Monday, May 12, 2008
Administrative Center – County Board Room
7:00 p.m. – 9:50 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Howard Raymer, Jr., Terry Houlihan, Barbara Frank |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
None |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Mike Weibel, Chad VandenLangenberg (minutes) |
Howard Raymer, Jr., Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.
APPEAL NO. 2008-07 Thomas L. Jaekel W3609 Cemetery Lane Coon Valley WI 54623. Permit denied to retain an 8-ft x 12-ft detached accessory building that was constructed within the required 50-ft setback from the right-of-way of Cemetery Lane. The property is described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map Number 105 in Volume 7. Tax Parcel 6-777-1. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in Favor: Thomas L. Jaekel W3607 Cemetery Ln. Coon Valley WI 54623. I did bring some photos of the shed. There is not an existing house on this property. I am looking to build a new house next spring. The shed does not meet the required setback. There are trees between the shed and the dead end road. There are only two neighbors that go past my house on Cemetery Lane. Because of the slope and the natural drainage on the property, I really don’t have anywhere to go with the shed.
Question Raymer: Where did the shed come from? Did you put it there?
Answer Jaekel: Yes, I did put it there. I had purchased both lot 1 and lot 2. The shed was on lot 2 and I am now in the process of selling that lot.
Question Raymer: So, you moved it as you are selling the other lot?
Answer Jaekel: Right. It is a private shed, used for tools, lawnmower and four wheeler.
Question Frank: You said that your address was 3607 and on the sheet it states 3609?
Answer Jaekel: I have not received notice of my new address. There is no fire sign there. There were some issues this spring.
Question Raymer: Who would issue that fire number?
Answer VandenLangenberg: There should be a new Zoning/Occupancy Permit in the file that will have the new, correct address for this property.
Remarks Jaekel: I guess that until there is a new fire number sign, I will continue to use the W3607 address.
Remarks Weibel: We issued a Zoning/Occupancy Permit, after-the-fact, on 11/26/07 indicates that the address is W3609 for the building with the living quarters in it and also this shed which is on the same property. The county is responsible for issuing the address, but the town needs to order and place the fire number sign out there.
Remarks Jaekel: I have not met with the town on this issue. There is a town meeting on Wednesday night. I will bring this up at that time.
Question Raymer: How did you move that shed? Is it on skids?
Answer Jaekel: I moved it with a trailer and two bobcats. It is not in a permanent location.
Question Weibel: That lot, Mr. Jaekel, is lot 1 and is 2.19 acres, is that correct? That is what it shows on the CSM.
Answer Jaekel: That is correct.
Question Raymer: Where are you proposing the new house to go?
Answer Jaekel: Looking at the CSM, facing Cemetery Lane, it will be to the left of the pole shed with living quarters. One of my photos shows an empty field, that is where the house will go.
Question Raymer: So, to the left and to the north of the current pole building?
Answer Jaekel: Correct.
Remarks Frank: This one map shows “future home” on it.
Question Frank: Well, I guess that it would not be that much further back to get the 50 foot setback.
Answer Jaekel: The problem is that there is some natural drainage between the shed and the pole shed.
Question Raymer: Why couldn’t it be slid right along the west side of what is now the living quarters of the pole shed?
Answer Jaekel: Because of the slope there. The drainage comes off Cemetery Lane and goes along there. There is a photo with a plow truck which will show the slope along there.
Remarks Raymer: On a lot of that size, there has to be another spot to put this where it will meet the setback. Even if you had to level up a 12 by 20 site, that’s what you would have to do. It is moveable.
Question Frank: Is it on a foundation?
Answer Jaekel: No
Question Frank: So, couldn’t it be raised up enough to alleviate the drainage concerns?
Answer Jaekel: I guess that I don’t want a place for cats to be living underneath.
Remarks Raymer: Well, you could level up a spot with gravel and then set the shed on top.
Remarks Jaekel: If you look at the photos you’ll see that without hauling in quite a bit of fill, there just isn’t a level spot on the property.
Remarks Houlihan: I think that where the plow truck is sitting would be an ideal spot for this shed. There is room for it and the drainage would go around it.
Question Jaekel: Can’t you see that the plow truck is sitting on a slope?
Question Houlihan: It appears that you leveled up a spot for where the shed is now; can’t you just level up another spot to move it to?
Answer Jaekel: I didn’t level that spot up, it was level.
Question Frank: Well, it appears that you brought in gravel for the site?
Answer Jaekel: No, that is just gravel around the perimeter of the building to keep the cats out from under it.
Question Raymer: Anything else, any other questions?
All: No
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
Correspondence: No correspondence received.
Committee Deliberations
Motion by Houlihan to deny this petition.
Second by Frank
All: Aye
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-08 Dewitt and Diane Olson N9302 Sommers Road Mindoro WI 54644. Permit denied to construct a 36-ft x 40-ft attached garage that will lie within the required 25-ft rear yard. The property is described as: Part of the NW¼ of the NE¼ of Section 11, T 18 N, R 5 W. Tax Parcel 3-823-0. Town of Burns.
Appearing in favor: Dewitt Olson N9302 Sommers Rd. Mindoro WI 54644. My property is quite long, but narrow. In order to build a shop/garage, it needs to be attached to the building. The mobile home needs a new roof, so I am planning to extend the roofline over the mobile home. Out in front is the septic system. This just seemed the most convenient, easiest way to do this. Plus, my driveway comes in that way. I am looking to be 11’ off of the property.
Question Raymer: That would be considered the rear yard setback?
Answer Weibel: Correct. The frontage is on Sommers Road making this the rear yard setback.
Question Raymer: And the required setback is 25 feet?
