Monday, June 16, 2008
Administrative Center – County Board Room
7:00 p.m. – 8:40 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Howard Raymer, Jr., Terry Houlihan, Dave Eilertson |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
None |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Mike Weibel, Nate Sampson (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. 2008-16 David Wolf, W2105 County Rd B, West Salem WI 54669. Variance requested to retain a modified nonconforming structure that lies within the 60-ft setback of the centerline of Wolf Road and was designated as a structure to be moved as a condition of approval of Certified Survey Map No. 14 in Volume 8. The property is described as: Part of the NE¼ of the SE¼ of Section 7, T 16 N, R 5 W. Tax Parcel 1-143-0. Town of Bangor.
Appearing in Favor: David Wolf, W2105 County Rd B, West Salem WI 54669. Shed was built in 1980, was 42-ft x 96-ft. I sold 1.5 acres and shed was on property line, I realized it had to be moved. Was to be moved by 2000, didn’t get it moved until this year. Three years ago someone was going to move it, then he decided not to. With building (activity) down, I found a contractor and have moved it off the property line. Moved if off said property and shortened it up to 32-ft x 42-ft. We needed 5 feet from his property line to the shed (refers to photo exhibits provided). The shed tapers so the part of the shed in question is the part right at 7 feet (refers to overhead map). That part is actually only 5.6 feet from the property line. If you put up picture number six, corner post on left top side is original post in the shed. That’s the end of the shed now, I never moved that post, that’s an original post. That’s 5.6 feet to the property line. I thought that was fine on a 37-acre parcel. If on 10 acres, 5 feet would be fine, then they went to 7 feet. I don’t have 7 feet on that corner, but do on the other end. I moved it – everything else is in compliance – as you get further south, you’re 19 feet away. It houses about $125,000 worth of farm equipment, use hasn’t changed.
Appearing in Favor: Don Bina, N1904 Bina Rd, Coon Valley WI 54623. Had two requests to attend this meeting. I sit on the Zoning Committee, know a fair amount about zoning. What year did zoning come into La Crosse County? Have a number of other issues. If shed was there since 1980, sits near the road but never a problem. When did requirements come into being?
Answer WEIBEL: First zoning ordinance was in 1953.
Remark BINA: But it didn’t include everything we have now. There’s no sight problem – if shed was there since 1980, wondered when this problem came into being?
Answer WEIBEL: There’s a permit exemption for ag (agricultural) buildings. In this case there was a Certified Survey Map (CSM) done at Mr. Wolf’s direction. The new property line went through the building. A condition of the CSM approval was that the building be moved.
Question BINA: And that was done some time ago?
Answer WEIBEL: I’m unsure – Mr. Wolf could tell you. The building was existing and the map was done later on.
Remark BINA: There are buildings throughout the county in violation, but I’m
assuming when new rules were put into place, some was grandfathered in. That’s
the issue I want to raise. Shed was there a long time. I realize it’s a new
owner and new problem with the CSM. I’d suggest approval.
Appearing in Opposition: Tom Kimball, N4276 Wolf Rd, West Salem WI 54669. If this were on any road and didn’t impact anyone, I’d be in favor to keep it. That’s not the case. Asked many times for resolution in neighborly way. We bought this property 10 years ago, sat at the Wolfs’ table and made an agreement. Included specific language that sellers agreed to move the building. We had no purpose for a 92-ft ag building. It was Dave’s suggestion the building could be moved. (Distributes copies of agreements to the Board.) Point “e” or “f” said sellers agree to remove the shed from said property. We all agreed what “remove the shed” meant. Secondly, the survey map – he entered into an agreement the building would be moved, dated June of ’98. We’ve been patient. We’re neighbors and want our neighborly standing to be good and move forward. It’s taken this long to resolve. Dave has a lot of land where this could go and not impact roads or neighboring properties. If it had been moved in accordance with agreement and CSM, there wouldn’t be a hardship. We’ve assumed since June, 1998 this building would be gone. It’s more valuable to a farmer like Dave than to us. Negatively impacts curb appeal of our house and value of hour home. Request denial of Dave’s after-the-fact variance request with a time-frame for removal. His failure to comply with our agreement and the CSM shouldn’t be rewarded.
