece the campground wants could be sold to individuals for privately owned cabins. We’ve concerned about traffic and the road washing and drainage problems affecting the road.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Correspondence from Town of Hamilton (read into record) recommending
approval. Town Chairman is here tonight – anything to add?
Reply CHAIRMAN SCHOMBURG: Was landlocked property, did know there were other
conditions – no one came forth. If you okay this, it’s up to them to go to
court to settle this thing.
Staff Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Approval, parcel has no access, is consistent with the County Land Use Plan.
Motion by Hanson/Meyer to approve.
Question HANSON: Jeff, has our Legal Department looked at some of these issues
that they have raised – and I doubt that they have anything to do with zoning,
but have they looked at some of them?
Answer BLUSKE: Both Dave Lange and Bill Shepherd have taken a look at the deeds
and they find no reversionary cause at all.
Question BINA: With privately owned cabins, are they allowed to put privately owned cabins in this area, or is it going to be where they push a camper in?
Answer BLUSKE: Mr. Webster had indicated his predecessor who had title, I think it was Mr. Melvin Brevik, is the one who sold the majority of the lots that were down there and they originally turned out to be cabins. Some may be full-time single family residences, but in most of the cases they do have a deed that indicates they have access as a private road on that easement. I think Mr. Webster could sell lots on the land that he has, but I don’t know if he has ever laid out anything for the remaining parcels that were in there, but somebody mentioned he had two more lots he was going to lay out in there at one time. This was a couple of years ago, but we haven’t seen anything materialize.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
Motion passes.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1761 Craig Reedy, N4043 County Road M, West Salem WI 54669, acting on behalf of Jim Shurson and A-1 Pumping Service Inc., N4314 County Road M, West Salem WI 54669. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A,” a 0.40-acre parcel in order to expand an existing parcel for an accessory building and future septic system on land described as: Part of the NE-NW of Section 16, T 16 N, R 6 W described as follows: Commencing at the North ¼ corner of Section 16, thence S16˚37’22”W 547.23’ to the point of beginning of this description: Thence S00˚06’45”W 175.80’ to the North line of Lot 1, Certified Survey Map, Volume 12, Page 175-175A; thence N88˚20’15”W 100.07’ to the northwest corner thereof; then N00˚06’45”E 175.80’; thence S88˚20’15”E 100.07’ to the point of beginning of this description. Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: Craig Reedy, N4043 County Road M, West Salem WI 54669. You can see that the house is infringing on the lot line in back. I think there is only 10 feet from the lot line to the garage. Eventually I want to put up a bigger garage because that garage is small. This house is only about 1000 square feet and to put an addition on I would like for a master bedroom and bath. The septic system is to the right. I would either have to redo the septic system or there are holding tanks in back and they are only 15 feet from the house. I would have to move them back. So, that’s why I needed the extra land.
HAMMES: Any questions?
Question RAUK: Does the area you are talking about rezoning include any of the cornfield or is it just the grass area just up to the cornfield in back?
Answer REEDY: Right now it is the grass area up to the cornfield. So it evens out that lot next to me too.
Richard Schomberg, Town of Hamilton Chairman, 3679 County Road C, West Salem WI 54669. We didn’t get this beforehand so I really can’t say what the Town of Hamilton will say. We will have to vote on it at the next meeting. But I really don’t see any problem with it. I’ll make that as a recommendation to my Board.
Question BLUSKE: When are meeting next?
Answer SCHOMBERG: Next Tuesday. That will be within the required 10 days.
No one else in favor of or opposed to the petition.
BLUSKE: We have no correspondence on this.
Staff Recommendation:
BLUSKE: Staff recommends conditional zoning on this meaning that we recommend approval with no further subdividing this parcel. Because with this land they could subdivide it into two lots.
Motion Meyer/Rauk to approve with conditions.
HAMMES: Any questions?
Question RAUK: Do we also put on a condition that it’s pending approval by the Town or is that assumed?
Answer BLUSKE: That is assumed. This Committee made the recommendation that we send all of these on to the County Board and if it is a no vote, then we hold it over.