Answer Weibel: Correct.
Question Raymer: You are removing an existing garage. Is there any way to attach this new garage to the north end of the mobile home?
Answer Olson: Well, our driveway comes in along there and in order to tie it to the mobile home and make it look decent, this is the best option. Otherwise my driveway would be pretty short.
Remarks Raymer: If you put it on the end of the mobile home at the front setback line, your driveway would still come in at the same spot, correct?
Answer Olson: Correct, but there is an old foundation there that I would have to uproot and it has trees in it. I did speak with some of the neighbors, Loren Endall, Brian Elder, they have absolutely no problem with it. Troy Duerwachter isn’t there very often and David Craig has passed away. I also did bring some pictures in showing where my driveway comes in. I just think that this way will be much more attractive and I won’t have to move an old foundation with trees in it.
Question Raymer: If the garage is existing, where are the trees you are talking about? The garage which you are going to move, where are those trees in relation to it?
Answer Olson: They are in the old foundation.
Question Raymer: When you remove that garage, you will have to remove that foundation anyway, won’t you?
Answer Olson: No. Here are my plans. The existing garage sits at the end of the mobile home and the old foundation is at the other side of the driveway.
Remarks Raymer: Well, that foundation isn’t impossible to remove.
Remarks Olson: I think that I would be over my front and back yard if I was to go 40 feet deep and attach it to the end.
Question Raymer: How wide is your mobile home?
Answer Olson: 14 feet.
Remarks Houlihan: What he is proposing is that you could attach it here, meet the front and rear setbacks.
Remarks Olson: There is a telephone pole right here.
Remarks Frank: But, you could go further back.
Remarks Raymer: If he lined it up with the front of the home and went back to the setback line, the garage could be 37 feet deep. He is asking for 36’ deep.
Remarks Olson: The way that I had this planned was to carry the roof right over the mobile home.
Remarks Raymer: You can still place the garage at the end, re-roof the mobile home and then the setback wouldn’t be an issue.
Remarks Olson: I understand that, but then I am 110 feet long.
Remarks Raymer: We have to find out if there is no other alternative.
Remarks Houlihan: We have to prove that there is a hardship.
Remarks Olson: Well, then I will need to remove the old foundation and the trees from over there.
Remarks Raymer: Those are not hardships. If there was a well in the way or a septic system, that might be a hardship. A little extra grading work does not present a hardship. A hardship would be that there was no other way than this to put the garage up.
Remarks Olson: There is an old sand point well over there.
Question Raymer: Is this the well which you use for your water?
Answer Olson: No
Remarks Raymer: Then, that is just an abandoned well and does not present a hardship.
Question Frank: You are concerned about the length of the building?
Answer Olson: Yes. It would be easier to bring my driveway around and have a door right into the mobile home with an attached garage.
Question Raymer: What are the dimensions of the detached garage now?
Answer Olson: 20 x 20
Question Raymer: How far is it from the mobile home?
Answer Olson: 6 feet.
Remarks Raymer: So, it is 26 feet out to there. If you went out 14 feet more you would be out to there and get the 40 foot dimension that you are asking for. That would be an alternative way of doing this.
Remarks Olson: I spoke with the Town Chairman. I spoke with the building inspector and the neighbors. I also am meeting with the town tomorrow night. I am just asking for the variance to be at 11 feet instead of 25 feet.
Appearing in Favor: Diane Olson N9302 Sommers Rd. Mindoro WI 54644. The existing garage is a carport and not a garage. It is pretty close to the driveway and I don’t know how we would get a car in there. We would have to make a “U” turn to get into it. The driveway would have to be really narrow. Where it says “existing 12 by 14 shed that is actually a cabin that has been there for 75 years.
Remarks Raymer: According to the drawing, the garage is going to be removed anyway.
Remarks Olson: Correct. If you go 40 feet you will be going into the driveway. If you go 36 feet, the 40 feet will go up so far that you won’t be able to swing into the garage without going onto the neighbor’s property.
Remarks Houlihan: You can put your opening in the front.
Remarks Olson: You could put the opening on the driveway side, but that would narrow the driveway by a large amount with the old foundation still there. How will you back out once you are in the garage?
Question Frank: You are talking about this foundation?
Answer Olson: Yes, where these trees are, there is an old sandstone foundation.
Question Houlihan: How about putting the entrance over here?
Answer Olson: There is a telephone pole with the meter on it right here.
Question Frank: You think that it will be hard to turn into the garage that way?
Answer Olson: The driveway right now is very narrow. Plus, you are going up a slope there.
Question Houlihan: You are saying that the old foundation can’t be removed?
Answer Olson: I don’t know. I don’t know how deep it is.
Remarks Frank: You could just knock the top of it off and then level it.
Remarks Olson: And take the trees out. If we do that, we will have to move the driveway and it gets pretty steep there. The creek is over in this area. I just think that it will be difficult to come up and get into the garage at that angle.
Remarks Frank: If you are widening this another 14 feet you can make your driveway angle and come in from the front.
Remarks Olson: Our electrical is there, plus that telephone pole. I would prefer the shop over in this area, but that is where the septic system is. We have two bigger vehicles.
Question Houlihan: The other option is to change the size of the building. Was this a pole building?
Answer Olson: Initially, but now we are talking about stick built.
Remarks Houlihan: You can lengthen the building to whatever size you want. You can make the building longer and narrow it up somewhat.
Remarks Olson: Yes, but the issue still is how do we get into it?
Remarks Houlihan: If it wasn’t as wide anymore, the driveway would be the same.
Remarks Olson: The way the carport is, I would not be able to get my car into it.
Question Frank: What is the dimension here?