Correspondence WEIBEL: Spoken earlier with Town Chairman Ken Manke on this matter – he noted Town had taken action but nothing was received. I called him earlier today, he returned my call at 4:50 p.m. today stating it was approved with a 7-ft sideyard at the closest point of the building.
An e-mail from County Surveyor Bill Jung (read into record) expressing he wouldn’t have approved CSM if he knew shed wouldn’t be removed in a timely manner.
Question RAYMER: This shed wasn’t moved, part was cut off, right?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes.
Question RAYMER: But it said “shed to be moved” on the survey?
Answer WEIBEL: Correct.
Question RAYMER: Who agreed it could stay in the setback? Why didn’t they come to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to leave it in the setback?
Answer WEIBEL: As Mr. Bina stated, there may be many ag buildings within setbacks by virtue of the fact we do not issue permits for those, they’re built without our knowledge.
Question RAYMER: For clarification, who said even if they cut that part off the rest of the building could stay.
Answer WEIBEL: The note on the CSM says the building is to be moved.
Question RAYMER: What does that paperwork (agreement) say – moved or removed? “Sellers agree to remove the shed on said property within 1½ years.” Said property would be what they purchased. You can’t interpret this to mean remove it from his own land?
Answer KIMBALL: I read that to mean the shed will be gone.
Question RAYMER: “Said” property is what he sold to those folks?
Answer WEIBEL: That’s a matter for the Board’s interpretation.
Remark RAYMER: Shed was built in 1980, even though it shouldn’t have been built within that (road) setback. When people call – you remind them they can’t build within the setbacks?
Answer WEIBEL: Many times we don’t get a call.
Question RAYMER: But they’re still in violation since they built within the setback. So when it says in here “to retain a modified non-conforming structure,” what triggered them to request this at this time?
Answer WEIBEL: Our office received a call saying the building was being dismantled and they asked us to take a look at it.
Question RAYMER: So that just happened?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes.
Question RAYMER: So the appeal is to keep it in that road setback. Is the sideyard an issue too?
Answer WEIBEL: Under 17.12(6) on a parcel greater than 10 acres, you need a 10-ft sideyard.
Question RAYMER: So there’s two aspects to the appeal?
Answer WEIBEL: And the other aspect is the CSM – inside the shed depiction it says “shed to be moved.” That was the basis for approval of the CSM.
Question RAYMER: Clarify what a Certified Survey Map is for the record.
Answer WEIBEL: In La Crosse County, to create a new parcel 5 acres or less in size, the subdivision ordinance requires the filing of a Certified Survey Map. That map is recorded in the Register of Deeds Office and given a Volume and Page. It’s like a ‘mini-plat.’ Section 18.21(1)(a) it says the map must be in compliance with the zoning ordinance and sanitary codes, etc.
Question RAYMER: Who else signs off on CSM’s? Does the Town?
Answer WEIBEL: If the Town has review authority, they’ll sign off. They need their own subdivision ordinance to get them that authority.
Question RAYMER: And they didn’t in this case?
Answer WEIBEL: I don’t believe the Town has a subdivision ordinance. If there was a mortgage holder or another owner, there would be a place for them to sign also.
Discussion.
Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to deny Appeal No. 2008-16.
Discussion on time-frame. Eilertson moves to amend motion to add 90-day removal deadline. Motion to amend seconded by Houlihan. Motion on amendment carries unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-17 Scott Everson, W400 Davis Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Permit denied to construct an 18-ft x 20-ft detached accessory building that in combination with an existing 36-ft x 45-ft detached accessory building will exceed the total area limit of 1,500 square feet on this 5.01-acre lot. The property is described as: Part of the SW¼ of the NW¼ of Section 13, T 17 N, R 5 W. Tax Parcel 3-254-1. Town of Burns.
Appearing in Favor: Scott Everson, W400 Davis Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Put a woodshed in hillside. Allowed only two buildings. Trying to increase parking area. Cut my wood through summer. Would pour 20-ft x 8-ft walls on each side with frost walls beneath with roof and open wall. Would be next to a wood stove – wood stove has been there since 2000.