Question HANSON: Does this rezoning fit in with the Town Plan?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes it does.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
ZONING PETITION NO. 1762 Kenneth and Barbara Wolf, N4381 F. Schroeder Road, Bangor, WI 54614. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Commercial District “C”, an 8.85 acre parcel for a commercial trucking business and storage of freight on land at N4440 State Road 162 described as: Part of the W½ -NE of Section 8, T 16 N, R 5 W described as: Commencing at the North ¼ corner of Section 8, thence S05˚17’05”E 968.52’ to the East right-of-way line of State Road 162 and the point of beginning of this description: Thence N88˚21’39”E 135.33’; thence S85˚26’35”E 86.65’; thence N86˚44’18”E 275.37’; then N38˚19’23”E 10.68’ to the meander line of Dutch Creek; thence, along said meander line on the following 5 courses – S80˚50’38”E 212.00’; S00˚36’14”W 66.00’; S57˚05’12”W 373.00’; S25˚51’35”W 310.00’; S05˚14’18”E 224.00’ to said East right-of-way line of State Road 162; thence, along said East right-of-way line, on an arc of a 704.00 foot radius curve, concave to the northeast, the chord of which bears, N45˚20’42”W 166.37’; thence, continuing along said East right-of-way line, S51˚26’27”W 10.00’; thence continuing along said East right-of-way line, on an arc of a 714.00 foot radius curve, concave to the northeast, the chord of which bears, N19˚32’09”W 465.46’; thence N 00˚30’46”W 234.05’ to the point of beginning. Parcel includes lands lying between the meander line and the centerline of Dutch Creek. Together with and subject to a 35.00 foot wide access easement, located in part of the NW¼ of the NE¼, Section 8, T 16 N, R 5 W, Town of Bangor, La Crosse County, Wisconsin the centerline of which is described as follows: Commencing at the North ¼ corner of Section 8, thence S05˚17’05”E 968.52’ to the East right-of-way line of State Road 162 and the point of beginning of this centerline description: Thence N88˚21’39”E 135.33’; thence S85˚26’35”E 86.65’ thence N86˚44’18”E 28.00’ and the terminus of this centerline description. Town of Bangor.
Appearing in Favor: Kenneth Barbara Wolf, N4381 F. Schroeder Road, Bangor, WI 54614. Parcel is where former farm buildings stood. Unusual shape of parcel due to Dutch Creek looping around. Went to Town Board – unanimous approval. One driveway coming out – will be less hazardous. Other driveway will be a joint driveway between Mr. Hoffman and I. I still have a parcel to the north. We’ve talked to all the neighbors – none opposed. Mr. Hoffman plans to use site for his trucking business – he’s currently not zoned properly where he’s at. Will be truck garage and truck storage area.
Question BLUSKE: Will you be driving on half of this easement owned by the property owner here (refers to overhead), or is that you?
Answer WOLF: That property owner is me, but there’ll be an agreement between Hoffman’s and me. They’ll drive on part of mine and I’ll drive on part of theirs. It’ll be shared access.
Appearing in Favor: Ralph Hoffman, N5666 County Road C, West Salem WI 54669. I have 6 trucks now and have over-ran my CUP. Have been looking for a new location for the past 2 years. Ran into many dead-ends, mainly dealing with spring road bans. Have worked with Town of Hamilton, Chad, Charlie Handy. They talked about the Industrial Park, but with only 6 trucks it’s too expensive. I’d turn the machine shed into my truck shop. It would need a commercial grade. Talked with Path Construction – he could do it 2 weeks before Christmas, we could be in there. Would use the free stall as a freight transfer and storage dock, for my own trucks. I do business with a customer from South Dakota and Chatfield, Minnesota. They bring freight in for my trucks and I bring freight in for their trucks. I’d do the transfer. I don’t need to hire dock workers in the shop. I’d do most of the maintenance. Major engine and transmission work done off-site, don’t need to hire mechanics. I spoke with Brian Ferris from State Department of Commerce about waste oil and silt pond. Need to maintain a buffer zone between the creek and land that’s disturbed. Would not need a silt pond. Scott Szymanski, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources said as long as I have a place to store waste oil, plastic or steel containers. They have no problems with the waste oil. I’ll use it to heat the shop. I cannot bring in waste oil. I’d like to expand to maximum of 10 trucks. On the bottom (refers to overhead) Ken has a concrete slab for a bunker silo where trailers would be parked, wouldn’t need to do a lot of landscaping.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
(BLUSKE) 1) A letter from Wisconsin DOT stating they’ll permit change in use of north access to a shared access/commercial, and permit alteration to commercial standards. As a condition of DOT permit, the existing south ag access point is to be removed by property owners at their expense. Dated October 3, 2007. 2) Approval along with shared driveway agreement, which must be recorded.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with amendment to Town Plan, which is in development.