Answer Olson: I would say maybe 10 or 12 feet.
Remarks Frank: That is kind of a right angle turn.
Remarks Olson: There is an embankment that comes up right here as well.
Remarks Frank: We are suggesting the same square footage but making the shape different. You could come in either side.
Question Olson: Up on this end, you mean?
Answer Frank: Correct, then you could come in at a right angle.
Remarks Olson: Well, there is a tree stump here.
Remarks Raymer: That is not a hardship as it can be removed. Same with the foundation, you can just take it out if you have some heavy equipment there.
Remarks Diane Olson: I don’t plan to bring any heavy equipment in.
Remarks Raymer: You aren’t going to be able to do this job without bringing something in there.
Remarks Olson: My position is that it will be very hard to get in and out of a garage attached to that side of the home.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
Correspondence: We did receive a fax from Paul Kitzmann, Town Chairman, on May 8, 2008. The town will officially meet on this on Tuesday.
Committee Deliberations.
Question Raymer: What is the square footage of this parcel?
Answer Weibel: .98 acres.
Question Houlihan: What is the size of the carport?
Answer Frank: I think that it is 20 by 20.
Remarks Diane Olson: When you say that we can go narrower and longer, we only have an additional 8 feet towards the road because of the setback.
Question Raymer: What is the setback from the road?
Answer Weibel: That would be 60 feet from the centerline.
Question Raymer: That would make it 27’ from the property line, correct?
Answer Weibel: I am not sure if that is a 4 rod road or a 3 rod road. That is why we would use the 60 feet from centerline.
Remarks Raymer: You can set the new addition at the rear setback and you would still have 23 feet just to get to the backside of the home. Then you have another 14 feet. So, from the rear setback to the front of the mobile home is 37 feet.
Question Olson: I still didn’t understand that?
Answer Raymer: Start at the lot line, you need a 25 foot setback. From the setback to the mobile home is 23 feet, then to the front of the mobile home is another 14 feet. Plus there is still room in front of the mobile home before you get to the 60 foot setback from the road.
Question Olson: That puts us right at the property line in the rear?
Answer Raymer: No, that line is depicting the 25 foot setback line.
Remarks Olson: I don’t think so, I believe that the 48 feet is to the lot line.
Remarks Raymer: From the back of the mobile home to the lot line is 48 feet. The setback is 25 feet from the lot line which is shown here on the map. That would give you 23 feet from the back of the home to the setback line.
Frank: I would make a motion to deny this appeal.
Houlihan: Second
All: Aye
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-09 Jerry King on behalf of Rivercrest 2082 Bainbridge St #8 La Crosse WI 54603. Variance requested to retain 2 signs, one erected within the required 50-ft building setback of Interstate 90 and one erected within the 60-ft setback from the center line of Calloway Boulevard. The property is described as: Part of Lot 1, Block 11 of 2nd Addition to Island Park Addition and part of the NW¼ of the SW¼ and part of the W½ of the NE¼ of the SW¼ of Section 18, T 16 N, R 7 W. Tax Parcel 4-114-0. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Jerry King 1503 LaCrescent St. LaCrosse WI 54603. There are two separate issues here I guess. One sign is located off of I-90 and it has been there a couple of years. We did talk to and get permission from Steve McGovern at the Dept. of Transportation for that sign. Steve is no longer in charge of that area and we have now spoken with Jared Turk who was supposed to send a letter regarding this issue.
Remarks Weibel: We did not receive anything from the DOT.
Remarks King: We would like to keep this sign.
Question Raymer: Just so we know, this is the sign you are talking about?
Answer King: Yes, I do have some better pictures of it if you would like.
Question Raymer: Do you have the letter from the DOT?
Answer King: No, I couldn’t find it as it is a couple of years old. The other issue is the sign on Callaway Blvd. That one has also been there for a couple of years. We did get a permit from the Town of Campbell. It is on our property, but does not meet the setback from the road. If you look at the pictures, there is a lot of vegetation and trees behind it. We are thinking about changing this sign and make it more aesthetic. The new design has a couple of brick columns. It will just say the condo name and our contact phone numbers.
Question Weibel: The sign along Callaway Blvd, can you move it back just a little bit? Maybe into the vegetated area?
Answer King: Well, we would like to keep it about where it is. Chad came out to look at it. We are on our property. I don’t ever see the town widening Callaway Blvd.
Question Weibel: That is only a one-sided sign?
Answer King: Correct.
Question Weibel: If you moved it back at least to the wood line?
Answer King: It is pretty close to that right now. We might be able to go a foot or two.
Remarks Weibel: With the brick columns, I thought that if we can get it to the wood line, aesthetically it might be easier, looking at it from the side you would see vegetation instead of the ends of the sign.
Remarks King: We can probably move it back a couple of feet. I did meet with the town on this issue last week. I didn’t meet with the full town board, but met with the planning commission.
Question Houlihan: The state did not have any problems with the sign off of I-90?
Question Raymer: That would be the state DOT that is the regulatory body?
Answer Weibel: Correct.
Question Raymer: What is the situations with that, what permits do they need?
Answer Weibel: The DOT normally regulates the larger billboard type signs. We don’t issue permits. But, on smaller structures like this we would issue a permit.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
Correspondence: Letter from the Town of Campbell dated May 7, 2008. The town planning commission met on May 6, 2008 the committee recommended approval.
Committee Deliberations.
Raymer: I make a motion to approve with conditions that the sign off of Callaway Blvd be moved back to the tree line as marked in exhibit A.