Question RAYMER: So it’s an open-sided structure?
Answer EVERSON: Yes – open front.
Question EILERTSON: Wood-frame constructed or steel?
Answer EVERSON: The roof would be steel with poured concrete walls. Wall height of 8 feet because of the hill, plus 4 feet in the ground, with a post at each corner to hold a beam to hold the trusses.
Question RAYMER: This “Everson” land around you, is that your family?
Answer EVERSON. Yes.
Question RAYMER: How many acres do you have?
Answer EVERSON: A little over 5.
Question EILERTSON: Do you heat exclusively with wood?
Answer EVERSON: Yes.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence WEIBEL: Letter from Town of Burns – Resolution 06-10-08, #2 read into record supporting and approving Appeal 2008-17. Dated 06-10-08.
Discussion.
Motion Houlihan/Eilertson to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-18 Alan Wandling, 2601 Thomas St, La Crosse WI 54603; on behalf of Barbara Formanek, 2601 Thomas St, La Crosse WI 54603. Permit denied to construct a deck addition to the residence that will lie within the required 25-ft rear yard. The property is described as: Lot 1, Block 3, Baumgartner Addition. Tax Parcel 4-2083-0. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Alan Wandling, 2601 Thomas St, La Crosse WI 54603. Have no room to build deck in back yard. Have an existing ground level deck. Hoping to move deck to the kitchen walk-out level, expand it, and enclose a hot tub.
Question EILERTSON: Why can’t you use a concrete slab?
Answer WANDLING: We could – there are 2 steps down now, we want to build the deck up and be able to walk straight out.
Question EILERTSON: Do you have a handicapped person in your home?
Answer WANDLING: No. The hot tub sits off ground about 4½ feet and we’d like that to be accessible from the deck level.
Question RAYMER: The hot tub would be level with the deck?
Answer WANDLING: Yes – there are actually 2 decks, the one would be up a little higher to step into the tub, so you wouldn’t step over a 4½-foot wall.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence WEIBEL: Letter from Town of Campbell May 14, 2008 stating
no objection read into record.
Discussion.
Motion Eilertson/Raymer to approve as an open deck that cannot be enclosed. Carried unanimously.
Remark RAYMER: Each appeal will be read into the record – I will then call for persons to come to the podium.
APPEAL NO. 2008-19 David and Vicki Arndt, W3106 County Rd B, West Salem WI 54669. Permit denied after-the-fact to construct a 16-ft x 44-ft addition to an existing 38-ft x 44-ft detached accessory building that in combination with the existing building will exceed the 1,000 square-foot area limit for said building on this 1.75-acre lot. The property is described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 82 in Volume 5. Tax Parcel 7-38-1. Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: David Arndt, W3106 County Rd B, West Salem WI 54669. When I built this lean, I built a number of agricultural leans at the same time and inquired every time about a building permit and was told I didn’t need one. I’m zoned Transitional Ag, thought I didn’t need one, misunderstood the rules. I’m sorry on that account. Built it to house a camper after $17,000 worth of hail damage after 15 years. Was not to be enclosed until after suffering $30,000 in damages to our house siding last year. I only enclosed it because I had to reside that side of the garage anyway. It houses my camper; I keep things clean out there, for the neighbor’s sake and my sake. It’s used for that purpose. When I built the house, I wanted to build a bigger one but couldn’t because of finances. RV would not fit in the other door.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: None.
Discussion on area of detached accessory buildings allowed in 1993 based on lot width, allowing 1,804 square feet instead of today’s 1,000 square feet.
Question RAYMER: How much land would he need to keep this?
Answer WEIBEL: 10.01 acres, 1,500 square feet is allowed from 3 to 10 acres.
Question RAYMER: The neighbor, Torgerson, that’s your father-in-law?
Answer ARNDT: Yes. I have options on that land. We have that in the family – it’s staying in the family.
Question RAYMER: How much land is that?
Answer ARNDT: 20 acres.