Motion Bina/Keil to approve.
Question HANSON: Town of Bangor doesn’t have a Land Use Plan?
Answer BLUSKE: They’re working on it.
Question HANSON: It fits our County Plan?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 766 Ronald G. and Terrie C. Rothering, W4551 County Road B, West Salem WI 54669. Petition to use an existing 50’ x 100’ agriculture building for inside commercial storage only, on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as: Part of the NW-SW of Section 17 and part of the NE-SE of Section 18, T 16 N, R 6 W described in tax parcels 2-44-0 and 2-58-0. Town of Barre.
Appearing in Favor: Ronald Rothering, W4551 County Road B, West Salem WI 54669. Applied for conditional use permit for continued storage of boats and RV’s in the 50-ft x 100-ft shed. No outside storage, 12 to 14 boats and they’re out by April 15th the following year.
Question BLUSKE: Have you gone to the Town Board?
Answer ROTHERING: Yes – at their last Board meeting they approved it unanimously.
Question RAUK: The outside storage of trailers right now – is that included?
Answer ROTHERING: That’s my renters, anything else outside belongs to me. One boat belongs to the person renting my farm house.
Appearing in Favor: Pete Gruendeman, W4511 County Road B, West Salem WI 54669. Live directly across the road from Rotherings.
Question GRUENDEMAN: Question is simple: Will there by temporary or continued heating in this building? If so, by what means?
Answer ROTHERING: There will be no heat or electrical.
Remark GRUENDEMAN: No opposition – enjoy your building.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: We’ve heard from Mr. Rothering that the Town Board has approved the petition. I don’t have any correspondence confirming that.
Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to 5 conditions:
1. No outside storage.
2. Building can be used for storage October 1 to April 30 annually during the winter months.
3. Temporary sign not larger than 3-ft x 5-ft October 1 to April 30 annually.
4. Storage allowed in existing 50-ft x 100-ft pole shed.
5. Permit is non-transferable.
Motion Bina/Meyer to approve with department recommendations.
Question BINA: You won’t interfere with the farm operation out there.
Answer ROTHERING: No.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
ZONING PETITION NO. 1763 Nathaniel P. and Cassandra L. Johnson, N975 Skemp Rd, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agriculture District “A” a 0.22-acre parcel to be added to their existing residential parcel, the following described parcel: Part of the SE-SE of Section 19, T 15 N, R 6 W commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 19; thence N49˚19’32”W 710.56’ to the west line of Skemp Road and the point of beginning: Thence N6˚21’39”E along said west line 142.93’; thence S89˚28’55”W 13.81’; thence S41˚46’55”W 186.85’; thence S88˚47’13”E 122.5’ to the point of beginning. Town of Shelby.
Appearing in Favor: Nathaniel Johnson, N975 Skemp Rd, La Crosse WI 54601. Constructing a garage, need larger lot to build 1000 square foot detached garage.
Appearing in Favor: Attorney Nick Passe, 610 9th Street S, La Crosse WI 54601. Submitted impact statement – represents Mr. Johnson. Nearest neighbor 1-2 blocks away. Went to Shelby Town Board one week ago. They approved with caveat it be used for residential purposes.
Question BLUSKE: Is part of septic system on this piece?
Answer JOHNSON: No.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
BLUSKE: Town of Shelby, October 24, 2007 – phone call from Jeff Brudos stating
Town approved the petition at October 22, 2007 meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Approval as Conditional Zoning with no further subdividing of parcel.
Motion Bina/Keil to approve with staff recommendations.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn at 7:30 p.m.
Vote on motion: 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Kapanke).
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.
Mike Weibel, Recorder