Houlihan: Second
All: Aye
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-10 Alex W. Clason N880 East Hills Rd La Crosse WI 54601. Permit denied to construct a 26-ft x 36-ft detached accessory building that in combination with an existing 10-ft x 12-ft detached accessory building will exceed the 750 square foot area limit for said buildings on this .81 acre lot. The proposed building will also lie with the required 50-ft setback from the right-of-way of US Highway 14-61. The property is described as: Lot 3 of Certified Survey Map Number 9 in Volume 6. Tax Parcel 6-694-8. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in Favor: Alex Clason N880 East Hills Rd. LaCrosse WI 54601. I originally bought the property before the DOT widened Highway 14. I had planned to put a garage down there when the finances allowed it. When the DOT re-did the highway, they moved my neighbor’s driveway off of the highway and now comes in down there. I wanted him to access off of East Hills Rd. but they talked about the slope and they didn’t want to do that. I am trying to locate it where I lost a couple of large trees. I am trying to get a visual and noise break from the highway. The DOT right-of-way is between the neighbor’s driveway and my property.
Question Raymer: Do you plan to keep the little shed?
Answer Clason: That would be nice, but not really. If it affects anything, I’ll get rid of it. It was an original shed which was on what is now the state property. I moved it with my neighbor’s tractor to get it out of the way and keep it.
Question Raymer: What is the size of this lot now?
Answer Weibel: .72 acres
Remarks Clason: It was not quite an acre before the highway project.
Question Raymer: So, now it is .72 acres. This sheet here says it is .81 acres?
Answer Clason: That might be an old, previous acreage. The picture also shows the septic system and the slope, you can see the walkout basement; there are about 12 or 13 feet of elevation distance.
Question Raymer: To get the square footage that he is asking for, he would need an acre of land or more?
Answer Weibel: 1.01 acre would get him to 1000 square feet.
Question Raymer: You were aware of the 750 square foot limit?
Answer Clason: I am now after I applied for the permit from the county.
Question Raymer: But you still feel that you need that extra square footage and shed?
Answer Clason: I would like it, but I can compromise that. I am more concerned with the location of the garage. I have a company drill rig that I bring home on occasion.
Question Raymer: You said that you moved that shed?
Answer Clason: It is still there, I moved it from my property which is now owned by the state.
Question Frank: The building is too big as well. Is that the total square footage?
Answer Raymer: The large garage itself is too large. It is 936 square feet and he is allowed 750 square feet. So, the variance is for the setback and the size. The building is completely within the setback. So, we are looking at an oversized building, completely within the setback.
Question Frank: He would have to reduce it or do something with the shed?
Answer Raymer: Well, the shed is moveable and it is also completely within the setback.
Question Clason: The setback is from the driveway?
Answer Raymer: I asked that same thing. Chad said that this is the right-of-way, clear back to here, correct?
Answer Weibel: The right-of-way would be the black line here.
Question Raymer: So the driveway is within that right-of-way. That was all done when the highway was done, correct?
Answer Clason: Correct. I put the shed there because the DOT was grading. They had temporary right-of-way to perform some grading, so I moved the shed. I didn’t want to move it around a bunch and I still wanted to use it.
Question Frank: This property used to be .81 acres and now is less; this could be a hardship, correct?
Answer Weibel: The .81 acres would still limit the building to 750 square feet.
Remarks Raymer: Even at that point, he needed another .2 acre to move up to the 1000 square foot limit. Now, because of what he lost, he needs .3 acre to get a 1000 square foot outbuilding. If he built the new garage and kept the 120 square foot shed, he would be over the 1000 limit. Almost 300 feet larger. Plus, they are both within the setback.
Question Frank: What was the equipment that you said you occasionally bring home in the evening?
Answer Clason: It’s an auger truck/drill rig used for soil borings.
Question Frank: What is the size of that vehicle?
Answer Clason: It is about 30 feet. I am not doing this for my boss, though. If I had to make a compromise, I can reduce the size. I have a driveway down there and I am looking to gain some privacy and noise reduction from the highway. I can reduce it to 25 by 30 which would be less than the 750 square feet and I would be satisfied. I am more interested in the variance from the setback.
Remarks Raymer: If we are going to allow that building within the setback, should it need to meet the size requirements.
Remarks Frank: Both buildings would need to meet the size requirements. I would say that if 25 by 30 would be acceptable, that would do it, but what about the shed.
Remarks Houlihan: You can’t move it higher because of the septic system.
Question Frank: What is the setback from the septic system?
Answer Weibel: 10 feet.
Remarks Raymer: If we are going to allow him to keep that other building, then he will be over the square footage.
Remarks Clason: I am willing to lose that shed as long as I can keep it while the new garage is under construction.
Question Raymer: Anymore questions for Mr. Clason?
All: No.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
No Correspondence.
Question Raymer: The Town Chairman is here if he would like to speak. The board has not met to discuss this yet, though.
Committee deliberations.
Houlihan: I would move to approve but the building size limit would need to meet the 750 foot requirement and the required setback from the centerline of East Hills Rd. to be 70 feet. The variance from the setback of Highway 14/61 would be as shown on the map.
Frank: I’ll second.
All: Aye
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-11 James and Lara Hines W3652 County Road T Mindoro WI 54644. Permit denied to construct a 28-ft x 32-ft detached accessory building that will lie within the required 10-ft side yard setback and within the required 50-ft setback from the right-of-way of County Road T. The property is described as: Part of the E½ of the SW¼ of Section 15, T 18 N, R 6 W. Tax Parcel 5-768-1. Town of Farmington.