Motion Eilertson/Houlihan to approve Appeal No. 2008-19. Discussion on adjoining property, motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-20 Martin and Christine Severson, 105 N Rose St, West Salem WI 54669. Permit denied to construct a 24-ft x 36-ft detached accessory garage and a 28-ft x 48-ft detached accessory building that in combination with existing detached accessory buildings will exceed the 1,000 square-foot area limit for said buildings on this 2.04-acre lot. The property is described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 135 in Volume 6. Tax Parcel 7-936-12. Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: Martin Severson, 105 N Rose St, West Salem WI 54669. We live in West Salem, old Victorian home, go to great lengths to maintain home. We’re downsizing. Found 2-acre lot two miles from home. We’ve made an accepted offer to Ronnie Hubbard. There’s a number of outbuildings – some in bad shape. Number 2 (referring to site plan), the tobacco shed, is falling down. We would like to replace that with a utility shed. After submitting the appeal I spoke with neighbors and explained appeal. Mr. Hubbard with the help of neighbors refurbished the old barn. They look at it as a landmark and I’d like to maintain that barn.
Question RAYMER: Which building number is that (refers to site plan)?
Answer SEVERSON: Number 1. Numbers 2 and 5 we’d like to replace, number 5 is a
garage in disrepair, number 2 is beyond repair. Number 4 is an old chicken coop
not worth saving. Number 3 is an old corn crib with a dirt floor. My idea was
if we moved in the right direction – remove a couple of small buildings, replace
the garage and tobacco shed. We don’t own the property yet, thought the $200.00
plus investment of finding out our restrictions before we bought would be wise.
A contingency of sale is that we can make some adjustments with the buildings.
Question RAYMER: Buildings numbers 6, 7 and 8; and build a garage and a shed.
What’s the difference between a garage and a shed?
Answer SEVERSON: A pole shed.
Question RAYMER: Then number 1 would stay – would be replaced, 3 and 4 gone, 5 replaced, what about 6?
Answer SEVERSON: That’s an old woodshed in nice shape, I would keep that.
Question RAYMER: What about number 7?
Answer SEVERSON: Seven’s a workshop – would keep it.
Question RAYMER: What about number 8?
Answer SEVERSON: It’s an old milk-house in brick, I’d like to keep for garden tools.
Question RAYMER: You’ll go from 4,049 square feet down to 2,748 square feet?
Answer SEVERSON: If we eliminate the barn. After submitting appeal, we wanted to keep the barn, 999 square feet.
Remark WEIBEL: At the bottom (refers to site plan) at “amount above area limit – post construction,” add 999 square feet.
Question SEVERSON: Buildings grand-fathered in - you still take square footage into account when you assess this?
Answer WEIBEL: Essentially, you have what you have. When you’re building something new, we take into account existing square footage. If they were destroyed or blown down or other wise damaged beyond 50 percent of their value – you’d need a variance to reconstruct. When asking for new buildings, we take existing total area into account. Then you’re proposing to add and remove some – that’s a decision this board makes.
Remark RAYMER: It’s a way, through the ordinance, to clean up some of these places. That’s our opportunity to say, “Now we can get rid of some of these smaller buildings.”
Question SEVERSON: You can improve up to 50 percent of the value?
Answer RAYMER: As long as you maintain the building, you can keep it forever. If lightning hits one and it burns to the ground, you couldn’t rebuild unless you came back here.
Remark SEVERSON: My wife and I talked about slowly refurbishing the tobacco shed – one wall at a time.
Reply RAYMER: I don’t know if we could keep you from doing that. You end up with an old building with new walls.
Remark SEVERSON: One last point – when the owner divided the land – this is one of the smaller parcels. Most are two to five acres, so it’s spread out.
Question EILERTSON: You changed your mind on building number 1 – go over that again briefly. You’re asking for that to remain new?
Answer SEVERSON: That is correct.
Question EILERTSON: Because of the historic appeal?
Answer SEVERSON: The people around there look at it as a landmark. Some work needed on the foundation in back – roof is solid – lightning rods even have the glass insulators on them. The building is solid. We talked about getting rid of buildings we didn’t really need – that would probably be all of them, then we thought, the barn has a function. Neighbors helped work on it. I’m not in favor of tearing it down just for the sake of tearing it down.