Appearing in Favor: James Hines W3652 County Road T Mindoro WI 54644. There is an existing shed that is about 35 to 40 years old at that location. As you enter the property off the highway, we have a new concrete driveway the site where the existing shed is, is bound by the driveway, the septic system and the Krueger property. The driveway crosses a very deep ditch and goes up a very high hill. Where the current shed sits it is already level and the grading has been done. On the eastern side, it is still a very steep hill. There are trees over there as well. That is why we decided to replace the existing older shed. It is in pretty tough shape. We did meet with the Town Board last month and they approved it. We don’t foresee any problems with the county highway there as it is a pretty straight stretch. The existing shed sits 5 feet from the Krueger property. If we tried to get to the 10 feet, we would be too close to the existing driveway which would make the entrance into the garage significantly steeper. We can’t move back away from the right-of-way because of the septic system.
Question Raymer: So, the building that is there, you will need to take the trees out? Will you pour a concrete slab?
Answer Hines: Correct. That is the flattest part of the property except where the house sits. There is approximately 150 feet of frontage and then it angles back to about 300 feet at the rear. It also goes straight up the hill.
Question Houlihan: Is it possible to move this building into this area?
Answer Hines: It is possible. There is plenty of space there for the building. But, I would be concerned with erosion. That is fairly steep and we would have to do a lot of excavating. The driveway is about 45’ from the Krueger property and about 10’ wide. That would put us about 100 feet from the other side. If we use the current site where the existing shed is we can cut down our excavating costs, it is already a flat site where we wouldn’t be causing an erosion problem. We do not have a runoff problem now. When we put the addition on the house 8 years ago, it took a lot of extra work to keep the erosion down. We did have some problems for a year until the landscaping took hold. For reference, the Krueger property is a cow pasture and the other side is pasture and farm fields as well. On the other side of the property we are concerned with the steepness of it. I found out that we could not repair the existing shed when I applied for the permit. I guess that you can only put 50% of the value into the shed. I am not sure what the assessed value is, but it must be pretty close to zero. 50% of zero is still zero. We have done some extensive remodeling. We have resided the house and the attached garage. Also a new roof. The new garage would match the house. On the east of the driveway, we would have to cut a lot to get the driveway to a manageable grade.
Question Houlihan: What it comes down to is there any other place which you can build?
Answer Hines: That is a possibility, but I did not look into it as I am trying to avoid the erosion problems that may cause. The driveway is newly poured concrete and I am not sure how we would cut into the hill. We may not be able to flatten it enough to even get into it. It is a newly poured concrete driveway. I don’t know how we would work with the slopes to get the garage level.
Question Frank: Can you tell us the purpose for this garage? Will you use it for vehicles? You have an attached garage on the house.
Answer Hines: It will not be for vehicle storage. The shed that is there is not weatherproof. There are birds in there and water gets in. We want to store the lawnmower, four-wheelers and my boat. We have a camper parked next to the shed on a 7 or 8 foot gravel pad. On the north side. The existing shed is about 20 feet. It would be storage for that kind of thing. The door will be a sliding door rather than a typical garage door. The slab for the garage will be 28 by 32 feet. The garage will be 24 x 32 feet with a 4 foot overhang for aesthetics. It will hopefully look like a horse barn. As I said, I did meet with the Town Board and they approved it. I spoke with the three neighbors and they did not have any objections.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
Correspondence: From Betty Sacia, Clerk for the Town of Farmington, we have an email. The Farmington Town Board met on April 8, 2008. The Town Board is recommending approval of this variance.
Committee deliberations.
Question Raymer: I am assuming that the highway department was notified?
Answer Weibel: Correct, Mr. Osgood did receive a notice.
Question Raymer: Mr. Hines, how far off the driveway is the existing building right now?
Answer Hines: It is 45 feet from the Krueger property to the edge of the driveway. So, about 20 feet.
Question Raymer: So, that’s how you currently enter the building?
Answer Hines: Correct. It is just grass from the driveway to the building. We do have a wooden ramp up into it. The foundation is exposed all the way around it.
Question Houlihan: Can you move it back towards the septic system at all?
Answer Hines: Because of the age of the system, it is hard to tell where exactly it is. One of the old vent pipes has been broken off. From where I park the camper it is about 28 feet. The vent pipe is only a couple of feet away from the camper.
Question Raymer: That would be the edge of it, then? Usually the vent pipes are at the end of the system.
Answer Hines: Correct. The way it was configured, it goes out next to the driveway and then down. We have approximately 8 to 10 feet from the current shed to the system. You can see the existing foundation and the grade is fairly flat. There is a slight drop to the driveway. We want the new slab to be level so that you won’t see the foundation.
Question Houlihan: Which side of the building will have the 4 foot overhang?
Answer Hines: That will be on the front towards the driveway. The rest of the building will have a 2 foot overhang. It will have four posts.
Question Frank: It will look like a porch then?
Answer Hines: Yes.
Houlihan: I would make a motion to approve.
Frank: Second
All: Aye.
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-12 Steve Bodenschatz on behalf of Golden Valley Mobile Home Park and Schmidty’s Incorporated, 15437 Highway B Hayward WI 54843. Permit denied to construct a well house that will lie within the required 50-ft building setback from the right-of-way of County Road M. The property is described as: Part of the NW¼ of the NE¼ of Section 29, T 15 N, R 6 W. Tax Parcel 6-692-0. Known as Golden Valley Mobile Home Park. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in Favor: Steve Bodenschatz 15437 Highway B Hayward WI 54843. I am in the process of buying this property which has been a mobile home park since 1980. The existing well failed after the big floods in that area. It is located next to the runoff ditch on the western boundary of the property which separates Golden Valley Mobile Home Park and Brookview Mobile Home Park. That is a natural drainage area. The existing well is 120 feet deep and cement grouted. It was all done according to code in 1980 and we have copies of the permits. When we had the 10 inches of rain we had some bad tests on the water. We had to do some cleansing, but can only do three chlorination’s, and then we had to apply for a permit to put a new well in. This took quite some time as we had to go through a variance process for the location of the well. The DNR engineers picked the most up-gradient part of the property for the new well. This is where the DNR picked the well to go. We needed variances from the existing sewer lines throughout the park. Usually, on a homeowner well they do not have a building associated with it. In this case, they do not allow for a pitless adapter and ground connection. We have very strict testing standards. The well has tested good since December but by state law we are required to put in a new well. The new well is down 200 feet. We have to have a building to house 4 or 5 of the blue pressure tanks. They have to be above ground as they won’t let us put them below ground. The building itself will be dug into the grade off of the highway about two blocks or 16 inches. The door will be towards the mobile home park. The wall will be about 6.5 feet tall and the top of the roof will be below the surface of County Road M. Our back is to the wall here and we need to get water to these 50 families. We have been supplying bottled water to the tenants at a considerable cost since some time in September. We would very much appreciate a variance to your codes to accommodate our hardship here.
Question Raymer: So, you were somewhat limited as to where you were going to put the well according to the DNR?
Answer Bodenschatz: Yes. Our DNR approval letter states that the well site has been optimized on the property. Anyway we looked at this we would have needed some type of variance from the DNR on this well. Variances from the ditch, the existing sewer lines, and Mormon Coulee Creek. The manager from the DNR came up from Madison and actually went on site with us to determine a good location. We have had much publicity over this issue. This was the only place that the DNR would allow us to put the well.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
No Correspondence.
Steve Mader, Town Chairman N884 Valley View Rd. Coon Valley 54623. There has been quite a hardship out there. The residents need to get water. The well is already in. The wellhead is could be more of a problem than the building. The board is in agreement on this issue. We did discuss it at the last meeting, but it was not on our agenda. We will meet on Wednesday night and will vote positively as there is a hardship here.
Frank: Motion to approve.
Houlihan: Second.
All: Aye.
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-13 James and Debra McClintock W2696 State Road 16 Bangor WI 54614. Permit denied to construct a 38-ft x 40-ft detached accessory building that in combination with an existing 2,360 square-foot detached accessory building exceeds the 1,500 square-foot area limit for said buildings on this 3.03-acre lot. The property is described as: Part of the W½ of the SE¼ of Section 25, T 17 N, R 6 W. Tax Parcel 7-902-1. Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: James McClintock W2696 State Road 16 Bangor WI 54614. What I am looking for is a variance. We raise sheep and this would be my new sheep barn. I would eliminate the existing building that I have and put up a new one. I do meet all of the setback requirements from the lot lines and the road as well as the other buildings. I would like to increase our number of ewes by a couple. The building that I was looking at was 38 by 40. But, they go from eve to eve which would be 30 by 40. The figures will change just a little bit.
Question Raymer: So, you are saying that the building itself is only 30 by 40?
Answer McClintock: Correct. I wasn’t aware that they would include the lean-to overhang in the calculations. I am zoned Ag. District A. I work with one of the town supervisors. The town meets tomorrow night. The comprehensive plan calls for Ag. in this area. I have two working farms on both sides with the closest residence about ½ mile away. Blaine Lee stated that the plan doesn’t put this in a transitional area.
Question Raymer: Your property is not in the transition area?
Answer McClintock: Correct.
Question Houlihan: Approximately how many sheep do you have?
Answer McClintock: I have 10 ewes right now and would like to get up to 13 to 15 of them.
Question Houlihan: Have you tried to purchase any additional acreage out there?
Answer McClintock: Actually, this is a part of our home farm. My parents ended up selling the land to the Gilster’s on the east.
Question Raymer: The land that is Gilster’s on the map was part of the McClintock farm. His dad built this house. So, at one time they had a lot of acreage. The problem that we have is that you are way over your square footage with your existing buildings and you would need 10 acres to get up to 5000 square feet. If you could get Gilster to sell you some land, that would work. You stated that this would be strictly for animals, then?
Answer McClintock: Correct.
Question Raymer: What is the other bigger building used for?
Answer McClintock: That houses farm implements and equipment.
Remarks Raymer: We can’t make an exception for farm type animal buildings anyway. The square footage is what it is.
Remarks Weibel: Because the property is 3 plus acre parcel it is not considered a farm. You would need 35 acres to be considered a farm at a minimum. Any of the detached buildings are considered accessory buildings and count against the square footage requirement. It is not so much the use of the building rather the size of the lot that causes the size limits to kick in.
Remarks McClintock: I have a 2 plus acre cornfield and almost ½ acre pasture.
Remarks Raymer: Well, under the zoning rules, if you had 35 acres you would be considered a farm and you wouldn’t even need a permit for this. You are limited because of this 3.03 acres.
Question Frank: Where do you keep the animals currently?
Answer McClintock: We are using the current, existing building.
Question Frank: The smaller one?
Answer McClintock: Yes.
Question Raymer: The 18 by 20 foot building?
Answer McClintock: Correct. The problem that I have now is that half of the building is storage and the other half I can use. If nothing else, I can downsize the building. Or, if I can rebuild a new pole building that was 18 by 20 or a little larger for them. Instead of going the 30 by 40.
Question Raymer: If you did that, where would the storage go then?
Answer McClintock: I would have to eliminate it.
Question Raymer: The existing house has a two car attached garage as well, correct?
Answer McClintock: Correct.
Question Raymer: Is there a possibility that one of the neighbors would let you use one of their buildings for these sheep?
Answer McClintock: Not that I am aware of. George Winter is in Florida and the only building that he has is the old hog barn. He doesn’t have any animals.