Question WEIBEL: The total square footage we were looking at with 6, 7, 8 and the two new buildings, we were at 2,748 square feet. Now we’d be at 3,747 square feet.
Remark SEVERSON: That brings us down about 500 square feet.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence: None.
Remark SEVERSON: I took it to the Town of Hamilton and they approved it – they were going to send a letter.
Reply WEIBEL: I didn’t receive anything for the record.
Remark RAYMER: I saw it on the town hall – on the agenda.
Discussion.
Motion Houlihan/Eilertson to approve appeal as proposed or allow the barn to remain and disallow the proposed 28-ft x 48-ft building. Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2007-13 (CONTINUED) Menno Schwartz, N4634 Antal Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Permit denied after-the-fact for additions to an existing residence that lie within the required 60-ft setback from the centerline of Antal Road and within the required 50-ft setback from the right-of-way of Interstate Highway 90. The property is described as: Lot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 20 in Volume 12. Tax Parcel 1-32-2. Town of Bangor.
Appearing in Favor: Larry Wuensch, Bangor Town Supervisor, N1088 Souchek Rd, Bangor WI 54614. Mr. Schwartz asked me to speak for him. He’d like to keep the house the way it is – get the variance from Antal Road and the Interstate. We approved the variance as Town Board. It’s a dead-end road there, no traffic. He’s improved the house – it looks better. We’d like him to keep it the way it is.
Appearing in Favor: Donald Bina, N1904 Bina Rd, Coon Valley WI 54623. I viewed this prior to tonight. Last time it wasn’t considered because Menno wasn’t here. I didn’t get his permission to speak, but thought I’d come down – he lives in my district. I was out there two years ago campaigning and encouraged them to vote – rules of the county apply to them. As a general rule, the Amish don’t vote – I encouraged them to get involved. He doesn’t have 35 acres, so he’s not a farmer – he does carpentry work. I talked to Ken Manke – they have no problems. He has a large family; that’s why he added onto house. He makes enough money to survive with his family. I ran for county board 18 years ago hoping to help needy people. This family moved into La Crosse County and not thoroughly checking out the rules, built within Antal Road and Interstate setbacks. Antal Road continued on before the interstate was there. It was cut off when the Interstate went in. They could have cut it off 70 feet less, where his driveway is. What happened in the meantime I’m not sure. A penalty was assessed, which I have a problem with, especially if it is $3,000, as I had heard. That’s a lot of money to this family. I heard he agreed to pay $50.00 per month. I looked at where a semi might deviate off the interstate – it would take a lot to hit the house. There’s a ditch and no traffic on Antal Road there. I’m here hoping you’ll consider not asking him to tear down his house. If we want Amish in our county, maybe we should consider their requests different from others. We can’t discriminate. Maybe we could have a public hearing nearer their homes. It’s hard to ride a horse and buggy here.
Appearing in Favor: Tom Kimball, N4276 Wolf Road. Fine family man, hard-working; did some work for us. Despite addition being in setback he should be given leniency. Did a fine job updating building. Should be allowed to have it.
Correspondence WEIBEL: Had opportunity to speak with Mr. Ken Manke who said the Town took action, but have received nothing in writing. I called him – he returned call at 4:50 p.m. today and said Town Board approved Menno Schwartz appeal.
Remark RAYMER: I think we should get some of the things Mr. Bina brought up into the record. We have nothing to do with the fines. But this started on July 16, 2007. Mr. Schwartz was given notices and did not appear. I know the zoning staff, have worked with them for many years. I’m sure they tried to do everything they could to get Mr. Schwartz into this meeting. If fines were levied, sometimes that needs to be done. This has gone on for a year. He was given every opportunity.
Question HOULIHAN: Is there input from anyone on how far a residence needs to be from the interstate?
Answer RAYMER: The setback line is on the map, 50 feet.
Reply WEIBEL: Fifty feet from the right-of-way line.
Question RAYMER: Does anyone with the interstate get notified?
Answer WEIBEL: We don’t notify Department of Transportation. On a county road, Dennis Osgood would receive notice.