Remarks Raymer: He has that great big shed, too.
Remarks McClintock: He has all of his equipment in that.
Remarks McClintock: If I can take the existing building down and rebuild the same size, then I can utilize the whole building.
Question Raymer: If we didn’t approve this variance, why wouldn’t you leave that building there and continue to use it?
Answer McClintock: I would like to use the whole thing. But, I am not right now. It will cost me more to remodel the existing building and convert it than what it would to build new.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
No Correspondence.
Committee deliberations.
Question Frank: Can’t he just tear down the existing building and rebuild it…isn’t it grandfathered?
Answer Raymer: I suppose that was allowed because of the linear frontage of the property. Once he takes it down, he can’t rebuild because he is over the allowed square footage.
Frank: I would make a motion to approve the variance to allow him to remove the building and rebuild to the same size of 18 by 20 feet.
Question Raymer: Is that stated correctly, Mike? How does this work?
Answer Weibel: You are still approving a variance to the size limit but the condition is that you are allowing the replacement of the existing building.
Houlihan: Second
All: Aye
Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-14 Jason and Melissa Russell N5273 Clover Court Onalaska 54650. Permit denied to construct a deck addition and above-ground pool that will lie within the required 60-ft setback from the center line of Shamrock Lane. The property is described as: Lot 7, Block 1 Shamrock Addition. Town of Onalaska.
Appearing in Favor: Jason Russell N5273 Clover Ct. Onalaska WI 54650.
Remarks Raymer: There was an amended map for this petition that we will be looking at and using.
Remarks Russell: We will be 60 feet off the centerline of Clover Court and 47 feet off the center of Shamrock which is less than the 60 feet required. I’m claiming that I have a hardship due to the fact that I own a corner lot, with building setbacks and utility easements associated with a corner lot. There is an existing deck and a bi-level home. The existing deck has two steps. One comes off the patio door and then goes down to a bigger deck. We would drop down to the level of the new pool. There is about 6 feet between the existing deck and the pool. We would put a fence in around the back of the pool. Here is a diagram/layout with the dimensions that I gave you.
Question Houlihan: Couldn’t the pool be put in right here?
Answer Russell: Right through here is the drainfield and here is where the electrical comes in.
Question Houlihan: The power is underground, correct?
Answer Russell: Yes.
Question Houlihan: And this is an above ground pool, correct?
Answer Russell: Yes, but we still need to dig in about a foot and a half.
Remarks Raymer: If the electrical is in the way, I think that they will move it.
Remarks Houlihan: I am very reluctant to put anything that close to the right of way of the road. I believe that there wouldn’t be a hardship because this is an area where the pool could be located.
Remarks Russell: If you move the utilities. It wouldn’t join my deck.
Remarks Raymer: They could put the pool right over the utilities.
Remarks Russell: It is a bi-level house, so it wouldn’t see any sun.
Remarks Raymer: The sun sets in the west so you would get all the afternoon sun.
Remarks Russell: There is a hill over here that we would need to cut into. I’d have to dig the pool in around 2 to 3 feet.
Question Frank: This is the hill here?
Answer Russell: The whole house drops a couple of feet. The builder set up for drainage, basically.
Remarks Raymer: The other option would be to remove this deck. You are getting pretty long with the decks and the pool.
Remarks Houlihan: There truly is not a hardship here. There are other ways other than granting a variance.
Remarks Russell: If I get back to the 13 feet that I am asking for then I am sitting over here. Then I have to get rid of the whole deck.
Remarks Raymer: Or a portion of it. We are trying to find a hardship. There are other options. A hardship means that there is no other place.
Remarks Russell: You would have to have a small deck and then steps down to the pool.
Remarks Houlihan: We are bound by what the County Board tells us. And, what they are saying is that if there is another option, there is no hardship. This is what we have to look at. There are multiple different ways of doing this instead of putting this out there.
Question Frank: This is your drainage area?
Answer Russell: Yes.
Question Raymer: In this area here, are these the steps that go from the upper deck to the lower deck.
Answer Russell: This is a small deck, attached to the patio door with steps down to the lower deck.
Question Raymer: How do you get to this area?
Answer Russell: There are a small set of steps. The existing steps are right about here and the patio door here. The big portion of the deck.
Question Raymer: How do you get from this deck to the other one?
Answer Russell: There are steps here.
Question Frank: How many steps?
Answer Russell: Two.
Question Raymer: How much higher is this deck from this deck?
Answer Russell: About two feet. I thought about dropping this, but I would still be asking for a variance. From here to here is 6 feet, I would be at 53 feet instead of 47 feet.
Question Raymer: What is this jog, here?
Answer Russell: That is an octagon. I was thinking about putting in steps there.
Question Raymer: Is someone putting in the pool for you?
Answer Russell: I am going to do the deck and someone else will do the pool. I was thinking about dropping this back. If I drop the deck and eliminate this, it would bring the pool back to here which would put me back at 53 feet.
Question Raymer: If you looked at putting it in over here, you could still tie into the deck. It could be compacted closer to the house and you could meet the setback. You may have some personal reasons, but we look at this and say that there are other alternatives.
Remarks Houlihan: Yes, we need to abide by the rules on this and what we are guided by.
Remarks Russell: I think that this would look worse and I don’t want it to be an eyesore.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
Correspondence: Email from the Town of Onalaska Clerk, Sue Schultz, received on May 5, 2008. The Town Board will not be able to meet on this until May 19, 2008.
Frank: I will make a motion to deny.
Houlihan: Second.
All: Aye
Motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-15 David and Joy Strelow W7783 Meadow Way Holmen WI 54636. Permit denied to retain a detached accessory garage that was constructed within the required 50-ft building setback from the right-of-way of Meadow Way. The property is described as: Lot 7, Block 4, 1st Addition to Country Estates. Town of Holland.
Appearing in Favor: David Strelow W7783 Meadow Way Holmen WI 54636.
Question Raymer: Zoning/Occupancy Permit number 20454 was issued when?
Answer Strelow: Last fall.
Remarks Weibel: I think that there is a copy of that in the file.
Remarks Strelow: I was supposed to measure 50 feet from the right of way and I measured 50 feet from the edge of the road. I didn’t realize that the setback was that far in.
Question Raymer: Did you pour the concrete or did someone else?
Answer Strelow: No, I did it. But, I went off the edge of the road.
Question Raymer: Is this at the minimum setback for an attached garage?
Answer Weibel: Right now it is currently 28 feet from the right-of-way, yes if it was attached to the house that would be proper location. The minimum setback requirement is 27 feet from the right-of-way.
Question Raymer: So, you had an existing shed that had to be removed, correct?
Answer Strelow: Right.
Question Raymer: Was the existing shed at the 50 foot requirement as the zoning permit says?
Answer Strelow: No, I don’t think it was that far back. I had plenty of room to put this building; I just didn’t know that I was in the wrong spot.
Remarks Raymer: That is why the Zoning/Occupancy Permits are issued with the dimensions on them. This looks like a platted subdivision. There would have been lot pins in there.
Remarks Weibel: If you look at the permit with the red writing on it, there are notes indicating that the iron pipes were found.
Question Raymer: Is this on a slab or is it on a foundation?
Answer Strelow: It is on a slab.
Question Raymer: Is the side yard met, it says 6 feet?
Answer Strelow: Yes.
Question Frank: If this was attached it would be ok?
Answer Weibel: Yes.
Calls for those in favor 3 times.
Calls for those in objection 3 times.
No Correspondence.
Remarks Weibel: I would like to clarify that the setback along those streets is 30 feet from the right of way. Even at 28 feet it would still be two feet short of the setback requirement if it were attached.
Question Raymer: That would be a subdivision ordinance?
Answer Weibel: Ordinarily if there is not a setback line shown on the plat we use the 60 feet from centerline or 27 feet. Because we are showing the 30 feet setback line, I believe that is designated on the plat itself.
Question Raymer: So, even if it was attached it would still need a variance?
Answer Weibel: Correct, it would have to match up with the front of the house basically.
Remarks Raymer: I guess that this is just a major oops.
Remarks Houlihan: Really the only option that we would have would be to make him move it.
Remarks Raymer: When I was still in the construction business we did move a garage like this. We just hired a crane, raised it up, poured a new slab and moved it. So, it is not impossible.
Remarks Frank: We had a house by us that was in violation. They had to move it a bit and it was quite expensive.
Remarks Raymer: We had a variance out on Brice Prairie where all the neighbors objected. We denied the variance and he figured out a way to attach it to meet the setback. It was a long 5 foot wide walkway. I’m afraid of that happening here. He could add on to it and do something similar.
Question Frank: I still don’t understand the difference between attached and detached?
Answer Weibel: Detached accessory buildings were meant to be in the rear of the property and not set out in front.
Question Frank: For aesthetic reasons?
Answer Weibel: Well, for aesthetic reasons and also because of the fire hazard associated with detached garages.
Remarks Raymer: As a detached structure they can be within 3 feet of the lot line. That way they are away from your house and also the neighbor’s house.
Remarks Strelow: I would actually be closer to the neighbor’s house if I moved it back there. I would be blocking their view.
Question Raymer: Did you get a town building permit for this construction?
Answer Strelow: Yes, I did.
Question Raymer: Did anyone look at it.
Answer Strelow: The inspector came out and told me that I could pour.
Remarks Raymer: The problem I have is that if we approve this and it gets around.
Remarks Frank: Yes, you really don’t want to set that precedent. And it is a tactic, de facto.
Question Raymer: The town board didn’t have any comment on this. They would have gotten a notice, correct?
Answer Weibel: Yes, they would have.
Question Raymer: Did you speak to the town about this?
Answer Strelow: No, but I spoke with all of my neighbor’s. They didn’t have any objections about this.
Question Raymer: Did we receive anything from them?
Answer Weibel: They got a notice, but they may not have met yet.
Question Raymer: No, I meant did we get anything from the neighbor’s?
Answer Weibel: No. No correspondence.
Question Raymer: What can we do to hold this over to see what the town board has to say about it? Can we do that without costing him some more money?
Answer Weibel: Well, we would have to re-publish it if we held it over to the next public hearing.
Question Frank: That is not a huge problem, is it?
Answer Weibel: No, not for me. He would have to pay another $210.00 fee.
Remarks Frank: I would be much more comfortable with that.
Question Raymer: He would have to pay another fee?
Answer Weibel: Yes.
Remarks Houlihan: I guess that I have a problem with that.
Question Raymer: We have done that in the past if someone has missed the meeting. But, if we are asking to hold it in abeyance then he still has to pay the fee?
Answer Weibel: We will have to re-publish the class two notice. Either the county, meaning the tax payers, have to pay for that or he would. Someone has to pay for it. We have had guys that didn’t show up.
Remarks Frank: But, that is different.
Remarks Weibel: The reason that they have to pay again is because we have to re-publish it and send out new notices. It is just like it’s a new appeal.
Remarks Raymer: Well, if that board did meet and just didn’t send us a notice.
Remarks Weibel: Here is the information sheet that he signed when he made the appeal. In bold letters it says that notice is sent to the town board and it is important that you discuss your proposal with town officials. Here is his signature and the date which he signed. I can’t do a