Remark RAYMER: Maybe as a county we should have a sign wherever you enter the county saying “Zoning and Building Permits Required.” Some counties do that.
Question HOULIHAN: By allowing this would we be liable if he was hit (by a vehicle)?
Answer RAYMER: I don’t see any liability on our part. The Town Board and a county supervisor have went on record (to grant the appeal).
Remark RAYMER: He did what he did – it’s a matter of record now. I don’t know how that would work if a semi ran into that illegally built addition.
Remark EILERTSON: And the federal government has nothing to do with this either.
Question RAYMER: Why does it say “50 feet?”
Answer WEIBEL: That’s a county requirement.
Remark RAYMER: So the Town Board doesn’t have any problem with Antal Road. (Refers to map) This addition stayed out of the setback – by accident maybe.
Question RAYMER: Has construction continued on this?
Answer WEIBEL: It’s completed.
Remark (UNIDENTIFIED): The inside isn’t completed.
Motion Eilertson/Raymer to approve. Motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 2008-15 (CONTINUED) David and Joy Strelow, W7783 Meadow Way, Holmen WI 54636. Permit denied after-the-fact for a detached accessory building 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. Tax Parcel 8-1331-0. Town of Holland.
Appearing in Favor: David Strelow, W7783 Meadow Way, Holmen WI 54636. If I could build a breezeway from the house to the garage, I’d only be 1.5 feet in the setback.
Remark RAYMER: My recollection is you were to go back to the Town Board.
Reply STRELOW: They wouldn’t approve the way it was – that’s why I’m bringing this up.
Question RAYMER: Do we have correspondence from the Town?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes.
Remark RAYMER: So then it wouldn’t meet sideyard either. Originally on the permit it said 6 feet. To be attached to the house it needs to be 8 feet.
Question WEIBEL: Is that one-story?
Answer STRELOW: Yes.
Remark WEIBEL: Then it’s a minimum of 8 feet.
Remark STRELOW: I’m trying to make this the best way to make this…
Reply RAYMER: I understand that. A detached building, in the right place, can be 3 feet from the lot line. Once attached, it needs to be 8 feet.
Reply STRELOW: I wasn’t aware of that. The only neighbor it affects is the Flicks. If the garage is moved, it’d be in front of their kitchen window. If it came to that he’d be down here to speak.
Question RAYMER: So this variance is being amended?
Answer WEIBEL: It could be amended if the board saw fit to grant some type of a
fix.
Question RAYMER: Even if the fix involves another setback issue?
Answer WEIBEL: You’d be granting a variance of 2 feet from the front and 2 feet from the side.
Question WEIBEL: How far is the house from the garage?
Answer STRELOW: Fifty-two feet. A 3-car garage and 12-ft breezeway would cover the whole distance.
Question RAYMER: Unless you want all of that garage, wouldn’t it be cheaper to move it back?
Answer STRELOW: Not really. That brings it near my drain field also.
Remark WEIBEL: It can be within 10 feet of the drain field.
Question RAYMER: So this is what you’re proposing?
Answer STRELOW: Correct. It’s not to any specs, just my ideas.
Comment WEIBEL: If the board is considering something like this breezeway addition attaching the garage, I would suggest a timeframe condition.
Question RAYMER: So your Town Board said you had to bring this into compliance?
Answer STRELOW: Right.
Question RAYMER: Or would they approve this?
Answer STRELOW: I didn’t bring this to them, I only brought the original
issue. I called down here – that’s the idea we came up with. Just trying to
make right what I did wrong.
Question EILERTSON: So the Town Board denied what you did.
Answer STRELOW: Right – they said it couldn’t sit the way it is.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence WEIBEL: Letter from Town of Holland dated June 11, 2008 received June 12. Town Board unanimously requested relocating to a compliant location.
Remark RAYMER: It we approve what he’s proposing, it won’t meet setback, from the front or side. He hadn’t went to the Town. It’s their road – if they don’t have a problem with it we don’t either. But apparently they do have a problem. If we approve an addition, it’s still not in compliance.
Motion Eilertson/Raymer to move within 90 days to meet setback requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion Houlihan/Eilertson to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Nate Sampson, Recorder